Absolutely worth looking at - pretty funny. But it looks like the real story is that it's in a Sofitel hotel.

Men's Room Mural

Decius wrote:

BURIED IN THE complex Senate compromise on detainee treatment is a real shocker, reaching far beyond the legal struggles about foreign terrorist suspects in the Guantanamo Bay fortress. The compromise legislation, which is racing toward the White House, authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights.

Oh Fuck...

I'll be one to say "I told you so." A number of people (like me) have been talking, and yelling, and screaming that we are looking at the worst bunch of assholes ever to sit in power in Washington. And people keep saying, "you don't understand 9/11" or "you're a Chicken Little."

No, it's because this was the first bunch of scumbags who would try to do something like this. Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to the United States of America, rogue superpower. "May you live in interesting times" is an ancient curse. they just got incalcuably more interesting.

RE: Hard To Do Any Worse

Great article on how Orwellian our government is becoming.

Five years have passed since the catastrophic terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Those attacks ushered in the war on terror. Since some high-ranking government officials and pundits are now referring to the war on terror as the "Long War" or "World War III," because its duration is not clear, now is an appropriate time to take a few steps back and examine the disturbing new vocabulary that has emerged from this conflict.

One of the central insights of George Orwell's classic novel Nineteen Eighty-Four concerned the manipulative use of language, which he called "newspeak" and "doublethink," and which we now call "doublespeak" and "Orwellian." Orwell was alarmed by government propaganda and the seemingly rampant use of euphemisms and halftruths— and he conveyed his discomfort with such tactics to generations of readers by using vivid examples in his novel. Despite our general awareness of the tactic, government officials routinely use doublespeak to expand, or at least maintain, their power.

The purpose of this paper is not to criticize any particular policy initiative. Reasonable people can honestly disagree about what needs to be done to combat the terrorists who are bent on killing Americans. However, a conscientious discussion of our policy options must begin with a clear understanding of what our government is actually doing and what it is really proposing to do next. The aim here is to enhance the understanding of both policymakers and the interested lay public by exposing doublespeak.

Doublespeak and the War on Terrorism

"What helped the British in this case is the ability to be nimble, to be fast, to be flexible, to operate based on fast-moving information," he said. "We have to make sure our legal system allows us to do that. It's not like the 20th century, where you had time to get warrants."

Michael Chertoff, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security

Warrants are so 20th Century. Thats the meme of the year. Remember, the Constitution talks about Warrants, but it doesn't say you always have to have one. It just says that you can't perform an unreasonable search. If the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security thinks its reasonable, then obviously it must be. In the future, Warrants will only be required when you're searching the offices of a corporation or a public official. I'm not kidding. Mark my words.

The strategy here is to win the 2006 elections on an anti civil liberties platform.

We have to get away from this concept that we have to apply civil-liberties protections to terrorists," Peter King (R., N.Y.), the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee

What is a terrorist, Mr King? Who determines who is or is not a terrorist so that we know when to apply civil liberties and when not to apply them? What is a trial, Mr. King? What does a trial determine? How can you determine guilt without a trial? If you don't need a trial to determine guilt, then why have them? What is their purpose? Has the federal government ever prosecuted an innocent person? How many, exactly? Has the federal government ever spied on anyone for an inappropriate purpose? Has the federal government ever detained someone for an inappropriate purpose?

Meme of the Year: Warrants are so 20th Century