And the winner is . . . Accenture! $10b bid proposal awarded to Bermuda company; GAO estimates $15b total [font=palatino\] The U.S. Department of Homeland Security will entrust its U.S.-VISIT project, a "virtual border" designed to snare incoming terrorists that bears a price tag estimated variously at ten- and fifteen-billion dollars, to Accenture, a Bermuda corporation. The decision, described by USDHS Undersecretary Asa Hutchinson as "a significant milestone in the history of the department," has set off some early controversy. While Hutchinson noted that the importance of the project responsibility could not be overstated, Massachusetts Rep. Richard Neal (D), said, "The American taxpayers are paying $10 billion for passport inspection to a company that has turned down its own U.S. passport . . . This is simply outrageous." An early version of the Homeland Security funding bill would have blackballed companies including Accenture, Tyco, Ingersoll-Rand, and others who have relocated outside the US for tax purposes. Maine Republican Olympia Snowe voiced concerns, "They moved offshore to avoid taxes and now they are benefiting and reaping the rewards." And Texas Democrat Lloyd Doggett took the most vicious swipe: "U.S.-Visit really describes the business strategy of these companies . . . Our security is undermined by corporations that devise ways to avoid paying their share of the cost of keeping our homeland secure." An Accenture spokesman said the contracting authority was awarded to the US-based subsidiary Accenture LLP, which pays US income taxes and employs some 25,000 people. Hutchinson told reporters at a news conference, "Legal counsel looked at this and determined that all three bidders met all the legal requirements." US-VISIT, which stands for Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology, is already underway at 115 airports and 14 seaports where incoming foreigners are required to be photographed and fingerprinted, and is scheduled to be extended to 50 land-border crossing points by the end of 2004. Among the challenges of US-VISIT is the integration of at least 19 large government databases. Perhaps lending some clarity to the situation, one financial analyst pointed out Accenture's track record with the Transportation Security Administration. Cindy Shaw, of Schwab SoundView Capital Markets, said, "One of the things that got lost in this whole competition is that Accenture helped T.S.A. put together its airport screening process . . . They showed well under pressure there." Accenture outbid competing contractors Computer Sciences and Lockheed Martin. Comment: Well apparently the name Accenture means "accent on the future." The name was submitted to the former Andersen Consulting by a Norwegian consultant. Frankly, I think it's one of the dumbest company names ever. There are worse names, to be sure. Siemans, for instance. (Surely, I jest.) Five-thousand suggested names and "Accenture" was the best they could come up with. These guys are going to spend between ten- and fifteen-billion dollars in order to save our asses from the terrorists? Jesus f@¢k, George. Why don't you just spend it on bullets and shoot us all now? And ... hey ... an historical milestone for the Department of Homeland Security? How tough is that? It's what? Two years old? So let's sum up here .... Um, Secretary Ridge? Mr. Hutchinson? Mr. President? I just want to make sure I have this clearly in my mind. Now, you just bid for $10b what the GAO says might run $15b. First off, that's just a bad idea. The people are getting tired of these deceptive price tags. And this money is going to further a project which already has civil-liberties advocates in a snit, and which promises to be an information-management nightmare. So in order to address the coming nightmare, you pick offshore tax dodges who couldn't come up with a better name than "Accenture." Mr. President, it sounds like you're spending billions on a goddamn luxury sedan. And we both know how vapid car names are in this country. So at that price tag, I'd like my Accenture to come with a Star-Trek replicator specifically attuned to Wendy's double-cheeseburgers, fries from Dick's, and I'll even vote for you if it can perfectly nail Green River poured over ice on a summer day. That's what I want for my fifteen billion. Screw the terrorists. ____________________ [/font] • Donmoyer, Ryan J. "Accenture wins huge Homeland Security deal." Bloomberg News. June 2, 2004. See http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2001944881_accenture02.html • Greenemeier, Larry. "Andersen Consulting Changing Name To Accenture." InformationWeek, October 26, 2000. See http://www.informationweek.com/story/IWK20001026S0004 • Lichtblau, Eric and John Markoff. "Accenture Is Awarded U.S. Contract for Borders." New York Times, June 2, 2004. See http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/02/technology/02secure.html (registration required)
Intelligence concerns free Al Qaeda confessor Nabil al-Marabh deported to Syria From the AP wire: A Justice Department spokesman said Wednesday that the US government has concerns about many people with suspected terror ties, but cannot effectively prosecute these individuals without endangering intelligence sources and methods. "If the government cannot prosecute terrorism charges, another option is to remove the individual from the United States via deportation. After careful review, this was determined to be the best option available under the law to protect our national security," said Bryan Sierra. There is, of course, a predictable backlash. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) rejected the government's explanation: "It's hard to believe that the best way to deal with the FBI's 27th most wanted terrorist is to send him back to a terrorist-sponsoring country." DoJ is not without its own concerns, though. Last month, Chris Wray, of the department's criminal division, told Congress: "It may be more difficult than people would expect . . . We may be able to deport the person under the immigration laws . . . And while that should give us some comfort, the fact is, if we go that route, the person is removed to another country and turned loose there, and we have no ability to make sure that they're not engaged in further terrorist activity." Comment We cannot have everything. Underneath it all, we must consider that this is still the United States of America, and in the end that means sometimes the guilty must go free. Nonetheless, this argument of how we treat suspects and people held questionable in the eyes of our beloved Department of Justice (seek and ye shall find ... maybe) has largely been relegated to somewhere around the fourth tier; the last we really heard about it was after the 2002-03 Super Bowl, when it was revealed that a large number of non-Arabic illegal aliens were deported for national security reasons. But now one of the big birds goes free; these deportations we understand. However, since the argument is at hand, the Bush administration might wish to consider using this case to give leverage to its lament that the government has not--or had not--the tools to effectively and properly combat terrorism. Reasonably-placed representatives of the cabinet ought to make the press rounds and explain, in detail, how the prosecution of Marabh was so convoluted that deportation was the best option. Ordinarily I would say it cynical to speculate that maybe Marabh was released specifically because he was Syrian. There's no doubt about where to deport him to, but there seems to be a question about the wisdom of sending a known willing terrorist to a country our government accuses of sponsoring terror. The odds game, of course, would then wonder whether Marabh would eventually bite the US in the ass, and it's entirely possible that he will. But what logical sense, even in a Roving dimension, would that risk claim? It's unimaginable at this point. Additionally, there's this aspect: How many Arabs does it take to light a fire? Two--one to pour the gasoline, and another to shoot the flare gun while he does. Certes it seems simplistic in its excess. There's nothing there one man with a fuel truck and a Zippo can't accomplish. So it seems that his confessed form of martyrdom is really, really stupid. Of course, the guy who car-bombed the WTC a decade ago went back for the deposit, so .... But man ... not only is Marabh dangerous and on the loose, but he's dangerous, as stupid as a bad stereotype, and on the loose. However ... I prefer to simply see what the future writes. We Americans may cross paths with Mr. Marabh in the future, and we may not like the encounter. Then again, the future is unwritten. Beyond the conspiracy nonsense, then, there is one substantive question that pushes to the fore: Mr. President? Given that you can hold people indefinitely--and correct me if I'm wrong with that one--why was Mr. Marabh deported instead of held until a better case can be made? ____________________ Works Cited • Solomon, John. "AP: Administration Freed Terror Suspect." Associated Press, June 3, 2004. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4162573,00.html See Also • Wikipedia. "USA PATRIOT Act." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act
Shut Down: US-Canada border closed at Peace Arch crossing "Suspicious vehicle" prompted security move I'm unsure what comment goes here. I mean, this better not be about a bong. The AP story also contains a note about a February incident in which a Texas woman was found to have a grenade in the glove compartment. And I have to share that note with you: Okay, okay ... who isn't dangerous? That just might be a shorter list. _____________________ • Associated Press. "Suspicious vehicle prompts border shutdown." Seattle Post-Intelligencer, June 5, 2004. See http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/aplocal_story.asp?category=6420&slug=WA Border Shutdown
Torture Justice, Defense advise torture may be justifiable The headlines are not forgiving. The BBC howls, "US 'not bound by torture laws'." The Washington Post says, "Memo Offered Justification for Use of Torture." And that pretty much sums it up. The Justice Department advised the White House in August, 2002, that torture of al Qaeda terrorists in captivity abroad may be justified, and even went so far as to assert that laws against torture may be unconstitutional. As the Post explains: The memo comes only three months after the President rescinded the United States' signature to the International Criminal Court, a move which Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul called, "a great victory . . . to preserve our national sovereignty." The push continued into 2003, overlapping the Pentagon's report in March of that year. Marjorie Cohn wrote in September, 2003: And the whole time, it appears, the United States government was lining up to justify torture: It is unclear whether the president ever saw the Defense report, but nonetheless it appears that the United States government was preparing to consciously and willingly engage in torture. As all this comes up, FindLaw notes another aspect of the controversy: Now ... let's take the "Chris Matthews" approach and blame the ideologues surrounding the president. Some lawyers at Justice and some experts (and more lawyers) over at Defense both relate to the president that this is the situation. And yet, as Hilden writes for FindLaw: Some of Bush's critics fear the worst--that he is not so much evil as stupid. An evil president they can hate, but a stupid one, well, a bleeding heart is bound to feel sorry for the deceived. Could Bush be convinced? As the Abu Ghraib scandal demands a full-blown review of American prisoner policies and practices, will the ripples crack the walls of the Oval Office? At what point should the little voice kick in, and say, "They've got to be kidding, Mr. President!" Whether or not Bush saw the Defense report, did Rumsfeld base any advice or action on it? This is your War on Terror, wherever the Bush League says it leads. ____________________ • BBC News. "US 'not bound by torture laws'." June 7, 2004. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3783869.stm • Cohn, Marjorie. "How the Bush Administration's Opposition to the International Criminal Court Has Put Peacekeepers and Others in Danger." Writ, September 9, 2003. See http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0909-13.htm • Hilden, Julie. "Did a Government Lawyer "Aid and Abet" Possible War Crimes By Writing a Crucial Memo?" Writ, June 8, 2004. See http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20040608.html • Paul, Ron. "President Bush Delivers Victory Over UN Court!" Texas Straight Talk. May 13, 2002. See http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2002/tst051302.htm • Priest, Dana and R. Jeffrey Smith. "Memo Offered Justification for Use of Torture." Washington Post, June 8, 2002; page A01. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23373-2004Jun7.html
Source: Washington Post Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50945-2004Aug8.html Title: "Believing the Shepherd" Date: August 9, 2004 Post columnist William Raspberry checks in on the state of cynicism and doubt in the War on Terror, specifically the recent elevations of the threat level in specific areas which have sparked so much discussion. Comment: Perhaps Raspberry is waiting to formulate and refine his opinion of the other side of the controversy, the supposed intelligence disaster that came when a U.S. official blew a multinational sting against al Qaeda by confirming the identity of the mole. He mentions nothing in his considerations of that chapter, though even I, a harsh critic of the Bush administration, am unsure how things came about; in the first place, the mole's identity was never so deeply hidden that the press couldn't figure it out, but ... never mind. I could cite Raspberry's brilliance; the absence of such discussion might seem conspicuous to some. I certainly noticed it, though I'm unsure of whether it's important. But something in the back of my mind whispers that a blown cover in a sting against al Qaeda won't necessarily make the picture look any rosier. But this all would presume the good author's intentions regarding an issue not raised in the article, and regardless of the man's brilliance or otherwise he spells out a very simple, easy-to-follow explanation of his doubts. And he winds up without ambiguity: It's a tough question he asks, with a remarkably simple foundation. This is Your War on Terror. _____________________ • Raspberry, William. "Believing the Shepherd." Washington Post, August 9, 2004; page A15. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50945-2004Aug8.html
U.S. Still Holding Back German Terror Trial Decision to block access to terror suspects casts doubt on Motassadeq retrial Please see the following links for background information: • German judge laments US complication of terror trial • Bad Guys blank World Fellowship In February we learned that a German court was left with no option but to acquit a terror suspect, Abdelghani Mzoudi. In reading his decision, the judge reserved some choice words for the United States government. The crux of the accusation: German prosecutors were unable to convict Mzoudi because the United States would not allow German investigators access to other terror suspects whose information could have locked the case. In a move that stunned relatives of 9/11 victims, March saw the German Federal Criminal Court throw out a conviction against Mounir al-Motassadeq. The quashing of Motassadeq's conviction lost the Western world its only criminal conviction related to the 9/11 terror strike against the United States. Motassadeq was remanded to prison custody to await a new trial. It is likely that there will not be another trial: Now, frankly, I just wonder about the American excuse. "Interactive access" could endanger investigations? I'm sure the British and Pakistanis understand that point of argument, but it doesn't change the fact that the only criminal conviction related to 9/11 is about to be lost forever. Meanwhile, German judges are doing what they can to keep Motassadeq behind bars until they can close the case. Thank you, President Bush, for striving to keep our country safe. Now, maybe you might wish to take a chance and, oh, I don't know, make an effort? You'll hang a sting operation for ratings, but you won't support the Germans in their effort to slam the prison doors on a terror suspect who is directly related to 9/11? Ladies and gentlemen, this is Your War on Terror. ____________________ • Trevelyan, Mark. "U.S. Denies German 9/11 Trial Access to Prisoners." Reuters, August 10, 2004. See http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=JXSTZXW4G4I1MCRBAEOCFFA?type=topNews&storyID=5921799
No, your interpretation of it all is just your own opinion. If you were waging a real war on terror you wouldn't still be sitting in the safety of your own home hurling pretenses as if they were live ammo. You're not taking on national enemies, you're just jousting with conceptual windmills. Easy; no real effort. Nothing tangible ever put at personal risk. Perpetual Monday mornings. So safe. So comfy. So not happening.
Source: New York Times Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/11/politics/11terror.html Title: "Man Is Held After Police Seize Tapes of Buildings and a Dam" Date: August 11, 2004 A Pakistani man in the United States illegally is being investigated for possible terrorism ties after police seized videotapes of downtown buildings in four states and a dam in Texas. One unnamed senior law enforcement official said, "These were not your normal tourist videos . . . This could turn out to be something legitimate and innocent, but it's raised our suspicions, and we think there's something else going on here. We don't like the look of it." The Times reports: It's just a story to follow. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the long run. I would hold him, especially since his whereabouts for eight or ten months are allegedly sketchy. Although ... maybe it is just tourist footage. (1) Charlotte, NC: Bank of America Corporate Center (2) Charlotte, NC: Wachovia Center (3) Texas: Mansfield Dam Hey, I can dig it. Why wouldn't a Pakistani man illegally in the country want to go sightseeing in Texas, Louisiana, Georgia, and North Carolina these days? ____________________ • Lichtblau, Eric. "Man Is Held After Police Seize Tapes of Buildings and a Dam." August 11, 2004. See http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/11/politics/11terror.html
Source: Deutsche Welle Link: http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1432_A_1294236_1_A,00.html Title: "US Exonerates Terror Suspect in German Trial" Date: August 11, 2004 I sincerely doubt this is what the Germans had in mind when they sought American cooperation. So it goes in this War on Terror. ____________________ • Deutsche Welle. "US Exonerates Terror Suspect in German Trial." August 11, 2004. See http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1432_A_1294236_1_A,00.html?mpb=en
Tiassa do you think that when the oposition is up in the election campaine that the alert wont go up? or do you think that i am being to cinical, that even BUSH wouldnt be that oviouse?
(Insert Title Here) The Bush administration has gotten away with some pretty ridiculously obvious stuff so far. I see no reason why they wouldn't continue. I mean, the record is astounding. I reiterate that Bush transcend's all imaginable nightmares. I do not state lightly that to imagine a president could conduct himself this poorly used to be akin to treason: Americans by myth are not supposed to be like this. The yellowcake scandal, the holy war, the WMD botch, the Plame blow, Cheney's obstinance over the energy notes--really, if I had said during the Clinton administration that the next GOP administration would lie in the State of the Union Address in order to foster a war, lie to the United Nations in order to foster a war, exploit a terrorist tragedy in order to foster a war, invoke something remotely resembling the Bush Doctrine, see a CIA operative's cover blown in what so nakedly appears a response to genuine criticism of the SotU lie, drive the country into deficit in order to pay for all this, blow the warfare operation with a lack of foresight, and tell a foreign leader that God told him to go to war ... do you really think I would have made it out of the tavern in one piece? Given that the United States government has, in a week, blown one sting operation while exonerating a terrorist suspect in Germany on a longstanding fear of endangering stings and other intel operations ... yes, I'm cynical. But we can't be too cynical; if the country gets hit in the near future, Bush might actually try to blame it on the people: "You weren't vigilant enough." In the meantime, we have to consider that the issue isn't necessarily the legitimacy of a present or past terror warning. Something I've noticed in conservative argumentation lately is an equivocation of ideas that really is inappropriate. • Imagine that President Kerry receives information on two separate occasions, once in January and once in March, that compels him to elevate the terror warning twice during his first hundred days. Now, while many of us can make a basic distinction, there will be voices in the country that will accuse Kerry of manipulating the country for political ends. The accusations will play a tit-for-tat version exonerating Bush's record of elevated terror warnings. Yet inherent in that will be an attempt to ignore a certain comparison: Will Kerry be begging for an inadvisable war at that time? Will Kerry be seeking re-election at that time? The problem is that such an argument is so superficial as to potentially render legitimate terror warnings ineffective in order to score political points with the country. The obvious is already too subtle for many Americans. Yes, I'm cynical, but I'm also still hoping at this late date that the man currently occupying the White House is not truly as evil as he has played himself off to be. In that sense, my cynicism reflects hope; Fool us once, Mr. President .... I don't hold my neighbors responsible for an electoral-college result. Nonetheless, I haven't been fooled at all except to keep my expectations of the sinister too low in deference to a lifetime's conditioning. And even to that dimension, I can't stand being fooled. History will measure Mr. Bush's performance, including coincidentally-timed terror warnings.
I've commented previously on this very quote. Oddly, others here must think that my comments were insufficiently subtle, and so made them so subtle as to disappear entirely. I once read in a chinese newpaper, on my way by train to Shanghi from Nanjing, "It's okay to think what you want, it is not okay to say what you want." I see the "man" behind the curtain here has the same philosophy. Left, right?
Um, I'm a registered Independant. I don't identify with either registered Democrats or registered Republicans. That supposedly makes me 'of the center'. Don't tell me this place is centrist. This place is nothing like me, justlike all the rightist places to which I don't bother to go.
I'm a registered Independant. I don't identify with either registered Democrats or registered Republicans. That supposedly makes me 'of the center'. Not really all it shows is that you don’t like Dems or the GOP it doesn’t mean your not a conservative. Maybe you find the GOP too human for your vote.
I'm not you, I'm not like you, and I don't have to fit your definition of who I am. Live with it, or not. That I exist is enough evidence that your preferences are not universal -- merely ideologically pedestrian for your kind.
"This place is nothing like me, justlike all the rightist places to which I don't bother to go. " Ahh, so you dont bother coming here either! All becomes clear!
I'm not you, I'm not like you, and I don't have to fit your definition of who I am. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! No need to get so emotional Mr. Conservative, I know your in a state of denial or ignorance you choose. That I exist is enough evidence that your preferences are not universal Because people like you exist there will always be a need for people like me…Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
