Pile on him! (Not on me!)

A courtÂ’s arrest ruling makes it possible for the prosecutor to request an international arrest warrant via European Union cooperation or Interpol, Tommy Kangasvieri at the National Bureau of Investigation said today in a telephone interview.

...

AssangeÂ’s application for a Swedish residence and work permit, which would have allowed him to establish WikiLeaks as a Swedish publication protected by the constitution, was turned down by the Migration Board.

Hurtig said he was sure an international arrest warrant would be issued by police and that Assange would come to Sweden for questioning.

"Arrest" here seems to have a less-forbidding and more technical meaning than we usually think of in America -- it seems to mean (and I'm not sure I have this right) that he is subject to detention (that's the real meaning of arrest, after all) and questioning about this matter. From what I gather "arrest" in Sweden does not seem to have the usual implication as in America, that is, that a prosecution is expected to follow.

Posted by: Ace at 10:42 AM | Comments (241)
Post contains 197 words, total size 1 kb.

These bastards just don't get that "No means NO!".

As always, Michelle Malkin has the full rundown, including a list of fence sitting Republicans who need to be reminded that we are still in scalp collecting mode.

Jeff Sessions (longtime favorite here at the HQ) has a 10 point fact list about the DREAM Act. Here's a taste.

Ten Things You Need To Know About S.3827, The DREAM Act

1. The DREAM Act Is NOT Limited to Children, And It Will Be Funded On the Backs Of Hard Working, Law-Abiding Americans

Proponents of the DREAM Act frequently claim the bill offers relief only to illegal alien “kids.” Incredibly, previous versions of the DREAM Act had no age limit at all, so illegal aliens of any age who satisfied the Act’s requirements—not just children—could obtain lawful permanent resident (LPR) status. In response to this criticism, S.3827 includes a requirement that aliens be under the age of 35 on the date of enactment to be eligible for LPR status. Even with this cap, many aliens would be at least 41 years old before obtaining full LPR status under the Act—hardly the “kids” the Act’s advocates keep talking about.

The DREAM Act requires that DHS/USCIS process all DREAM Act applications (applications that would require complex, multi-step adjudication) without being able to increase fees to handle processing. This mandate would require either additional Congressional appropriations, or for USCIS, a primarily fee-funded agency, to raise fees on other types of immigration benefit applications. This would unfairly spread the cost of administering the DREAM Act legalization program among applicants and petitioners who have abided by U.S. laws and force taxpayers to pay for amnesty. Taxpayers would also be on the hook for all Federal benefits the DREAM Act seeks to offer illegal aliens, including student loans and grants.

2. The DREAM Act PROVIDES SAFE HARBOR FOR ANY ALIEN, Including Criminals, From Being Removed or Deported If They Simply Submit An Application

Although DREAM Act proponents claim it will benefit only those who meet certain age, presence, and educational requirements, amazingly the Act protects ANY alien who simply submits an application for status no matter how frivolous. The bill forbids the Secretary of Homeland Security from removing “any alien who has a pending application for conditional status” under the DREAM Act—regardless of age or criminal record—providing a safe harbor for all illegal aliens. This loophole will open the floodgates for applications that could stay pending for many years or be litigated as a delay tactic to prevent the illegal aliens’ removal from the United States. The provision will further erode any chances of ending the rampant illegality and fraud in the existing system.

3. Certain Criminal Aliens Will Be Eligible For Amnesty Under The DREAM Act

Certain categories of criminal aliens will be eligible for the DREAM Act amnesty, including alien gang members and aliens with misdemeanor convictions, even DUIs. The DREAM Act allows illegal aliens guilty of the following offenses to be eligible for amnesty: alien absconders (aliens who failed to attend their removal proceedings), aliens who have engaged in voter fraud or unlawfully voted, aliens who have falsely claimed U.S. citizenship, aliens who have abused their student visas, and aliens who have committed marriage fraud. Additionally, illegal aliens who pose a public health risk, aliens who have been permanently barred from obtaining U.S. citizenship, and aliens who are likely to become a public charge are also eligible.

Follow the link to Michelle's place for the full list.

We're going to hear lots of sob stories as they run up to this vote but we need to keep the focus where it belongs...build the damn fence, secure the damn border and deport more criminal illegals. When we see all of those things accomplished then and only then can we even begin to discuss the mere possibility of compassionate exceptions.

Call, email, write. We kicked a bunch of these bastards out already, we need to remind the ones left behind they will be next.

Posted by: DrewM at 09:02 AM | Comments (215)
Post contains 687 words, total size 4 kb.

This has been bothering me. On one hand I'm inclined to just not like invasive pat-downs and naked body scans.

On the other hand, I can't help but think we (especially as conservatives) are supposed to be security-conscious.

This sort of dispute is always implicit in this sort of issue -- the civil libertarian side (supported by some conservatives and many left-wingers) and the security-conscious side (mostly conservatives take this side).

Although there may be some abuses, is it really the best policy to object to methods of bomb-detection which are nearly foolproof? I don't think the body-imaging x-rays can fail to miss an object secreted on someone's body, and even a barely-trained TSA agent can recognize a hidden object when he feels it.

All this "don't touch my junk" stuff -- isn't that just putting up a big sign that says "Terrorists, put your ball of C4 under your testicles"?

If you can't touch in the vicinity of this area, then why bother at all? We've pre-announced exactly where such stuff should be hidden, and of course that is where it will be hidden, then; so there's no point conducting the pat-down at all.

I'm beginning to worry that the public's hackles have been raised without enough thinking about the issue in a way that will wind up benefiting terrorists. As with so many issue, the answer depends on the question posed: Is this a citizen versus his government? Well then, generally, the citizen should win.

But is this more a question of citizens and government against murderous terrorists? That lens makes things look different.

By the way, I don't read this "CAIR says Muslim women can only be searched on the head and neck" press release the way many on the right seem to.

It seems to me the press release is talking about the TSA conducting a specific search promoted only by the hajib. In other words, but for the hajib, the woman would be walked through (as she didn't beep, and didn't get the "sss" random-selection code). But for the hajib, she'd be sent through, having cleared security, but they have a protocol to specifically search the hajib itself.

To me, then, it makes sense that if it's the hajib that's being specifically called out for search then someone would be in their rights to say "No, your protocol isn't for a full-body search, but specifically for the hajib." I don't read this press release as saying hajib-wearers should typically be immune from the body-scan or the opt-out pat-down -- only that if the hajib is being specifically searched, then the search should stay at the hajib area and not become a full-blown pat-down.

So, to me, this doesn't look like a case of special privileges for Muslims (which makes even less sense in this context than usual). So agitation on this particular point seems misplaced.

I had an idea about how to fix the naked-body scan problem. If people are worried about modesty, and TSA agents gawking at them (and that is a real concern), would this solution work?

The TSA scans a batch of people of the same sex, dividing them up. They each go through the body scanner. But, here's the thing, their images are not viewed immediately. Instead they are directed to sit down on a bench to wait for five or six minutes.

Four or five more people of the same sex are sent through and similarly told to sit on the bench.

Only when the machine has imaged five or six people as a group does a TSA agent now cycle through the images (random order). If no one shows anything suspicious, the group of five or six is now permitted to leave the bench and go to their flight.

If and only if one of the images shows something suspicious do they re-scan everybody individually and pat them down.

It's not a perfect solution. In many cases, if the TSA agent really wants to have a peek under the blouse of a stacked girl, or wants to check out a celebrity athlete's package, he or she will have a pretty good guess which image matches which person. But in many cases, it won't be entirely clear who he's looking at. It does provide a little anonymity, or at least the figment of it.

I think I'm increasingly on the side of the basic notion of this sort of security protocol. Adjustments may be needed. I don't want terrorists blowing up planes, after all. Nobody does. But it seems to me that if we're, as we often say, serious about terrorism and security, we can't be quick to dismiss a technology which seems pretty damn effective in finding hidden bombs.

And, by the way, I'm still in favor of Israeli-style security measures, too, including profiling. But I doubt that will ever be implemented... so we need a Plan B.

Posted by: Ace at 08:41 AM | Comments (898)
Post contains 839 words, total size 5 kb.

Gawd.

WASHINGTON—Rep. Charles Rangel is pleading for mercy after the House ethics committee earlier this week found him guilty of 11 violations of House rules. The panel is meeting at noon Thursday to decide on a punishment.

"There can be no excuse for my acts of omission. I've failed in carrying out my responsibilities. I made numerous mistakes,'' Mr. Rangel said in remarks prepared for delivery at Thursday's hearing before the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.

If all they can realistically do is reprimand or censure him, what the hell kind of mercy is he cryin for, a hug?

UPDATE: just because

more...

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 07:14 AM | Comments (169)
Post contains 118 words, total size 1 kb.

A heretic is someone who shares almost all your beliefs. Kill him.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:50 AM | Comments (305)
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.

I have come to accept that I am utterly fucked living here.
I try to dance around it, try to keep a smile, but Rome is burning.
So, I have begun to fiddle.
Free image to save and remind us Californians how screwed we are, and the work in progress it is part of after that: more...

Posted by: CAC at 08:02 PM | Comments (121)
Post contains 188 words, total size 2 kb.

Quite Possibly The Greatest Video of All Time

And also the most insane. Who came up with the idea for the turtle man? And how come I never saw this video until now?

I must have watched it at least 10 times so far and now I feel like I'm going crazy in the coconuts. But it's a happy crazy with a good beat.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:43 PM | Comments (448)
Post contains 471 words, total size 6 kb.

Yeah, like I could let this go without comment. Several social conservatives (I'm assuming; I only recognize a handful of names on the list) are peeved at what they think is unfair criticism of Senator DeMint in the wake of the election.

To be honest with you, I think they're trying to seize a bit of victimhood away from Sarah Palin on behalf of DeMint. There was coverage in the papers and the cable news networks about the possibility that Palin cost the GOP some pick-ups in the House and Senate. Oh, and here at the HQ too, I guess. You know what I didn't see? People saying that it was Jim DeMint's fault. [Update: Commenters point me to this Politico piece wherein Lila Munkovski criticizes DeMint. Compared to the wall-to-wall "analysis" on TV, blogs, and newspapers that Palin was subjected to, this is weak sauce.]

Nevertheless, several social conservatives, eager to seize credit...or, um, blame on behalf of DeMint have issued the following fatwa pronouncement:

[1]We do not expect or advocate for ideological purity in the Republican Party, but we do expect the PartyÂ’s leadership to rein in those who unfairly attack Senator DeMint, who instead should be given credit for what he has done, and done with such class, honor, humility, dignity and patriotism.

[2]Since Republicans in and affiliated with the Senate who have attacked Senator Jim DeMint have an agenda, and may not heed calls to reason from the Republican leadership, let it be known that continued attacks, whether indirectly or anonymously, will result in conservativesÂ’ responding in word and deed.

[3]Conservatives will not only challenge and beat more Republican senators in Republican primaries, but conservatives will stop funding and volunteering for the NRSC and the RNC. Instead, conservatives will send their money to, and volunteer for, Senator DeMintÂ’s Senate Conservative Fund and the candidates Senator DeMint supports. In fact, it would be our goal for the Senate Conservatives Fund to raise more money than the NRSC.

[4]Conservatives will also work to defeat in Republican primaries those Republicans who retain consultants who criticize or try to undermine Senator DeMint.

There's a bit of preamble, but it contains such awkward (and in a few cases just plain wrong) English, that I won't inflict it on you. (Seriously, to whoever wrote this, go look up the word "unilateral" in a dictionary. It doesn't mean what you think it does.) Definitely click over to see who signed on, though. You'll recognize a few names.

But I want to give a bit of advice to these would-be defenders of Senator Dear Leader (not to be confused with President Dear Leader, the other fellow with an apparent cult following these days).

First, and most importantly, it does no good to threaten the "Party leadership" that they better shape up or else (statement [1]) while simultaneously vowing that no matter what they do (statement [2]) you still plan to defund their organizations and vote them out of office (statements [3] and [4]). Y'see, since you've already declared war, your apparent enemies (?) have little reason to give in to your demands. You showed your cards. Since you obviously have no intention of doing anything other than flipping out on the GOP, there's no point in adopting a policy of appeasement.

Second, I will be astonished if you guys manage to respond "in word and deed" to "indirect and anonymous" attacks on Senator Dear Leader. Right off the bat I'm wondering: how does one meaningfully respond in word and deed to an attack made anonymously? How would you even know at whom to make a response? Or are you saying that anonymous attacks will be met with, err...defunding the NRC and the NRSC and voting against GOP senators in primaries? Because we get that part. Frankly, I just don't think you'll be all that good at it.

Third, a whole bunch of conservatives are now pissed at you for childishly seizing the name "conservative" and purporting to speak for all of them. It's a tone thing. Don't be that guy. It provokes an indignant response: just who the hell are you? Oh, I see you're those people who signed your names to the bottom. I get that. But, again, I don't know most of you folks from Adam. And several of the organizations that appear associated with this pronouncement haven't been all that noteworthy in conservative circles for a few years. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to have you on board. But don't you dare try and throw our folks overboard. They're in this too, thank you very much.

In short, grow up. The GOP just made massive gains in the House and Senate. Instead of pulling together to kick the shit out of Obama and the Democrats during the lame duck, you want to beat up your fellow conservatives and Republicans for imaginary slights to your Senator Dear Leader. Trust me when I say that Jim DeMint and his putative place within the "movement that is the successor to Ronald Reagan, William F. Buckley, Jr., and other great progenitors of the conservative movement" is less on the minds of the average GOP voter than you think.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:03 PM | Comments (345)
Post contains 837 words, total size 5 kb.

Thank you, Jesus. Thank you from the bottom of my heart. This is like Alien v. Predator, Leonard v. Hagler, Seinfeld v. Newman, Ralph Macchio v. The Cobra Kai Dojo and Olbermann v. Stewart all wrapped up in one delicious bite. If only I had cornered the market on popcorn before this fateful day!

Say it with me now: TWO CULTS ENTER! ONE CULT LEAVES! TWO CULTS ENTER! ONE CULT LEAVES!

Let's go to the tape:

In the Red corner, wearing wraparound black shades and a poofy polyester vest, we've got God's Own Avenger, Fred Phelps. He's old, but he's evil - and he's all about family. (Which is evidenced by the fact that his "church" is pretty much made up of his extended family members.) He really really really really really really really really really really really really really really disagrees with the current acceptance of homosexuality in modern culture. Up 'til now, he's warmed up on public events like Matthew Shephard's funeral, the funerals of US servicemen who died serving their country, and attending the 1988 Democratic National Convention as an invited guest of Al Gore - but now he's ready to step up a weight class and compete for the Heavyweight Title Belt.

In the Blue corner, wearing a hijab and carrying The Sword of Allah, we've got the Dearborn Islamic Center. They don't hate America................but they TOTALLY understand your motivation if you want to shoot up an Army Recruiting Center or lob a bomb into a synagogue. They don't take kindly to cartoons of their beloved prophet, so expect them to bring their "A" game when their opponents bring out the MOHAMMED WAS A PEDOPHILE signs.

Folks, this will be an EPIC battle. Think "Thunderdome" with monster trucks. Think "Battle of the Bands" with Kiss (in full makeup) and Tenacious D facing off in a ROCKOFF! Think "Snakes on a Plane"...............

Oh wait. Don't.

This is Fred's chance to stand up and make himself into a Holy Martyr for the Cause, and I for one hope he takes FULL advantage of the opportunity.

Of course, the downside to Fred becoming a martyr would be the whole death thing, plus upon his arrival at the Pearly Gates he might be just a wee bit shocked to find that the authority on whether or not to allow him to enter has been temporarily delegated to ............ Freddy Mercury.

(Oh, that Jehovah. He LOVES a good prank.)
more...

Posted by: Russ from Winterset at 04:09 PM | Comments (154)
Post contains 473 words, total size 3 kb.

Above the post update:

From Jake Tapper:

DOJ says it's "pleased" Ahmed Ghailani facing min. of 20 years in prison + potential life sentence" for role in the embassy bombings

What in the world are they talking about? What the fuck?

Fuller story on the case here. He was found not guilty on the 224 murder counts but guilty to being part of the conspiracy. Not sure how that works. Maybe Gabe can weigh in on that later.

Original Post:
Just breaking.

Update: Guantanamo detainee convicted of conspiracy, cleared of terrorism charges in 1998 embassy bombings in Africa - Reuters

This isn't out of the blue. I blogged about the case back in October when the judge pretty much threw out the government's case.

Follow the link, you'll see that Ghailani confessed to delivering the explosives in the case.

Heck of a job by Obama and Holder. They of course will blame Bush saying the CIA interrogation regime is what made the trial unwinnable . Well, intelligence is more important than convictions sometimes. Bush and Congress figured out a way to balance that with the Military Commissions Act but Professor Obama knew better.

Now what are you going to do Barack?

There was news from the trial earlier in the week when there appeared to be one hold out juror. I figured there was one idiot holding out for acquittal, not it seems the jurror may have been the only one voting to convict.

Heck of a job Team Awesome! Heck of a job!

So, how's that decision on trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in federal court coming along?

Posted by: DrewM at 02:13 PM | Comments (275)
Post contains 300 words, total size 2 kb.