Yes, I am aware of the issues with starvation in poverty in most of Africa and other parts of the non-industrialized world. Somalia also covers the Horn of Africa and is a prime staging ground for pirates attacking ships heading through the Suez. I also have seen sporadic coverage throughout the years that tends to peak when some sexy news story hits about pirates or something else, black hawk downs incident was what, 2 decades ago?

Point taken though, this was probably the wrong story to comment on this about. I think I am just confused that a non-story about the relaties of maritime activity in the region, that probably would have been ignored a few weeks ago, happens to rise to a point of note.

The Nation's article on CIA black sites? I may have been in a bubble, but I don't recall many articles mentioning Somalia until The Nation ran their article about the US Torture camps in Somalia.

Now I see article, after article, about how there is a humanitarian crisis in that country is caused by people the US want to torture/murder and now an article about how climate change research is being hampered by evil people in the area. It all seems a little much.

I really want to stay away from tinfoil hat material but, when a story about torture camps run by the US gov seems to be ignored and then humanization problems seems to appear at the same time, I can't help but wonder if a counter information campaign, like what the hack on HBGary help to expose may be responsible.

I cant really agree with either of you. Killing poor people because they were born in the wrong part of the world is EVIL. Kidnapping, torturing and, in some cases, killing people because they share the same name/alias(in that a guys alias is actually their name)/religion/sold to by tribal rivals is EVIL.

Both acts are disgusting.

To be clear, the Bush torture program found some random low ranking lawyer to sign off, but we haven't seen reports that his attorneys general, office of legal counsel and [major governing agency] disagreed. To equate this asinine legal opinion to Bush we would have to go to the domestic spying program.

This illegal wiretap program had the counsel of the FBI, OLC and the attorneys general saying that its incredibly illegal. You know, the program that Ashcroft refused to sign off on and was visited in a hospital room and refused to sign? The one that Bush modified to get Ashcroft to sign off on, that the NYT sat on until the end of the election, and that even after being modified(so that Ashcroft would signoff on)was still illegal.

Like Bush's unmodified wiretap program, Obama had his OLC, Pentagon Legal Counsel and (as the NYT buries on A6 in the second to last paragraph of a 21 paragraph article) the Attorneys General.

tl;dr Both obscene decisions come at the objection of the Attorneys General;OLC and [major governing agency],

I am at a loss for words. That has to be one of the stupidest thoughts I have ever read.

I can't wait until the first poor defendant goes before a judge as says "If crack was in fact a drug" then of course id be a drug dealer.

It makes me sad to begin thinking that the set of birthers who think Obama never went to law school may be on to something.

Maybe, I think the leading causes will be debated by historians for decades. Wired has a summary(wordpress link to the same story, after wireds part in Bradley Manning and their smear job of Bruce Ives I have a hard time sending traffic there) and a google search will pull open more debates and comments about the link between anthrax and the Iraq War.

From what I remember about late 2001, the events of 9/11 were traumatic and confusing, but not really fear inspiring. It felt more like a one off, more similar to the Cole, embassy bombings or all the hijackings/bombings of planes in the decade before. Getting on a plane was scary for a few months, but that was about it. The anthrax was completely different.

With the anthrax we had a few weeks of new reports that people were getting sick or dying. And unlike working in a fancy highrise in New York City, everyone gets the mail and everyone could be a potential victim. Anthrax brought about a sustained fear of terrorism where anyone could be a victim, and made people afraid that they could be the victim of WMD's that would kill, not a few thousand, but millions.

I am sure the discussion as to the major cause of Iraq will continue for decades for many reasons least of which is probably not that the national science foundation doesn't accept the FBIs conclusions where the science is concerned, and that aside from Bruce Ives was creepy the anthrax investigation pointed back to government labs.

tl;dr Powell didn't go before the security council with a toy plane but with a vial of anthrax.

One of the few times? Seriously??

Can you name one "terrorist" attack that hasn't been severly one sided in terms of cost?

• Oklahoma city - for less than $5k there was 82.5Million in investigative cost alone
• 9/11 -4 Planes, Several buildings, more expensive airport security, loss of jobs, etc have been estimated at over 2 trillion. +10 years of expensive war in Afghanistan
• Anthrax Attacks - for the cost of 7 letters we got a clean up that the FBI put over 1billion and the war in Iraq
• Liquid bombers - didn't even happen and we got more security theater and still have restrictions on liquids
• Times square bomber - unsuccessful attack that got politically elites talking about suspending Miranda
• Underwear bomb - Super expensive scanners and more security theater.

Seriously, what "terrorist" attack in the last 10 years were you thinking of that hasn't caused a serous disproportionate response? Why do you think there seem to be more attacks in the last few years? For every couple thousand spent blowing, or attempting to blow, something up we spend hundreds or millions/billions/trillions reacting to it and every few large attacks causes the US to give away more of the "freedom(s)" that the terrorists hate. Over the last decade

No, its not true. The Ars, Amazon and EBGames all list the release date nearly a week later on June 14th.

I don't understand your PBS link. The article mentions that MoveOn advocated for public funding of Public Broadcasting, not PBS advocating for MoveOn. Some how you take an organizations(MoveOn) advocacy for a third party(PBS) and use that as evidence that the third party(PBS) is advocating for the other group(MoveOn.)

If this logic holds up does that mean that Palin supports neo-Nazi's as many of those groups supported her and McCain in the last election cycle?

I know most people are looking for snuff porn and other want conformation (really???) and if those were the only reason for not releasing the photos I would totally understand; but, they are not the only reason.

Like it or not the US is supposed to be a country governed by law not by fiat. Over the past decade we have been compelled to listen to tortured rhetoric that [The "war" on terror is justified because they don't respect out freedom(s).] To use that logic, to say that the US is the greatest country ever, to say we have a constitution that protects people from the government and that is "why they hate us" requires us to live up to our ideals. This means:
you CANNOT wiretap everyone(4th amendment)
you CANNOT torture(5th and 8th amendments)
you CANNOT order the assassination of a US Citizen(and possibly not really anyone) because they said something mean(1st; 5th; 6th; 8th amendments)
you CANNOT convict someone in a secret trial where they are unable to defend themselves(5th and 6th amendments.)

Why I would like a few groups like Amnesty, UNOHCHR, maybe ACLU to examine the photos, and more importantly the videos, is to verify that despite the "misstatements" by the US government and witness at the compound, bin Laden was NOT captured and executed.

I know that many of you don't care and that any trial would have only been for show and achieved the same outcome. But if we are going to pretend to be a nation governed by laws, and if we are going to be forced to listen to our tea party (republican) friends go on and on about the supremacy of the constitution, and we continue to spout "they hate us for our freedoms", then shouldn't we at least pay lip service to that founding document?

tl;dr: Release the video to have reputable NGOs verify that bin laden was killed while in a frantic shootout; err using a human shield; I mean lunging for a weapon(but that doesn't make too much sense since the combatants shot one of his wives in the calf while she was lunging at them(I guess UBL hasn't been running much and has small calves?))how about: doing anything other than look confused while and armed force descended on his house.

And do you really think that the reason people are willing to be martyrs for their cause is because of bin laden? More importantly do you really think the threat of "terrorism" will ever go away? Every drone strike, every "hunting party", every time a coalition (read: US) soldier kills another person you create more people willing to pick up the standard of anti-western imperialism. The US has done far more to foment the anti-Western cause than bin laden ever could. But don't take my word for it, General McChrystal has spoken numerous times on the subject.

Declare mission accomplished and an end to combat operations, make up some BS about a duty to the region, etc. To appease the militant masses in the US you can leave a bunch of "security advisers" who will stay there forever (see Korea, Germany, Japan, Cuba, Philippines or Iraq for examples.) The death of bin laden is the golden opportunity to get out of the Afghan quagmire and stop wasting money and lives for the sake of looking tough.

Seriously? Promote the general Welfare is right after after provide for the common defence in the preamble to the constitution. You could also probably catagorize public health care in to insuring domestic Tranquility(prevent epidemics) and establishing Justice(break your back doing manual labor, organization you got hurt working for has to pick up the tab.)

Also,I am not sure how publicly invading three other countries, and having "secret" bombing campaigns in several others, counts as defense.

The summary draws the conclusion: that despite the Xoom being a good product, what moves tablets isn't the product but the marketing and hype. And despite how long tablets have been around the average person on a sales floor can't really tell you what their good for, where as at the apple store they know their talking points about the device and are able to make a more convincing sale.

The jump I made when I read the article is that:
a) the average person can't articulate what a tablet is good for and what it can do for you, unlike a phone, pc, tv, microwave, etc. Since the average store clerk can't vocalize the benefit of a tablet people don't buy the Xoom, but because Apple will tell you why a tablet is so awesome people buy the iPad. If this long after a product launch, the average person can't tell you anything benefit to the device other than you hipster friends will think you are cool, it could be an indicator of a fad.

b) People aren't buying tablets from Apple because they have a need for a tablet, or because it fits a niche that their otehr computing platforms lack, they are buying because its Apple and a new thing. If that is true than it's even more of an indicator that its a fad, and much like furby there is not a large market for them past one or two generations.

What would have made the article much better would be trending numbers for sales of both Xoom and the iPad. What rate are they currently selling at? What is the conversion rate between the two? Did iPad and Xoom have similar sales before the launch of iPad2? How do sales of iPad2 compare with the original? Really any hard information would have been better than Apple stores look cool.

Seriously, what is wrong with people like you? Yes, many progressives that voted for Obama are pissed at him and don't have any problem painting him with the same brush as the previous war mongering corporate shill. But he isn't McCain. Let me repeat that he is not McCain! On the one you have a guy who at least appears to be anti-kill poor people in third world countries, pro-civil liberties, pro-rule of law and he is even a constitution scholar. On the other you have someone who talks about staying in Iraq for another 100 years and during the campaign appear to run to embrace the policies of the last 8 years(plus don't forget the running mate, if that doesn't show poor judgment I don't know what does.)

Well it turns out we may be stuck in Iraq for a 100 years, the erosion of privacy, indefinite detention, preemptive war(without congress approval this time,) a large healthcare bill that, while helping to cover more Americans, effectively requires you to hand over money to private corporations and if you can't afford to the government will step in and help you pay money to private corporations. And the list goes on.

So yes, progressives are pissed, but had it to do over again I still probably would have voted for him. I would rather play Russian Roulette with a six shooter and five rounds than play with a semi-automatic. The result may be the same but at least there is hope.

I never really understood the conservative echo chambers view of the NYT, or NPR for that matter. Why do you people hate it so much?

My perception of both organizations is that they occasionally do an interesting piece but are more than willing to bury a news stories like: CIA black sites, warrantless wiretapping of US citizens, etc. and their editorial boards seem to take their lead from whoever is in Washington regardless of party. Although they can both be lazy to when it comes to fact checking the errors usually seem to benefit the neo-con view of the world(examples from the last decade NYT:Judith Miller NPR:anything related to O'Keeffe.) I would think the echo chamber would be in full support of these factual inaccuracies, not against them.

Maybe the issue is that these outlets occasionally deviate from their SOP of protecting those in power and report a different view of the world? Deviate from the script of: its the browns/Muslims/foreigners that are making you poor, when talking to the "right", or its the teabaggers/"stupids" in middle America, when talking to the "left", and start talking about how its those with power/resources who are making you life worse, paying you lower wages for longer hours, sending your children to die in conflicts whose point or reason has been forgotten or eroding your right to basic human rights and dignity and you are made to pay. Stop framing the discussion in terms of it’s the other average person that is you enemy not those in power and you are derided by those who control the echo chamber as having "liberal" bias or a conservative "bias".

You mean going to the US government and asking what it is OK for them to print?
NYT: We have evidence of massive illegal wiretaps from the federal government
US Gov:Ummm, could you not print that we are kind running for reelection right now and the general populous, although kinda stupid and they tend to let us do what ever we want if we just say there are scary terrorists(read:non-whites/non-christians) out there who are going to eat your babies, they may vote us out of power.
NYT: Okey-doke, just let us know when it's ok to tell the country of your crimes.

Seriously though, the NYT goes around bragging about getting the administrations permission before publishing anything bad.

In fact Wikileaks doesn't trust the NYT and so now cuts them out of their releases. The last batch the NYT had to get from another newspaper.