June 2006 Archives

Via AP/Yahoo:

The government announced Thursday that a person officials would not identify had turned in the laptop and external drive, which were stolen from a VA data analyst on May 3. The FBI said an initial review determined that the contents had not been accessed or copied.

This turns yesterday's good news in to today's very good news. While issues surrounding privacy and computer security urgently need addressing, the most immediate concern should be the welfare of the veterans affected by the theft. The FBI is conducting additional forensic testing of the computer, but a gut read of this suggests high confidence that the data wasn't used, else the FBI would have deferred making a statement until deeper tests had been performed.

VA Secretary Jim Nicholson isn't off the hook, though. While disaster may have been avoided, the fact remains that improper handling of personal data caused a situation that could have been much worse. The recovery of the laptop should not in any way reduce the sense of urgency to investigate the causes and take corrective action.

Friday. And a big holiday weekend on the horizon, too.

Via CNN:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The government has recovered the stolen laptop computer containing sensitive data for up to 26.5 million veterans and military personnel, Veterans Affairs Secretary Jim Nicholson announced Thursday.

Nicholson also said there have been no reports of identity theft since the May 3 burglary at the Maryland home of an agency employee.

"There is reason to be optimistic," he told reporters just before the start of another in a series of hearings Congress has had on one of the worst breaches of information security.

"It's a very positive note in this very tragic incident," Nicholson said.

Nicholson offered no immediate details on how the laptop was recovered.

This is indeed very good news. Assuming the database wasn't copied, the chances that veterans will suffer identity theft have diminished greatly.

As I said last night, there are still questions to be answered as to whether this was a single individual disobeying rules or an institutional failure. The hearings should certainly continue in order to discover how best to prevent this kind of thing from happening again.

The AP reports it has documents showing the permission level of the VA analyst in the stolen laptop case:

WASHINGTON - The Veterans Affairs worker faulted for losing veterans' personal information had permission to access millions of Social Security numbers on a laptop from home, agency documents obtained by The Associated Press show.

The story summarized the documents:

The documents show that the data analyst, whose name was being withheld, had approval as early as Sept. 5, 2002, to use special software at home that was designed to manipulate large amounts of data.

A separate agreement, dated Feb. 5, 2002, from the office of the assistant secretary for policy and planning, allowed the worker to access Social Security numbers for millions of veterans.

A third document, also issued in 2002, gave the analyst permission to take a laptop computer and accessories for work outside of the VA building.

"These data are protected under the Privacy Act," one document states. The analyst is the "lead programmer within the Policy Analysis Service and as such needs access to real Social Security numbers."

There's also going to be a hearing in the House tomorrow featuring the testimony of VA Secretary Jim Nicholson and others.

The piling on and upchanneling of blame is starting as well:

"The gross negligence in this case are the people above him," said Rep. Bob Filner (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., the acting top Democrat on the House Veterans' Affairs Committee. "They gave him express permission to take the information home. When it was stolen, he reported it right away."

"They're trying to pin it on this one guy, but I think it's other people we need to be looking at," he said.

Meanwhile, President Bush requested funds to help the VA deal with the fallout:

Separately, the president asked in a letter to House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., for the $160.5 million to help the VA cover the costs of credit monitoring and fraud watch services.

The money would be taken from programs in the departments of Agriculture, Health and Human Services, Labor, Transportation, Treasury and Veterans Affairs whose money would otherwise go unused or from programs previously set for elimination, according to Scott Milburn, spokesman for the Office of Management and Budget.

And the requisite bickering to go along with it:

Some Democrats said money to pay for veterans' protection should not come at the expense of other programs.

"It's outrageous to first expose millions of Americans to credit fraud and identity theft and then to try to cut food stamps, student loans, and youth programs to pay for it," said Sen. Patty Murray (news, bio, voting record), D-Wash. "This is a new problem that needs to be solved with new money."

The budget is fixed each year, and even discretionary funds get spoken for pretty quickly. Be afraid whenever a politician is looking for "new money". At least the rationale for the funds is a good one:

Nicholson told lawmakers this week that the money would cover monitoring for about half of the 17.5 million people whose Social Security numbers were compromised. He said it also would pay for out-of-pocket expenses ranging from $10,000 to $20,000 for those whose identities are stolen.

If there are any identities stolen - and so far, none have - this sounds like it would take care of all but the very worst cases.

Kinda makes you wonder how much the lawyers who brought suit have the troops' interests at heart - remember, they've blocked the VA from publicizing this assistance out of concern that it would diminish their award.

Additionally, from the descriptions of the documents the AP gives, I'm unconvinced that the unnamed worker had permission to take the personal data home with him, as the article suggests. The first document apparently deals with software - not data. The second gives permission to access social security numbers - something that would be necessary for work performed at the office, AP doesn't directly say that the permission extended to home in the document's description. And the third simply gives permission to take the laptop ouside the facility - something that would be required if he was subject to travel on department business. All three seem fairly ordinary.

My problem with AP's description is the lack of anything that looks like a smoking gun. The type of documents described above would be government forms or boilerplate letters, and very specific in scope. If any of the documents gave specific permission to take the live database home, why no quote?

Hopefully some of this will get clarified as the AP updates the story, or during the testimony in the House tomorrow. I'm still fairly angry about the situation, but not ready to assign blame until I learn more.

Via AP/Yahoo:

MOSCOW - President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday ordered Russia's special services to hunt down and "destroy" the killers of four Russian diplomats in Iraq, the Kremlin said.

Nikolai Patrushev, the head of the Federal Security Service — the main successor to the Soviet KGB — later said that everything would be done to ensure that the killers "do not escape from responsibility," the Interfax news agency reported.

"The president has ordered the special forces to take all necessary measures to find and destroy the criminals who killed Russian diplomats in Iraq," the Kremlin press service said in a brief statement.

This is good news - the terrorists in Iraq have historically received a different reaction from taking and/or killing non-US hostages.

Putin has a somewhat different intelligence footprint in Iraq stemming from a long involvement there, and they're chummy with some of the factions that have regarded us in a chilly fashion. If there's a minimum amout of coordination, it's likely that Russia's more active role in hunting down Al Qaeda in Iraq will benefit our mission as well.

This would be a terrific time for Condi and/or Bush to make a few phone calls.

One of the left talking points of late has been the notion that the NYT disclosure didn't harm national security because it didn't include the most intimate operational details of the program. Besides, they say, the terrorists aren't that dumb - they know we're trying to track the money flow of terrorism.

Damage to the program, however, needs to be assessed not in terms of what the terrorists knew or assumed prior to its disclosure. The real damage will be from decreased cooperation from the participants in the program.

Early this week, the administration was on the phone reassuring allies of the importance of keeping the program running. But now that the program is common knowledge, objectors are coming out in droves. In Belgium, SWIFT is under fire:

June 28 (Bloomberg) -- The Belgian government has ordered an investigation into the decision by Belgium-based cooperative Swift to provide bank-transfer data to the U.S. government as part of President George W. Bush's efforts to fight terrorism.

Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt's office said today it asked intelligence and security officials to determine ``if the interests of certain Belgian nationals were possibly affected and if Belgian law was respected.'' The office also said in today's e-mailed statement that it is trying to ascertain whether Belgian oversight needs ``adaptations.''

And as many as 32 governments are also being challenged by a UK based civil liberties group:

BRUSSELS, June 27 — A human rights group in London said today that it had lodged formal complaints in 32 countries against the Brussels-based banking consortium known as Swift, contending that it violated European and Asian data protection rules by providing the United States with confidential information about international money transfers.

Simon Davies, director of Privacy International, said the organization filed the complaints in the hope of halting what it called "illegal transfers" of private information by Swift, whose full name is the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications.

The complaints were filed in all 25 member nations of the European Union, plus Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Switzerland, Lichtenstein, Norway and Iceland. The group said it also filed a complaint in the semiautonomous Chinese territory of Hong Kong.

"Swift appears to have violated data protection rules in Europe by making these transfers without the consent of the individuals involved, and without the approval of European judicial or administrative authorities," Mr. Davies said. "The scale of the operation, involving millions of records, places this disclosure in the realm of a fishing exercise rather than a legally authorized investigation."

There can be no doubt that the result of all this activity will be reduced participation in and cooperation for US-led anti-terrorism intelligence efforts. That's the real nature of the damage.

Update: Captain Ed feels the program may be over. Could be, but I think it's a safe bet that if it continues it will no longer be of much use.

Yeah, and good morning to you, too.

But at least my internet problems are fixed.

For the curious - it's not a photoshop. That's really my coffee cup.

Here in northern Delaware, there's some sort of wide-spread problem with Comcast's cable internet service.

I'm able to get to a few web sites, but not many.

Since most of my posting depends on being able to link sources, this keeps me from posting much until it's fixed.

Thanks for your patience.

This revelation from Bill Keller as to who the White House supposedly asked to intervene on the lastest exposure of secret anti-terror programs.

Are you ready?

Jack Murtha.

Yeah, the one and only.

Keller insists that "not all of them urged us not to publish". Bryan at Hot Air deduces that Murtha was the odd man out.

If this is the case, Murtha has some big-time 'splainin to do. But don't count on the NYT to tell us - Keller doesn't mind publishing national security related secrets, but considers his conversation with Murtha to be confidential.

I've pretty much ignored the ministorm between Glenn Greenwald and a number of prominent bloggers on the right (Tom Maguire, Jeff Goldstein, The Commissar, and Glenn Reynolds. There's plenty of painfully wrong things said by Greenwald and his robotic minions at Unclaimed Territory, and harping on minutia only serves to distract from larger issues, like the star author of left blogosphere's disturbing views on the constitution and crime and punishment.

Well, apparently he was right about this one. I'll skip the obligatory colloquial adage about blind squirrels and suggest that he's entitled to bask a little.

But one really has to wonder if the fame is going to his head. After all, nothing says "I am going to do my best to avoid flamboyant displays of celebratory vindication and instead focus on what I think are the substantive issues illustrated by this episode" like a 2,319 word post including phrases like "they wallowed in an orgy of incestuous links to one another" and streching a disagreement about whether an email was fake into a wider rant about Bush:

It is that corrupt dynamic that explains how things are going really well in Iraq; how Saddam really did have WMDs when we invaded; how the chaos and anarchy in Iraq is the fault (and invention) of the news media; how Saddam personally participated in the 9/11 attacks; how terrorists did not know before the New York Times story in December, 2005 that we were trying to eavesdrop on their telephone calls; how terrorists did not know before this weekend that we were trying to monitor their bank transactions; how Bush is really popular and most of the country agrees with him and that data to the contrary is due to flawed and biased polls, etc.

And he manages to put in plugs for a book appearance and a book review for good measure. Classy.

From Reuters:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Cable operator Comcast Corp. (Nasdaq:CMCSA - news) said on Monday it fired an employee who was caught on camera sleeping on a customer's couch after the video clip was shared all over the Web.

The homeowner videotaped the technician, put it to music and shared it with the world on YouTube.

Man, that's cold.

I don't often quote entire articles, but this one is important to a lot of folks I know, and I have some questions that hopefully one of my readers who have legal experience could answer. Via AP/Yahoo:

WASHINGTON - A federal judge temporarily has barred the government from publicizing its free credit monitoring offer to veterans whose personal data was stolen and wants to see if they might get a better federal offer.

Lawyers who have filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of the 26.5 million veterans and active-duty troops affected contend that accepting the government's offer could jeopardize their chance of winning more money in the privacy suit.

U.S. District Judge William Bertelsman in Kentucky scheduled a hearing this Friday to determine whether the Veterans Affairs Department should revise its offer. His order on the credit monitoring was issued late last Friday.

The suit seeks free monitoring and other credit protection for an indefinite period as well as $1,000 in damages for each person — or up to $26.5 billion total — in what has become one of the nation's largest information security breaches.

Last week, the department announced its plan to offer free monitoring for a year to millions of veterans and nearly all active-duty military troops whose names, birthdates and Social Security numbers were stolen May 3 from a VA data analyst's home in suburban Maryland.

The department said it would send out letters to affected veterans and military personnel in early August — after it solicits bids from contractors — on how to sign up for the free service. It also posted information on the government's Web site.

But in court papers, lawyers for veterans said the VA's deal was "incomplete and misleading." The VA must make clear whether veterans who take the government deal will have to give up their rights in court to a potentially larger payout, lawyer Marc Mezibov wrote.

A spokesman for the VA did not have an immediate comment Sunday.

Last week, a Senate committee approved $160 million to pay for the credit monitoring for veterans. It is one of many expected payments as the government struggles with fallout from data breaches crossing at least six agencies.

The VA alone has spent more than $14 million so far to notify veterans by letter and set up a call center, and it is spending an additional $200,000 a day to maintain the call center.

Class-action suits filed by veterans alleging privacy violations are pending in Covington, Ky., and Washington, D.C.

OK, the questions:

The article doesn't say the VA is banned from helping, just publicizing it. Is that a typo? If not, what good does that do for anyone?

The lawyers are suing for cash plus credit monitoring. If the Gov't offers the credit monitoring, how does that hurt the case in any way? Or are the lawyers looking at the value of the monitoring as part of the basis for determining their fee?

By the way, here's the press release from the VA about the credit monitoring service. I see no hint of "veterans who take the government deal will have to give up their rights in court to a potentially larger payout" anywhere in there. From where are they getting this?

For what it's worth, I'm not very impressed by this suit in the first place. If my data (which was on the laptop that was stolen) is actually used for some criminal purpose, of course I want Uncle Sam to fix the damage. But so far there's no indication that the information is being used by anyone. Credit monitoring seems appropriate, and after enough time has passed to be reasonably sure that this was a non-event, will no longer necessary. Credit monitoring for life - essentially what they're asking for - seems expensive and unecessary.

The theft of the laptop alone doesn't seem to me enough to justify an award. Until my data is actually used in some way, I don't have a reason to sue anyone. Of course, once that happens, the damage may add up to much more than a grand. Will this class action prevent me from making a claim if that happens?

Unfortunately, I don't see that this suit benefits veterans in the least. If any vets experience real harm, this isn't going to be much help. For those that weren't harmed, at best it makes them unwitting accomplices to what appears to be yet another money grab from some opportunistic lawyers. What's the fee for this sort of thing - 30%? 40%? More? This looks like a retirement event for a few lawyers who fixed a problem that didn't exist and prevented future real problems from being addressed.

Anyone know the answers?

If you weren't aware, today marks 10 years since a truck filled with explosives was detonated outside the Khobar Towers dormitory in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. Air Force Magazine (which I read regularly) has a very well written article marking the anniversary.

One of those killed that day was MSgt Ken Kitson. I worked with Ken (or "KK", as we called him) while I was stationed at Eglin AFB with the 33rd Fighter Wing. We both deployed to King Faisal Air Base near Tabuk, Saudi Arabia for Desert Shield/Desert Storm.

I remember Ken for his good humor, his positive attitude, and the genuine concern he had for the people he worked with. As a natural and intuitive leader, he was respected and well-liked by all who had the good fortune to know him.

When I had a need for advice (or just to vent a little), I frequently sought Ken out. What I learned from Ken during that time has stuck with me over the years, and I consider that much of what I've accomplished since I owe in part to his mentorship.

Although I tried a couple of times, I've never felt that I properly thanked him for being a teacher and a friend.

Rest in peace, and God Bless You, Ken.

Other bloggers are noting this anniversary as well:

Cao's Blog
Capital Region People
Euphoric Reality
Right Voices
Strategic Outlook Institute
Michelle Malkin

Pottstown, PA - Gator lunges at man delivering newspapers

Lindenhurst, NY - Police capture gator on Long Island lawn

Would somebody please call Florida and let them know they left the gate open again?

Ick.

Earlier this month, I posted about how the arguments by the left simply don't hold water when applied to the debate about estate taxes. The repeal effort on the table at the time failed in the Senate, but the issue is back. Thursday the House passed a partial repeal - upping the exemption from its current 2 million to 5 for individuals and 10 million for couples. While this "lite" version is a mistake in that it still embraces inequality in the tax code, it's a step in the right direction and should make later efforts to repeal the death tax easier.

In my previous post, I discussed why the arguments of the left on this issue are based on deception. I saw a couple more examples raised earlier this week that further serve to illustrate my point. First, an unsigned editorial in the Washington Post gives the usual dishonest tripe so popular with many on the left:

LIKE THE GHOUL in the horror movie that refuses to die, estate tax repeal has returned from the grave to stalk the halls of Congress. Just two weeks after abolitionists failed in the Senate, they have regrouped behind a new bill that would achieve most of what they want -- not quite the elimination of the tax but its "reform" into insignificance. Like full repeal, this reform would expand the budget deficit and exacerbate inequality.

The deficit canard is the cornerstone of robotic liberal groupthink whenever government and money are discussed lately. In this case (as in most), it's being used dishonestly. The deficit does not exist because of tax cuts - the simple and irrefutable fact is that revenues have increased dramatically for the government in spite of (or more accurately, because of) the previous cuts. The deficit is a product of one thing and one thing only - irresponsible spending habits in Congress. Until this fact is recognized and addressed universally by both left and right alike, no serious deficit reduction is possible.

"Exacerbate inequality" - this one is rooted entirely in raw emotion and couldn't be more dishonest since it really doesn't have anything to do with fairness unless you're viewing it through the eyes of a six year old. "Timmy has a newer bicycle than me. It's not fair!" should not be the type of argument that mature people employ. Only a mortally flawed sense of fairness rooted in envy and greed view a progressive tax code as fair.

But what is fair? I have a friend that believes that if government costs 3 trillion to run, each of the 300 million people in the US should chip in ten grand, since all citizens benefit equally from the government's core responsibilities (common defense, domestic tranquility, etc). While it's hard not to appreciate the brutal simplicity of his argument, it's a model that doesn't take into account that a large portion of our population doesn't generate income, i.e., the very young and the very old being the largest groups to use as examples. So in recognition of this, we tax based on income. In such a system, fairness is also a simple concept if you can set aside greed and envy:

If I make 10 times more than you, I should pay 10 times the taxes.
If I make 100 times more than you, I should pay 100 times the taxes.

Seem fair? Not to the left, where childishness reigns. Add a "liberal" dose of covetousness, and "fair" suddenly becomes a grotesque caricature where an impaired syllogism views the following as just:

- You make 10 times more than I do, so you should pay 20 times more taxes.
- You make 100 times more than I do, so you should pay 400 times more taxes.

And it's just comical when applied to estate taxes:

- Your estate is worth 100 times more than mine, so I should pay no taxes, and you should pay 46%.

The truth is that fairness has nothing to do with the liberal views on taxation. Period. The Post article gives us a hint of why(emphasis mine):

The nation faces the expensive retirement of the baby boomers. It is grappling with rising inequality. Its prized social mobility may ultimately be threatened if the richest members of society are allowed to pass unlimited riches to their children.

I don't recall which part of the tax code addressed "social mobility". Can anyone help with a reference? This green-eyed phenomenon is even more plainly illustrated in a post I came across in FireDogLake yesterday. The author, Ian Welsh, should be lauded for his honesty in showing the true basis of the liberal view of taxes (I've included the bulk of the post so that context won't be an issue, only leaving out the graphs about income inequality and estate tax distribution. Please follow the link to see the graphs. Emphasis added.):

To summarize:

The top 1% pays 94.8% of all estate taxes.
The top 1/2 a percent pays 86.5% of all estate taxes
The top .1% pays 51.3% of all estate taxes

Most people will never be effected by the Estate Tax. Ever. But you will be effected if it’s repealed.

Here he shows clearly that the estate tax is unfair. Either 1% is being unfairly targeted, or 99% is skating out of their responsibilities. It's a point he misses altogether, though.

The general estimate of the cost of repeal is a trillion dollars a decade. A hundred billion a year. The government is already bleeding money, in both deficit and substantial debt. Any tax repeal - whether estate, or capital gains, or corporate taxes, wille eventually have to be made up (yes, the creditors will eventually want their money back.) Estate tax repeal will be paid for at some point, by the middle class. And by your children.

TANSTAAFL - There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. If you want a tax cut now, you pay for it later - with interest. If the rich want a tax cut now, the middle class will pay for it later, with interest.

This, as I pointed out before, is demonstrably false. Revenues have increased dramatically due to prior tax cuts, the problem is runaway spending. Fix that problem, and the middle class and children will be fine. By the way, 100 billion dollars a year, if correct (Not saying it isn't, but there are competing estimates of the effect of estate tax repeal) taken away from government control (where it would be badly mismanaged) and left in the private sector could create/sustain 3.2 million $15/hour jobs. Think the government would use the money even a fraction as well?

But I want to say something more about the estate tax.

There is no fairer tax. If it were up to me, it wouldn’t just be reinstated to it’s full 1999 level, it’d be increased to tax even more from the richest DEAD PEOPLE.

That’s right - dead people. By all means, let’s call it the death tax.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t expect to take it with me. I don’t think my money goes with me wherever it is I go when my heart stops beating. I don’t think I need money after I’m dead.

This has a morbid "They're dead! Quick, take the watches and wallets! No, leave the Timex - but get the Rolex from that guy over there!" quality to it that should offend anyone's sense of morals. If you think this isn't a popular view among the left, read the comments - Mr. Welsh gets lots of praise for his canonization of this grave-robbing mindset.

And I don’t think my heirs need more than a few million dollar head start over everyone else. Sure, if I ever have kids, I’d want to give them a head start, but I don’t deceive myself that they did anything to, like, deserve it, other than with the "lucky sperm contest".

Now we get to the heart of his argument. Jealousy. Greed. Envy. We should tax estates because the heirs don't deserve their inheritance. What I can't figure out: Why they don't display this level of contempt for the Kennedys?

Taxation is a zero sum game. You can take the money from dead people - who don’t need it or you can take it from living people who do need it.

Except heirs are living people, aren't they?

You can tax it from the kids of the rich, who did nothing to deserve it and who can probably make it on a few million from Daddy and Mummy; or you can tax it from people who actually earned it by the sweat of their own brow.

Moving from envy to hatred... They don't deserve it because Ian wasn't born lucky. Does arrogance trump aristocracy?

Oh, and those stories about people losing their family farms to the estate tax? Myth - no one has ever been able to find even one.

I'll agree with that one. Farms are indeed protected as far as I know. Now, about the medium-sized privately owned businesses...

The estate tax, the death tax, is about letting people have more money when they’re alive, and only taxing it when they’re dead.

And that, to me, makes it better than every other tax in existence.

Except you'd have more money if the government didn't tax the dead. Like it or don't, even Paris Hilton will use her money for your benefit. How? She'll spend it. She'll invest it. Every dollar that stays in the private sector helps improve the economy for all of us, increasing the chances that you or I will be able to induct our children into the "lucky sperm club". And the purpose of any tax should be to fund the government - not perform social engineering.

So forget estate tax repeal - let’s turn it around and increase the estate tax. Because dead people don’t need money, and living people do, and no matter how much rich people love their kids they didn’t do anything for the money, and a head start of a few million is enough for anyone.

But we're talking about fairness. And a twisted sense of fairness borne of contempt and envy isn't fair by any rational standards. A tax policy based on some masterbatory Robin Hood-ish fantasy is neither fair nor workable.

But government needs to be funded, right? So let's talk fair. Right and wrong do not change because of scale. If Paris Hilton doesn't deserve her inheritance because she didn't earn it, then equally do my children not deserve their comparatively meager one. An inheritance, if you believe it's unearned therefore undeserved, remains so whether it's 20 grand or 20 million.

So the fair answer is once again very simple. If you want to tax estates, then tax them all equally. No exceptions and the same rate for all, or my preference - tax none. Anything in between is counter to the principles upon which our republic was founded.

I say repeal the death tax. Then get to work bringing fairness and transparency to the rest of the tax code. That means eliminating regressive taxes that unfairly target the poor (like corporate taxes), and making every earned dollar look the same to each and every American.

In Vancouver, Washington, it's no longer a good idea to cruise for WiFi hotspots:

Wireless Freeloader Charged Because He Never Bought Coffee

A Vancouver, Wash. coffee shop tired of seeing a 20-year-old man mooch off their free wireless Internet access called the police, who charged him with "theft of services."

Brewed Awakenings employees dialed 911 after Alexander Eric Smith of Battle Ground, Wash. piggybacked off the shop's wireless Internet service for more than three months.

"He doesn't buy anything," Emily Pranger, the shop's manager, told KATU, a Portland, Ore. television station. "It's not right for him to come and use it."

Smith allegedly parked his truck in the parking lot to use Brewed Awakenings' wireless access.

County deputies charged Smith with theft of services after returning to the parking lot after they told him to stop. The crime, which covers such crimes as bypassing a utility meter, stealing cable, and leaving a restaurant without paying, has been used in the past to prosecute hackers who have accessed a computer or network without paying for it. "It's something that is borderline creepy," Pranger said to KATU.

The Clark County sheriff's office and its prosecutors are reviewing the case, the television station's Web site noted.

This was bound to happen sooner or later. Businesses offer wireless internet to attrack customers - it's not a gift.

However, it will be interesting to see if the creative charges hold. After all, the fellow was not taking up table space. In the end, it may have more to do with who owns the parking lot, and was it considered public.

Of course, ethically, the guy was dead wrong. He surely knows (or at least correctly assumed) that the coffee shop didn't welcome non-paying customers hooking up to their wireless, else he would have gone inside and sat at a table...

The NYT is exposing yet another classified program (H/T Polipundit):

WASHINGTON, June 22 — Under a secret Bush administration program initiated weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, counterterrorism officials have gained access to financial records from a vast international database and examined banking transactions involving thousands of Americans and others in the United States, according to government and industry officials.

The program is limited, government officials say, to tracing transactions of people suspected of having ties to Al Qaeda by reviewing records from the nerve center of the global banking industry, a Belgian cooperative that routes about $6 trillion daily between banks, brokerages, stock exchanges and other institutions. The records mostly involve wire transfers and other methods of moving money overseas and into and out of the United States. Most routine financial transactions confined to this country are not in the database.

Viewed by the Bush administration as a vital tool, the program has played a hidden role in domestic and foreign terrorism investigations since 2001 and helped in the capture of the most wanted Qaeda figure in Southeast Asia, the officials said.

The program, run out of the Central Intelligence Agency and overseen by the Treasury Department, "has provided us with a unique and powerful window into the operations of terrorist networks and is, without doubt, a legal and proper use of our authorities," Stuart Levey, an under secretary at the Treasury Department, said in an interview on Thursday.

The program is grounded in part on the president's emergency economic powers, Mr. Levey said, and multiple safeguards have been imposed to protect against any unwarranted searches of Americans' records.

Similar to other programs, expect the Democrats to start yelling loudly about this just before we find out that a number of them had been briefed and raised no objection.

Will Feingold dust off his resolution calling for Congress to ignore Article III of the Constitution?

I'll have more on this later. But in the meantime, I've started the countdown for the reflexive and robotic automatic declaration that it's illegal from the left blogosphere.

10... 9... 8...

Update (8:50am EST): First entry is this breathless headline at the Huffington Post: "Bank Data Secretly Reviewed By Bush Admin. Without Warrants Or Subpoenas..." - here's a screenshot:

Yet the NYT article that Arianna links to says subpoenas were indeed issued:

Indeed, the cooperative's executives voiced early concerns about legal and corporate liability, officials said, and the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Asset Control began issuing broad subpoenas for the cooperative's records related to terrorism. One official said the subpoenas were intended to give Swift some legal protection.

I suppose reading the article was too much to ask.

I was too tired to blog about this last night. Maybe a good thing, as the original story, which was kinda thin, has been updated several times:

MIAMI - Inside a city warehouse, authorities believe, a group was hatching the early stages of a widespread terror plot — one that targeted Chicago's Sears Tower, an FBI office in Miami and other U.S. buildings.

On Thursday, authorities swarmed the warehouse in Miami's Liberty City area, removed a metal door with a blowtorch and arrested seven people, a federal law enforcement official said. Authorities in Washington and Miami were expected to release more details in separate news conferences Friday morning.

I hope the news conferences fill some of the holes, because there seems to be conflicting stories about their makeup and motivation. First, there's this:

The law enforcement official told The Associated Press the seven were mainly Americans with no apparent ties to al-Qaida or other foreign terrorist organizations. He spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to pre-empt the news conferences.

But CNN quotes a different law enforcement official:

Law enforcement sources told CNN that some of the suspects are members of a radical Muslim group and that at least one had taken "an al Qaeda oath." They had carried out surveillance on the Sears Tower and FBI building in Miami, the sources said.

Then there's this from the AP story linked above:

Residents living near the warehouse said the men taken into custody described themselves as Muslims and had tried to recruit young people to join their group.

She said she talked to one of the men about a month ago. "They seemed brainwashed," she said. "They said they had given their lives to Allah."

But later in the story a supposed member of the group is quoted:

A man who called himself Brother Corey and claimed to be a member of the group told CNN late Thursday that the individuals worship at the building and call themselves the "Seas of David."

He dismissed any suggestion that the men were contemplating violence. "We are peaceful," he said. He added that the group studies the Bible and has "soldiers" in Chicago but is not a terrorist organization.

So until more light is shed on the situation we apparently have a group of Bible-studying Muslims who have no ties to a terrorist group they've pledged allegiance to.

This doesn't compute at all. Maybe I need more coffee...

I've seen lots of the reaction to the announcement from Rick Santorum and Peter Hoekstra about the chemical munitions shells.

The press is now starting to get the leaks from "anonymous sources" saying that the shells were of little use:

But intelligence officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the subject's sensitive nature, said the weapons were produced before the 1991 Gulf War and there is no evidence to date of chemical munitions manufactured since then. They said an assessment of the weapons concluded they are so degraded that they couldn't now be used as designed.

They probably would have been intended for chemical attacks during the Iran-Iraq War, said David Kay, who headed the U.S. weapons-hunting team in Iraq from 2003 until early 2004.

He said experts on Iraq's chemical weapons are in "almost 100 percent agreement" that sarin nerve agent produced from the 1980s would no longer be dangerous.

"It is less toxic than most things that Americans have under their kitchen sink at this point," Kay said.

And any of Iraq's 1980s-era mustard would produce burns, but it is unlikely to be lethal, Kay said.

While David Kay may be right about the sarin, he's completely incorrect about the mustard gas.

Mustard gas doesn't have to be lethal to be effective, as it's not used to kill. During World War I, the death rate among those exposed was only 5% - hardly a weapon you would depend on for its lethality. No, the doctrine for its use is based on causing widespread injury, which bogs down a military far more than deaths - a dead soldier takes out one combatant, a wounded soldier takes out two.

Mustard gas has a uniquely long persistance compared to other chemical agents. During the annual training I received while active duty, it was common to hear the story about a chemical warfare instructor during the 70's who dismantled a vintage gas mask to show some students how it was used. The mask had traces of mustard gas in it - the instructor wound up in the hospital by the end of the day with blisters on his hands and arms.

While the story may have attained the status of urban legend, there's no reason to doubt its basis in truth. In Europe, there's still occasional cases of mustard agent exposure reported in the media, usually from unexploded shells left over from World War I.

The point is that even in a degraded condition, it's possible that stockpiles of mustard gas shells could have been used to great effect.

That doesn't necessarily mean the 500 shells combine to make a smoking gun. As details come out in the coming weeks and months from official sources (rather than those that hide in the shadows), we may very well learn that the shells were degraded beyond being a viable threat. What will be more telling to me is any documentation that shows what the Iraqis believed. If they thought the shells were valuable assets and maintained them as such, it would be revealing as to why no new production was found. After all, why make more if you don't have to?

But this does add to the documentation and eyewitness reports already available showing that there was an ongoing desire by the Hussein regime to maintain and use WMDs.

That said, I'm afraid that even should enough evidence pile up to take away all doubts for those of us on the right, there will always be the robotic chanting of the dishonest "Bush lied" mantra from the left. After the years of repetition, their investment in this particular lie may be far too great for any amount of truth to overcome.

Anchoress finds an offbeat Folger's commercial, says it's growing on her. Ann Althouse gives it a thumbs up.

I don't know - maybe a little too cheerful for me. I do agree it's clever, though. I just wish they had hired Tim Burton to do it...

Apparently Andrew Bridges at AP wants military families to have more to worry about:

WASHINGTON - Families of veterans who die during a bird flu outbreak shouldn't count on burying their loved ones in any of the 120 national cemeteries. The Department of Veterans Affairs foresees closing the military graveyards in a pandemic because of staffing problems.

Later in the article, he alludes to the fact that if the scenario he's writing about occurs, there's going to be lots of very understandable shortages:

As much as 40 percent of the national work force could be off the job in a pandemic, according to federal estimates.

I would think it's a given that the VA would experience personnel shortages as well. The article could have been written to simply be informative, but Mr. Bridges apparently felt compelled to add some gratuitous gruesomeness:

During the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic, the dead were sometimes buried in trenches, Fells said. Should another pandemic strike, it could take days to bury the dead, and perhaps only then in mass or temporary graves, he added.

**snip**

"If there's truly a catastrophic kind of thing — whether it be a bird flu pandemic or a massive, terrorist-instigated attack that would claim tens or hundreds of thousands of lives — a lot of that frankly involves bulldozers," said Mike Duggan, the American Legion's deputy director for national security and a Vietnam veteran.

**snip**

As for the dead, the VA said it may have to store bodies in refrigerated warehouses or trucks outfitted as temporary morgues.

**snip**

Those burials could stop or be put on hold during a pandemic, presumably even as the tally of dead surges, according to a VA plan that lays out how it will cope with an influenza outbreak.

I'm sure thousands of military families will feel comforted by this article, thanks to the "sensitivity" of Mr. Bridges and Associated Press.

Today promises to be another big day for Republicans as the Democrats attempt a repeat of last week's Iraq debate:

WASHINGTON - Fierce election-year debate on Iraq spilled over into a second week on Capitol Hill with Senate Democrats lining up behind a proposal to start U.S. troop withdrawals this year and Republicans chastising them for espousing a "cut-and-run" strategy.

The Republicans are standing firm, as they should:

"Let me be clear: Retreat is not a solution," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn. "Cutting and running is bad policy that threatens our national security and poses unacceptable risks to Americans."

Democrats seem to think that keeping our word to the Iraqi government is a bad idea for a very anti-liberal reason:

"The administration's policy to date, that we'll be there for as long as Iraq needs us, will result in Iraq's depending on us longer," said Levin, top-ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee. "Three-and-a-half years into the conflict, we should tell the Iraqis that the American security blanket is not permanent."

Would that they applied the same logic to their beloved entitlement programs here at home.

In a weird deja vu kind of way, Senator Kerry wants to ressurect his proposal from last week for yet another overwhelming defeat:

It would require the administration to withdraw all combat troops from Iraq by July 1, 2007, leaving in place only U.S. troops essential to training Iraqi security forces, conducting counterterrorism operations and protecting U.S. personnel and facilities.

Also joining Kerry is Barbara Boxer and Russ Feingold (who doesn't support the war but supports nearly 86% of the constitution). I guess they felt left out last week.

Ultimately, today's debate in the Senate should prove to be a positive for Republicans as Democrats line up once again to show their lack of resolve on security issues.

While as of yet unconfirmed, it appears that the missing soldiers may be dead:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The bodies of two U.S. soldiers have been found near where the men went missing, a senior Iraqi military official said Tuesday, but the U.S. military said it could not confirm the report.

Maj. Gen. Abdul-Aziz Mohammed said the bodies of Army Pfc. Kristian Menchaca, 23, of Houston, and Army Pfc. Thomas Lowell Tucker, 25, of Madras, Ore., were found on a street near a power plant in the town of Youssifiyah, just south of Baghdad.

U.S. Maj. Doug Powell said he could not confirm the report.

The soldiers came under attack Friday at a traffic checkpoint near Youssifiyah. A third soldier, Spc. David J. Babineau, 25, of Springfield, Mass., was killed in the attack. All three were from the 101st Airborne Division based at Fort Campbell, Ky.

I'll update when confirmed. Our thoughts and prayers go out to their families.

Update (9:30am EST): Bodies show signs of torture:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - An Iraqi military official said Tuesday that the bodies of two missing U.S. soldiers showed signs of torture, and that men appeared to have been killed "in a barbaric way." Also, the umbrella group for Iraqi insurgents claimed responsibility for the soldiers' deaths.

"We give the good news ... to the Islamic nation that we have carried God's verdict by slaughtering the two captured crusaders," said a statement in the name of the Mujahedeen Shura Council, which groups five insurgent organizations including al-Qaida in Iraq.

At a news briefing, U.S. Maj. Gen. William Caldwell declined to identify the two men until their families could be notified.

That's what John Murtha said when he claimed that there was a coverup of the Haditha incident. The LA Times reports the Murtha was wrong:

Nothing in the report points to a "knowing cover-up" of the facts by the officers supervising the Marines involved in the November incident, the official said. Rather, he said, officers from the company level through the staff of the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force in Baghdad failed to demand "a thorough explanation" of what happened in Haditha.

I will add the cautionary disclaimer that this is based on a leak from "an official close to the investigation". Accordingly, I'll hold my thoughts until it's official release.

In other news, Reuters reports another incident where three troops are being charged with murder. The details being released reflect badly on those charged:

The three soldiers are accused of deliberately allowing three men detained during a raid on a former chemical factory to flee so they would have an excuse to shoot them, said a defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Regardless, these men are entitled to a fair trial without the disgusting and celebratory prejudgement afforded the Marines in the Haditha incident. The military justice system works far better than Murtha or the press will lead you to believe.

I saw the headline yesterday about the violence in New Orleans, but it didn't seem worth commenting on. Apparently, Nagin has realized that his police force isn't enough and has asked for reinforcements:

NEW ORLEANS - Gov. Kathleen Blanco ordered National Guardsmen to help police patrol the city for the first time since Hurricane Katrina, following a bloody weekend that brought fears of crime disrupting the city's delicate reconstruction.

At Mayor Ray Nagin's request, Blanco ordered 100 troops — and committed to send 200 more soon — and 60 state police troopers to head to the city Tuesday to support the Police Department. Six people were killed over the weekend, including five teenagers in one incident.

"The situation is urgent," Blanco said. "Things like this should never happen, and I am going to do all I can to stop it."

Blanco said reinforcements would cycle in-and-out of the city. No deadline has been set for their mission, which did not require a special order because Louisiana is still under a state of emergency 10 months after Katrina hit on Aug. 29.

The violence itself is not unusual - New Orleans has a long history of such problems. But calling in the guard to assist is an unusual move for a city administration that also has a history - one of being slow to act.

You think Cindy Sheehan will decry Blanco's "occupation" of New Orleans?

Greenwald posts today about Glenn Reynolds and others who he perceives as "extremists" on the right. I don't want to comment on the back and forth between Reynolds and Greenwald, but instead want to focus on ideology. This caught my attention from the post (emphasis mine):

More importantly, it is incomparably beneficial to expose the extremist, dishonest underbelly of the pro-Bush movement. They have made great political strides by focusing as much as possible on easily disliked political figures on the Left who are susceptible to being depicted (rightly or wrongly) as extremists (Ward Churchill, Harry Belafonte, Michael Moore, etc.) and then turning them into illustrative symbols of Democrats generally.

Consider the apolitical blanket that Greenwald wraps himself in (at least according to his book reviews). Also, consider that Greenwald considers Howard Dean and Markos Moulitsas to be "perfectly mainstream".

I think it would be interesting to know: Which of the three mentioned in the quote above (Churchill, Belafonte, Moore) does he consider to be wrongly depicted as an extremist?

Just asking...

I'm sure over the course of this week there will be lots of pixels devoted to the shameful defeatist posturing of Rep. John Murtha yesterday on Meet the Press. Indeed, there already has. Today's Wall Street Journal has a terrific twofer on the politics of cut 'n run^TM and the war in general.

The first, Iraq and Congress, says of Murtha:

As for Mr. Murtha's proposal that U.S. forces should redeploy to some nearby part of the Middle East, this is merely a disguise for what everyone would understand was a defeat in Iraq. Anyone who doubts it should merely listen to Mr. Murtha, who said again yesterday on NBC's Meet the Press that "We can't win a war like this." It's more accurate to say that our troops have a harder time winning a war with political leaders as inconstant as Mr. Murtha, who voted to commit U.S. troops but now lacks the will to finish the job.

Certainly Rep. Murtha deserves the credit for being the loudest of those who would abandon Iraq and prove to the world that the United States can't be counted on to keep its word. And who could blame him? After all, what use is our integrity as a nation when the Majority Leader post is on the line? And the thrust of his message should not be mistaken by anyone, considering the ill-chosen comparison to Beirut or Somalia, both of which cost the US dearly by emboldening the ideology and strategy of Al-Qaeda.

It simply cannot be other than raw stupidity to repeatedly claim a need to "change directions" and offer only examples that abandoned friends and contributed greatly to 9/11. Murtha would have us take that route again, once and for all eliminating any measure of trust that might be placed in us by a nation in need.

But Murtha isn't alone - he has the backing of an opportunistic party so hell-bent on regaining power that they eagerly anticipate our nation's failure so that they can cynically sweep in and pick up the pieces. Nancy Pelosi referred to the war as a "grotesque mistake" recently. I wonder how the groups in Iraq most subject to the murderous whims of Saddam Hussein feel about the suggestion that their plight under Saddam was just fine by Nancy, and any attempt to liberate them was a "mistake"? Her political posturing fails to consider that the real mistakes have already been judged by history:

Most terrorism experts are agreed that the precipitous withdrawal from both places emboldened our enemies by convincing them the U.S. could always be made to back down in any conflict. Not repeating those mistakes may be reason enough to stay the course in Iraq.

It would be foolhardy to believe otherwise. Surrender in Iraq would be Al-Qaeda's greatest victory - not only would it embolden Bin Laden to plan more attacks, it would make his recruiting far easier.

Now Dianne Feinstein wants to followup the spectacular failure of the Kerry plan last week with a repeat of the surrender-based politics that have worked so well for the Democrats Republicans of late. Good. Let them bring it up every week if they want - right up to the mid-term elections. Let them ask the American people if our national integrity has any value at all.

Via AP/Yahoo:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - An umbrella group that includes al-Qaida in Iraq claimed in a Web statement Monday that it had kidnapped two U.S. soldiers reported missing south of Baghdad. There was no immediate confirmation that the statement was credible, although it appeared on a Web site often used by al-Qaida-linked groups.

U.S. officials have said they were trying to confirm whether the missing soldiers were kidnapped.

If true, at least the missing soldiers are alive, and there's a chance of rescuing them. We're keeping our fingers crossed and praying for the best.

And I may or may not post much today depending on what TB and the kids have planned for me. All I know so far is that they created homemade Father's day cards, thanks to the fact that 4 year-olds have no sense of how far voices carry.

I hope all the Dad's out there have a terrific day!

Captain Ed reviews the latest version of the Democratic Party agenda. He notes what's dropped off the radar:

Does anyone notice what the Democrats did not have on their agenda yesterday? Not a mention was made about investigations into the Bush administration, which was central to the agenda they announced five weeks ago.

I'd add that there's not one word about raising taxes, a fundamental theme for the Dems.

They're also continuing to spin like tops on the economy, the war, and ethics - the truth on all of these topics expose them as horribly wrong. The economy is sound, and we're winning the war. Even though Nancy Pelosi would love to have you believe that they're the exclusive to the right, ethics problems are demonstrably non-partisan.

There's a lot of fear under the surface of the Dem's plan. Fear that if they run on what they really believe, they'll lose. And they've got more reason to fear in the upcoming mid-terms than ever.</