Wednesday, July 26, 2006

'kidnapped' in lebanon, not israel?

* AP:
"Citing national security, a federal judge Tuesday threw out a lawsuit aimed at blocking AT&T from giving telephone records to the government for use in the war on terror.

"The court is persuaded that requiring AT&T to confirm or deny whether it has disclosed large quantities of telephone records to the federal government could give adversaries of this country valuable insight into the government's intelligence activities," U.S. District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly said."

* beeb:
"Four United Nations peacekeepers have been killed in an Israeli air strike on an observation post in southern Lebanon, the UN has said.
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said he was "shocked" at the "apparently deliberate targeting" of the post."

* josh frank at has more about whether the 2 israeli soldiers were 'kidnapped' in lebanon, not israel. there appears to be some confusion:
"MSNBC online first reported that Hezbollah had captured Israeli soldiers "inside" Lebanon, only to change their story hours later after the Israeli government gave an official statement to the contrary."

* froomkin:
"Bush's prodigious use of signing statements to assert his authority to ignore congressionally-passed statutes is unprecedented. Many of those demurrals in particular assert his mandate to wage war without interference from the other branches of government.

As a result, Specter's bill has the potential to spark a historic battle over the separation of powers.
Said (Tony) Snow(flake): "Keep in mind -- actually, in some ways, if you've read the signing statements -- because these have been cast as acts of civil disobedience, and they're not. The President does not have the luxury of practicing civil disobedience. The laws that have been enacted must be executed by the government. A great many of those signing statements may have little statements about questions about constitutionality. It never says, we're not going to enact the law."


mikevotes said...

I haven't been particularly clear on where the Israeli soldiers were kidneapped either. The story as I have been able to put together fom news reports is that the soldiers were captured barely on the Israeli side of the border, but the immediate casualties the Israelis took were on the Lebanese side as the same unit went to attempt to retrieve them.

But that does seem to be based on IDF sourcing, and nobody really gives Hezbullah any credibility.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if Hezbullah did snatch the soldiers on the Israeli side, but it must be said that the evidence of the incident was on the Lebanese side.

So, I don't know either.


lukery said...

thnx mike.

you'd think that would be something of interest to the story...

Anonymous said...

What a joke ! It doesn't take much in way of evidence to convince Liberals of a hoax. Check out
For the real Truth

Don said...

I've read about 1/2 a dozen reports and the impression I'm getting is that Hisballah (unclear as to which side of the border they were on) fired on the Israelis and broke off further into Lebanon, drawing them across into a bushwhack. While the Israelis were on their side when fired upon, they were in Lebanon when taken.

It's hard to figure out the truth with all the bluster and propaganda flying. Exhibit A:

What a joke ! It doesn't take much in way of evidence to convince Liberals of a hoax. Check out
For the real Truth

Is it just me or is the troll density increasing lately? You're making an impression, amigo... ;)

lukery said...

shit - that damn troll-site has been pulled.

i looked at it yesterday - and it was basically 'could i please suck bush's dick a little deeper'

btw - my impession about the original 'arrest' is similar to yours. you'd think that'd be something of interest to people following the story.

Kathleen said...

Some reports I've read said the Israeli tank from which the soldiers were kidnapped is still in Lebanon. I'm going with the first MSNBC story, that they were taken inside Lebanon.