Dumping varied and supposedly dangerous substances together into bins—now that's what you call "safety"! There are news photos of travelers being ordered to open these suspicious liquids and empty them en masse, into vats of other potentially hazardous substances...I can't find some of the most outrageous photos now, but xopl captured the one at top, and this one.
John Aravosis brings up some pesky historical context—
Another point about this "liquid explosive." It was liquid explosives that were suspected in the plot back in 1995 that Clinton foiled, the one to blow up numerous US airlines over the Pacific. Why is it that since that time it's been okay to bring liquids on board planes, but now suddenly it's not? Why was it safe on Monday, but not safe on Friday?As the label of tonight's dinner assures me,
"THE QUALITY & H'YGIERCE OF FOODS ARE SAFELY GUARARTEED"I know these vegetarian spring rolls from Vietnam may be laced with of our old gift of Agent Orange. But even that label is more convincing than this latest "security" measure.
I wouldn't eat a steady diet of Vietnamese imports, but pan-fried in sesame oil, those rolls are tasty. Unlike our regime's daily menu of shit sandwiches.
This comes just a few days after the fifth anniversary of the August 6, 2001 "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." Presidential Daily Briefing. In the face of which, Condi Rice later claimed that "No one could have predicted..." To be recycled last year as Bush's, "I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees"...
Nothing suprising about the new report that Bush's reply to the CIA briefer on 8/6/01 was, "All right. You've covered your ass, now."
Glenn Greenwald covers this month's ruling by Judge Anna Diggs Taylor — Federal court finds warrantless eavesdropping unconstitutional, enjoins the program.
Followed by the predictable media attack on Judge Taylor—here and here, for instance.
Greenwald quotes Jonathan Turley on reasons for the attack—
...If this court is upheld or other courts follow suit, it will leave us with a most unpleasant issue that Democrats and Republicans alike have sought to avoid.No wonder the powers-that-be promptly dispatch the ruling into the memory hole.
Here it is: If this program is unlawful, federal law expressly makes the ordering of surveillance under the program a federal felony. That would mean that the president could be guilty of no fewer than 30 felonies in office. Moreover, it is not only illegal for a president to order such surveillance, it is illegal for other government officials to carry out such an order.
No comments:
Post a Comment