Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

FBI Head Wants Strong Data Retention Rules 256

KevHead writes "Speaking at a conference of international police chiefs, FBI Director Robert Mueller called for strict data retention guidelines for US ISPs. Echoing DHS head Michael Cherthoff's assertion that the Internet was enabling terrorists to telecommute to work, Mueller went further and said that the US needs stricter data retention guidelines. '"All too often, we find that before we can catch these offenders, Internet service providers have unwittingly deleted the very records that would help us identify these offenders and protect future victims," Mueller said. The solution? Forcing ISPs to retain data for set periods of time.' If that happens, how long before the MPAA and RIAA start asking to take a peek at the data too, as they have in Europe?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FBI Head Wants Strong Data Retention Rules

Comments Filter:
  • Data Retention... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TheGreatHegemon ( 956058 ) on Thursday October 19, 2006 @02:52AM (#16497971)
    A broken solution for a non-existent problem.
  • Re:ugh.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cloricus ( 691063 ) on Thursday October 19, 2006 @02:52AM (#16497973)
    Agreed. I also have a few troubles with the arguement here... "We are going to retain data in America to catch terrorists in other countries like Iran and Iraq!" ...Does any one else smell 'omg teh terrorists r coming lol all j00r privacy r belong to us?'
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19, 2006 @02:54AM (#16497985)
    I used darkstat once on 2 T1's for a 24 hour period just the URL log was over 500MB, no packet captures, no session data.
    Just imagine an OC-3, you are talking about a lot of storage space.
  • why? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by macadamia_harold ( 947445 ) on Thursday October 19, 2006 @02:56AM (#16497995) Homepage
    Mueller went further and said that the US needs stricter data retention guidelines.

    With the AT&Ts "collaboration" with the NSA, and CARNIVORE, one would think the government already has all the tools they need. Are they now saying that's not enough? That's kind of pathetic, don't you think?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19, 2006 @02:57AM (#16498007)
    According to the article: Psychological Warfare: "The Internet--an uncensored medium that carries stories, pictures, threats, or messages regardless of their validity or potential impact--is peculiarly well suited to allowing even a small group to amplify its message and exaggerate its importance and the threat it poses."

    Isn't what the actual US government doing, with its war on terra'? Bush and the terrorists, same combat.
  • by QuantumG ( 50515 ) <> on Thursday October 19, 2006 @03:12AM (#16498113) Homepage Journal
    if the people who make legislation actually had some idea about the problem the legislation was supposed to solve? Or, ya know, refused to vote for something they didn't understand? Just a simple "introduction to hacking" course would help so many of them recognise that data retention aint going to help you track a hacker. I hate to say it, but I honestly think the only way to "police the Internet" is to give policing powers to a police force. Those powers would include the right to enter systems without permission, install logging software, etc. Question is, who would you want to trust with that much power?
  • by khasim ( 1285 ) <> on Thursday October 19, 2006 @03:23AM (#16498159)
    Despite all the statistical evidence that this does NOT work to PREVENT any "terrorist" acts ... they will attempt to use this to intimidate people into voluntarily restricting their actions.

    When every search / posting / IM / etc from you is available to elected officials (and may be accidentally "leaked"), they hope that most people will self-censor their activities to only items that would be "appropriate".

    Should you ever take a stand against the elected officials, they will have access to your records ... but you will not have access to their's. Asymmetrical. And because they are the government, they can release only the information they want from your records. Only the information that shows that you are really a wannabe child molesting, America hating, terrorist loving, Communistic, gay atheist.

    It's all about maintaining power and control.
  • by ConfusedSelfHating ( 1000521 ) on Thursday October 19, 2006 @03:26AM (#16498179)

    Since the terrorists will be using encrypted messages or coded messages which don't appear to be anything special (you know those -1 Slashdot comments are for something), this will help retrace the terrorist's online activities after people have died in a terrorist attack. My guess: lots of porn and a few messages to E-mail accounts which no longer exist.

    It's just that there are so many disposable E-mail accounts available and the easy access to Internet cafes. If someone is using a disposable E-mail account and an Internet terminal which is paid for in loose change (usually used in airports), how are you going to track that person down one month later? What if the terminal is outside the United States?

    Not to mention free Linksys brand wireless Internet access which is available in most areas.

    Any government fighting terrorists needs to setup its own terrorist propaganda websites which make use of Microsoft Internet Explorer's many vulnerabilities. Spyware for the spies. Microsoft's poor security practices not only hurt you, they also hurt the terrorists. Of course terrorists using Firefox screws us all.

  • by pieterh ( 196118 ) on Thursday October 19, 2006 @03:28AM (#16498185) Homepage
    Here's the trick. Don't scare your population with too many moves at once. Take away their freedoms one by one, starting with the ones no-one really cares about. Let other countries take one step too far, and if their populations don't squeal, make a further step yourself.

    So the EU enacted its spy state law last year, while people said, "even the states does not go that far". The EU Data Retention Directive wants (it needs to be ratified by individual countries) to track every phone call made, every email sent, every web site visited, every cell phone location, and hold this data for over a decade. The data would be available to non-governmental organisations (private firms). Anonymous internet usage would be banned. Anonymous prepaid mobile phone cards would be banned. All this, of course, to save us from terrorism and organised crime.

    And the UK has constructed a surveillance system that beats anything ever built by the soviet spy states. Every public urban space is monitored, recorded, tracked. The only privacy you have is in your home, where you are safely under house arrest, unable to do anything to damage the interests of the state.

    It was just a matter of time before the FBI asked for the same powers. What police force would not? It's a copper's wet dream. Every one of us stinking criminals-in-waiting tracked like cockroaches in a pen. No more crime. No more disorder. No more rebellion.
  • On Liberty: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by i)ave ( 716746 ) on Thursday October 19, 2006 @03:40AM (#16498261)
    Excerpt from John Stuart Mill's On Liberty
    "The principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That is the only purpose for which power can be rightfully excersized over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."

    There are 2 questions, really:
    • 1) Does spying on everyone's internet use threaten everyone's Liberty to use it?
    • 2) What happens when there are 2 people, meaning to harm others, but the only way to know how to prevent that harm is to restrict their "liberty of action" along with everyone else's?

    If you're looking for a guess, I don't have it. All I know is that it bothers me when the government's fear of people they can't even identify is enough reason for them to start "monitoring" the 300 million people in our country that they can identify. I don't know how much liberty one has if they are aware that everything they type, or every call they make, is "monitored". Is that liberty? Does that make anyone feel safer?

  • Re:ugh.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rooked_One ( 591287 ) on Thursday October 19, 2006 @03:57AM (#16498367) Journal
    my point is that we can't even do the simple stuff - mail... how do we expect to beat encryption over myspace, proxied through an FTP server in thailand? i'm sure we could go on and on, but lets face it... these terrorists are not idiots... they can carry out what they plan... The leaders probably got their educations at the same places we did!
  • Re:ugh.... (Score:0, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19, 2006 @04:17AM (#16498459)
    I'll humor all the good intentioned idiots and give a brief overview of the real problems facing national security.

    The only thing the government seems remotely capable of securing is specific locations with limited interaction with the public. Everything else is vaporware and an excuse to award fat contracts for feel good theatre props. If half the money pissed away on that inane "war on drugs" was spent on securing utilities and vital public services, and this money was properly managed,(Proper managment of these resources would be localised with rigorous pen testing. It's vague. blow me. pay me as a consultant and I'll put some effort in to the sollution) it might be possible to put something real in place of all the expensive theatrics. This would have twice the impact because 90% of all financial incentive to rape our nation's security originates from drug prohibition. (if you want a real number compare human traffiking profit estimates to drug traffiking profit estimates)

    Illegal immigration is a headache in itself that needs to be delt with. That's one of the most difficult problems because it originates from overpopulation which is deliberately encouraged by those with financial sway to drive down cost of labor. Good luck getting control of those strings let alone solving the problem in the near future short of mass murder. As far as long term solutions go, you could try encouraging responsible population managment but good luck distracting the religious wack jobs long enough to pull that one off. I'll throw you a bone and suggest liberal use of shiny homosexuals.

    The failures at life who find that offensive, but are evenly remotely educated enough to appreciate the rest of this post win the prize for managing to get that far in life and still believe in fairy tales. In short: Blow me. Go ahead. I drew first blood. Start a flamewar you useless pieces of shit. Use your hard earned debate skills to discredit me and my ideas. After all, I started it. Contribute to the problem. I am because I don't give a shit. I dream for an oppurtunity to bend every last one of you meddling fucks over a table and financially ass/skull fuck you till you're bleeding money all the way to the retirement home to die. I couldn't give two shits if you never get your security pony. I watch my own ass. I expect nothing. Wannabe comedians can crack some lame ass joke to dance around the issue John Stewart style(I have nothing but respect for John Stewart) about me taking myself too seriously. Watch. These jerkoffs will post "You take yourself too seriously." 10 times in a row just because I said that. Predictable fucking clown shoes.

    Reasons why none of this will ever happen: Why the fuck would anyone waste time and energy actually protecting all of your useless asses? All the people making decisions have the best security for themselves money can buy. Nobody is going to give you anything in life. Beggars can't be choosers and your beggar filth asses will take what is given to you and you will like it. You are a dime a dozen and if you don't like it tough shit.

    Security? You think the cop uniform makes the guy with a gun any less of a threat to your unarmed ass? That's prison bitch mentality. Suck off the man, pay your taxes, the legbreakers won't throw you in prison with the lions. We have 6.5 billion people on this planet thanks to cunts like the pope. 1 in 6.5 billion is cut throat odds. If you don't like that, please off yourself so I can get my piece that much more easily. What the fuck am I talking about, if you ever pulled your head out your ass in the first place, you put it back in to the sand before you got this far. In conclusion: fuck off, blow me, and die you useless cunts.
  • by tehSpork ( 1000190 ) on Thursday October 19, 2006 @04:22AM (#16498481)
    First, the practical:

    I'm sorry, but I am not going to waste my resources storing every email every one of my customers has received from now until kingdom come. Unlike Google, I don't have the spare cash sitting around for that kind of storage space. Make it a law and I bet you see a surge of ISPs basing their servers offshore to protect their investment (customer privacy mainly).

    Secondly, the privacy concern

    So the FBI reading my sarcastic emails to friends and family is going to help us catch a bunch of terrorists who, last I heard, had one webmaster who was stupid enough to get himself arrested in Germany? I've got news for you guys: Teenagers, CEOs, and computer enthusiasts coordinate things through the internet. I imagine terrorists prefer suicide bombing training camps or mountain hideaways for their secret conferences. Besides, we haven't heard anything of Al Qaeda declaring Jihad on Microsoft over Netmeeting or even MSN Messenger, so it is highly doubtful that they have tried to use them. :p

    As far as 'terrorist websites' go, the FBI just needs to get some of their buds at the CIA to break into the server and plant a basic hit reporter. Figure out who is logging in and making changes, and you've got your man.
  • by jimicus ( 737525 ) on Thursday October 19, 2006 @04:32AM (#16498531)
    The connection logs are often all you need to paint a strong picture of who's in contact with who.

    Let's say, for instance, that the logs for my telephone show a number of calls to a satellite phone in Afghanistan. Suddenly, I'm a suspect the next time a bomb goes off within about 150 miles of me. What am I saying to this person in Afghanistan? Well, actually, it's my sister who went over there as part of a red cross relief effort, but the local police don't know that and while they're holding me to confirm it, my employer is asking questions.

    Questions like "What sort of a person is this who was arrested last week and hasn't been heard from since? Best replace him."

    After that happens, it's rather hard to get another job. A common interview question is "Why did you leave your last job?" and the honest answer ("I was arrested and held under the Prevention of Terrorism Act owing to poor evidence") tends to put off prospective employers - chances are they stopped listening after the word "arrested" and now just want me off the premises as quickly as possible.
  • Re:ugh.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by badfish99 ( 826052 ) on Thursday October 19, 2006 @04:36AM (#16498549)
    But there are plenty of idiot would-be terrorists who have no hope of carrying out what they are planning, but who are more than willing to martyr themselves by pleading guilty when they are caught (here [] is an example).

    If the police can keep up a steady trickle of arrests of people like this, the "war on terror" can be kept going indefinitely.
  • Re:ugh.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gkhan1 ( 886823 ) <<moc.liamg> <ta> <nossdravgisrakso>> on Thursday October 19, 2006 @04:56AM (#16498639)
    Exactly! If the terrorists use encryption and anonymizers (like TOR) it's going to be impossible to track them. They don't even have to go that far, I'd like to see the FBI track a terrorist planning session going on in a lvl 60 raid in World of Warcraft (Al-Qaida, the guild!). You can always hide online, and the damn feds are too stupid to realise it.
  • Re:why? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by whathappenedtomonday ( 581634 ) on Thursday October 19, 2006 @06:25AM (#16499003) Journal
    one would think the government already has all the tools they need. Are they now saying that's not enough?

    They already have a lot of data, but that's not what it's all about:

    "Disaffected people living in the United States may develop radical ideologies and potentially violent skills over the Internet and that could present the next major U.S. security threat, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said on Monday."

    So, it's not just Terrorists (TM) anymore, it's the "disaffected" they're after.

  • by DDLKermit007 ( 911046 ) on Thursday October 19, 2006 @06:33AM (#16499029)
    Thank god for judicial review. Too bad it won't happen before the crackpot gets replaced.
  • Here is the deal (Score:4, Insightful)

    by el_womble ( 779715 ) on Thursday October 19, 2006 @06:55AM (#16499129) Homepage
    It is the job of:

    • Doctors to tell politions that everything that is bad for us should be banned and force us to live in a bubble to to stop us from getting sick.
    • Armed Forces to say that we should destroy all other nations and force us to live in bunkers to prevent us from getting killed
    • Police Force to demand that they can monitor all people at all times in order to stop crime
    • Politians to defend our liberty from all of these people, inform you of all of their findings and to impose laws to protect your freedoms not increase security
    • You to make sure your elected officials are doing what you and your fellow country men

    It is the guy from the FBIs job to demand that our freedoms be observered and monitored. It is his job to lobby politians to pass laws to make his job easier and minimize the tax burden of his department. Its the politians job to take him seriously, concider the facts and then tell him bollocks. If he fails to do this it is your job to make it very clear that this is unacceptable, and then not vote for him in the next elections. If he gets in, then thats democracy, and the freedom that you thought was important, was clearly not that important to your fellow countryman.

    Its perfectly possible that, despite living in a liberal democracy at the moment what the people want is to live under the rule of a paternal dictatorship - people are stupid. If thats the case, then democracy will let that happen. All you can do then is either raise a militia or leave. I guess you could always try and educate people, but thats never worked in the past ;)
  • And in other News (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Instine ( 963303 ) on Thursday October 19, 2006 @07:10AM (#16499201)
    Mouse Wants More Cheese!
  • by hummassa ( 157160 ) on Thursday October 19, 2006 @07:10AM (#16499205) Homepage Journal
    His plan goes like:
    1. make some attacks to high-profile targets in US and its allies
    2. see how those people will (slowly but surely) erode their civil liberties and transform _their_ countries in the same kind of totalitarian theocracies as Taliban-Afghanistan
    3. ???
    4. Profit!!!
    PS. too bad those intelligent, enlightened, Spanish people saw right thru our plan and threw Aznar off.
  • Re:ugh.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Instine ( 963303 ) on Thursday October 19, 2006 @07:18AM (#16499247)
    Not trying to start a flame war here, but maybe its not them that are so stupid. They keep getting these grants, for these ludicrous ideas... They (FBI et al) have good health care and wages... Maybe its the general public who allow this crap to be paid for through their taxes that are the 'less well informed'. Time to stop griping and start telling the zombie nation, that they're bein taken for, well, zombies.
  • Re:The Fifth Wave* (Score:5, Insightful)

    by meringuoid ( 568297 ) on Thursday October 19, 2006 @07:25AM (#16499293)
    Donating to charity acting as a front to funnel money to terrorist organizations is a crime.

    We're all very glad of that over in the UK, by the way. Otherwise, just imagine how much money the IRA would have been able to raise from American donations! Fortunately, the US government always took a very hard line on this and made sure that their citizens were not responsible for funding a terror campaign against their own allies.

  • by LiquidCoooled ( 634315 ) on Thursday October 19, 2006 @07:49AM (#16499439) Homepage Journal
    Either that or they are totally innocent and have been infected with a trojan.
  • It won't work (Score:4, Insightful)

    by tkrotchko ( 124118 ) * on Thursday October 19, 2006 @07:54AM (#16499483) Homepage
    Sure, you can write a law full of language that says it can only be used against terrorists etc etc etc. You can write a law that is 1000's of pages in length detailing these correct uses. ...and then 10 minutes later, somebody attaches a provision to a farm subsidy bill that says these records can be used by RIAA and MPAA to discover copyright abuse with no warrant because "users have no expectations of privacy on the internet" and POOF all those protections are gone.

  • Spin, not security (Score:4, Insightful)

    by giafly ( 926567 ) on Thursday October 19, 2006 @08:03AM (#16499519)
    "They can train themselves over the Internet. They never have to necessarily go to the training camp or speak with anybody else and that diffusion of a combination of hatred and technical skills in things like bomb-making is a dangerous combination" - U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff
    You can learn knowledge over the Internet but skills require practice [] in the real world. For example chemistry is not easy []. Alleged plotters who take no practical steps [] are losers [] not terrorists.

    This is about control of disaffected people [] not fighting real terrorism.

    And what's with the comment about not needing to "speak with anybody else" - are the FBI scared of shut-ins [] now?
  • by finkployd ( 12902 ) * on Thursday October 19, 2006 @08:12AM (#16499603) Homepage
    I'm sorry, the same party that pushed Clipper? If you think this stuff is going to change one bit under the Democrats you are delusional. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of reasons for vote for anyone but Republicians these days, but this is not one of them. When it comes to spying on citizens, the party in power wants it bad, and the minority party becomes the voice of privacy and government restraint. It was not that long ago that Ashcroft was the pro-privacy, anti-clipper chip crusader. I fully expect that everything the Democrats are saying about government oversight and privacy will be completely forgotten when they get into power.

  • How long? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by aplusjimages ( 939458 ) on Thursday October 19, 2006 @08:13AM (#16499605) Journal
    Internet service providers have unwittingly deleted the very records that would help us identify these offenders and protect future victims

    So the ISPs are retaining the info, but not long enough for the Feds to do their job right, so they are asking for them to keep them longer. Well how long? Why are the Feds so slow? Will they want to extend the retention length again if the time table they recommended isn't long enough?
  • by finkployd ( 12902 ) * on Thursday October 19, 2006 @08:16AM (#16499621) Homepage
    I don't think the vile Cardinal had to convince a jury of his peers, and answer endless appeals through several levels of appeals courts.

    No, he probably just could detain them without trials, access to an attorney, letting them know what they are accused of, or any evidence against them. Maybe he labeled them "enemy conbatents" or something.

  • by careykohl ( 682513 ) on Thursday October 19, 2006 @09:12AM (#16500187)
    The whole war on terror is nothing but an effort to relieve the citizens of their rights.
    • Billions of dollars for a border wall that not only won't work, but would be a logistical nightmare to actually build
    • Billions of dollars for radiation monitors at our ports that don't actually monitor the types of radiation likely to be used in any kind of attack
    • Billions of dollars to defend areas in this country that the average American hasn't even heard from terror attacks that aren't even remotely likely
    • Billions of dollars in Iraq that got up and wandered off that no one can be bothered to go look for
    • Billions of dollars. . . . aw, hell, you get the idea
    Citizens might be losing their rights, but that's only a byproduct of the real effort. The only purpose for the war on terror is to shove as much of your tax dollars into their pockets as they can.
  • Re:DUDE! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by oc255 ( 218044 ) <milkfilk AT yahoo DOT com> on Thursday October 19, 2006 @09:20AM (#16500299) Homepage
    I thought we were fighting both. And the war on poverty. And the war on illiteracy. And the war on AIDS, pollution, hunger, disease. No wonder why we can't keep up (.. the focus and funding).
  • Re:why? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kfg ( 145172 ) on Thursday October 19, 2006 @09:41AM (#16500557)
    So, it's not just Terrorists (TM) anymore, it's the "disaffected" they're after.

    And if you're not with us, you're "disaffected."

  • 1984 (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SammysIsland ( 705274 ) on Thursday October 19, 2006 @10:58AM (#16501581)
    The internet is not the least of my worries, nor is the RIAA or MPAA the most of my worries. The government enacts data retention laws under the guise of 'neccessary to catch terrorists' when in reality they will use this data for any snooping they would like to do. After this law is passed without a sunset clause, the next law will be a change in requirements to access this data such as the current circumvention of warrants for phone taps.
    It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the progression.
  • by finkployd ( 12902 ) * on Thursday October 19, 2006 @11:02AM (#16501641) Homepage
    I agree, but you have to admit that it is sad when the best possible outcome for government is gridlock. Both parties are just going to screw it up, we can only hope they will be distracted fighting each other and forget about us.

  • Re:DUDE! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by IAmTheDave ( 746256 ) <> on Thursday October 19, 2006 @11:36AM (#16502245) Homepage Journal
    I thought we were fighting both. And the war on poverty. And the war on illiteracy. And the war on AIDS, pollution, hunger, disease. No wonder why we can't keep up (.. the focus and funding).

    No no - just drugs and terror.

    See, poverty, illiteracy, AIDS, pollution, hunger, disease - and those you didn't mention like genocide, etc., are too hot politically to be fought, for they provide no gain to the government.

    Drugs and terror... and let's go ahead and add child porn... allow the government a "war" that can be used to justify reductions in personal privacy, massive amounts of data collection, and emboldening of the Executive.

    Those other "wars" are just hippie rally-cries. Duh.

  • Re:ugh.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Catbeller ( 118204 ) on Thursday October 19, 2006 @11:56AM (#16502605) Homepage
    Operationally, a covert attacker would be an idiot to use any sort of electronic communications media. The 9-11 attackers observed complete e-silence, and communicated face-to-face. Bin Laden as well.

    And I must challenge this constant assumption of cell of killers surrounding you and plotting your deaths.

    WHERE ARE THEY? It's been five years, for chissakes. On 9-11 itself, they could only get enough manpower to take 4 planes instead of the 12 they wanted. And they can't ever pull that trick again.

    Occam's razor, kids. They aren't there. There are no "terror cells" full of brown people saturating the country. It's a truthy crock. The "terrorists" we've kidnapped gave us nothing but lies under torture, which gave us endless terror warnings.

    They ain't there. Stop snivelling! BUSH IS LYING. He has no intel at all. We have no humint in these groups, the people we're torturing are nonentities or innocents that we've used as proxies for our anger. All the "facts" Bush has sold us on, from the "terraist cells" to the Iraq terror to Iran to Korea were garbage. We got hit with a simple trick on 9-11. That's it. We don't have to stop the planet to find the evildoers. They are DEAD. We however are making millions of people who hate our guts on a daily basis in Iraq, so I guess it's a goddamned self-fulfilling prophecy after all.
  • Re:ugh.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by cold fjord ( 826450 ) on Thursday October 19, 2006 @12:43PM (#16503373)
    OK, here are the supporting excerpts from Bin Laden's Letter to America []:

    (Q2) As for the second question that we want to answer: What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

    (1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.

    Convert to Islam

    (2) The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you.

    (a) We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest.

    We call you to all of this that you may be freed from that which you have become caught up in; that you may be freed from the deceptive lies that you are a great nation, that your leaders spread amongst you to conceal from you the despicable state to which you have reached.

    (b) It is saddening to tell you that you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind:

    (i) You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator. You flee from the embarrassing question posed to you: How is it possible for Allah the Almighty to create His creation, grant them power over all the creatures and land, grant them all the amenities of life, and then deny them that which they are most in need of: knowledge of the laws which govern their lives?

    Implement Sharia, abolish the separation of church and state, etc.

    (4) We also advise you to stop supporting Israel, and to end your support of the Indians in Kashmir, the Russians against the Chechens and to also cease supporting the Manila Government against the Muslims in Southern Philippines.

    Cut off the Jews

    There are, of course, other demands.

    If you fail to respond to all these conditions, then prepare for fight with the Islamic Nation. The Nation of Monotheism, that puts complete trust on Allah and fears none other than Him. ....

    The Islamic Nation that was able to dismiss and destroy the previous evil Empires like yourself; the Nation that rejects your attacks, wishes to remove your evils, and is prepared to fight you. You are well aware that the Islamic Nation, from the very core of its soul, despises your haughtiness and arrogance.

    If the Americans refuse to listen to our advice and the goodness, guidance and righteousness that we call them to, then be aware that you will lose this Crusade Bush began, just like the other previous Crusades in which you were humiliated by the hands of the Mujahideen, fleeing to your home in great silence and disgrace. If the Americans do not respond, then their fate will be that of the Soviets who fled from Afghanistan to deal with their military defeat, political breakup, ideological downfall, and economic bankruptcy.

    Comply with their demands, or they will try to destroy the US.

    They have sought religous permission to kill four million Americans [] and render more homeless. They think that they are the ones that caused the Soviet Union to fall, and they think they can do the same to the US. They also have designs on Europe.

  • by Russ Nelson ( 33911 ) <> on Thursday October 19, 2006 @01:30PM (#16504099) Homepage
    We don't delete log files for no reason. We delete them because they're not worth keeping. Why wash toilet paper?
  • by finkployd ( 12902 ) * on Thursday October 19, 2006 @03:39PM (#16506545) Homepage
    Cardinal Richelieu was stating that he could basically manufacture evidence, but you can't really contend that the US is doing that.

    I do not have the security clearence to know what the US is doing. Neither do the courts and most of Congress. They are not answerable.

    The US held 425,000 enemy prisoners inside its borders during WW2 under the terms of the Geneva Conventions. Where exactly are the almost half million trial records that you must think exist?

    I know they don't exist, and such action was despicable. Like most of what is going on now, it is the frantic effots of people with little to no clue regarding security struggling to do something, ANYTHING that might be perceived be the public as "making us safer".

    For the same reason the do no fly list has thousands of names of dead people, common names with no other identifiers, and people who are otherwise clearly not a threat (although it has been confirmed that actual terror suspects are not on the list because the CIA feels it is to widely distributed and could get into the wrong hands).

    because that is not what the Law of War requires. We are at war with Al Qaeda and its associates, and no, it doesn't take a ritual formal Declaration of War

    We are also at war on drugs, carbs, and mildew (all of which kill more Americans yearly than terrorists btw).

    Since I think we can safely assume that we will never NOT be at war with terrorists, why screw with the whole consitution thing anyway? We as a country have placed total trust in the executive branch to identify terrorists (since they are the only people who show up on the do not fly list, get wiretapped, and get sent to gitmo), and they have shown time and again they deserve that trust having never once made a mistake. The checks and ballances thing, the court oversight thing, all those "innocent until proven guilty" issues are for little internal US matters. When it comes to terrorists, we need streamlined and secret procedures to keep us all safe. Anyone the executive branch considers a terrorist is a terrorist, and I sure do not want to mistaken for a terrorist sympathizer, so I will not at ALL question the ability of a few people at the top of the government to identity terrorists with 100% accuracy and 0 false positives.


I was playing poker the other night... with Tarot cards. I got a full house and 4 people died. -- Steven Wright