Secret audiotapes of Saddam Hussein discussing ways to attack America with weapons of mass destruction will be the subject of an ABC "Nightline" program Wednesday night, a former federal prosecutor told Cybercast News Service.

The tapes are being called the "smoking gun" of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq. The New York Sun reported that the tapes have been authenticated and currently are being reviewed by the U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Loftus has been tight-lipped about the tapes, telling the Sun only that he received them from a "former American military intelligence analyst." However, on Wednesday he told Cybercast News Service, "Saddam's tapes confirm he had active CW [chemical weapons] and BW [biological weapons] programs that were hidden from the UN."

This should be interesting. The key figure here is John Loftus, who organizes an intelligence conference that takes place this weekend.

This is from a press release on the Intelligence Summit website:

A former military intelligence analyst, who currently works as a civilian contractor, believes he has found a cache of extremely confidential--and very shocking--audio recordings of Saddam Hussein's office meetings. The audiotapes, which had apparently been overlooked, were found in a warehouse along with many other untranslated Iraqi intelligence files. These tapes are extremely significant, since they may be the best evidence yet of Saddam's secret intentions concerning weapons of mass destruction.

Secret Saddam WMD Tapes Subject of ABC Nightline Special -- 02/15/2006

This is February 15, John Frum Day, on the remote island of
Tanna in the South Pacific nation of Vanuatu. On this holiest of
days, devotees have descended on the village of Lamakara from all
over the island to honor a ghostly American messiah, John Frum.
“John promised he’ll bring planeloads and shiploads of cargo to us
from America if we pray to him,” a village elder tells me as he
salutes the Stars and Stripes. “Radios, TVs, trucks, boats,
watches, iceboxes, medicine, Coca-Cola and many other wonderful
things.”

The island’s John Frum movement is a classic example of what
anthropologists have called a “cargo cult”—many of which sprang up
in villages in the South Pacific during World War II, when hundreds
of thousands of American troops poured into the islands from the
skies and seas. As anthropologist Kirk Huffman, who spent 17 years
in Vanuatu, explains: “You get cargo cults when the outside world,
with all its material wealth, suddenly descends on remote,
indigenous tribes.” The locals don’t know where the foreigners’
endless supplies come from and so suspect they were summoned by
magic, sent from the spirit world. To entice the Americans back
after the war, islanders throughout the region constructed piers
and carved airstrips from their fields. They prayed for ships and
planes to once again come out of nowhere, bearing all kinds of
treasures: jeeps and washing machines, radios and motorcycles,
canned meat and candy.

In John They Trust

No matter what you do or where you go, you're always going to be yourself. And Panexa knows this. Your lifestyle is one of the biggest factors in choosing how to live. Why trust it to anything less?

MERD | Panexa (Acidachrome Promanganate)

Developed by the Graffiti Research Lab, LED Throwies are an inexpensive way to add color to any ferromagnetic surface in your neighborhood. A Throwie consists of a lithium battery, a 10mm diffused LED and a rare-earth magnet taped together. Throw it up high and in quantity to impress your friends and city officials.

LED Throwies

"The administration has obviously gotten the message that they need to be more forthcoming," Snowe said.

Consider this story a pre-pre-trial balloon. The public reaction will determine the outcome of events. Unless people are really freaking mad that they aren't going to have a hearing, whats going to happen is as follows:

1. There will be no hearing.
2. The ACLU will continue to be painted as a crazy group that hates America. (Which isn't so easy to do to a Republican controlled Congressional committee.)
3. The ACLU's lawsuit will be rendered moot by new legislation.
4. The new legislation will mostly strike FISA, enabling warrentless domestic surveillance for "national security" purposes. It will be renewed forever.
5. No questions about the legality of Bush's program will be brought to a serious forum.
6. Dems will raise the issue politically and get tarred as "pro-terrorist."
7. Big red wins in 2006 and 2008.
8. The NSA will be doing what the paranoids thought they were doing 10 years ago.
9. Everyone will use encryption when they move to VOIP.
10. There will be a renewed push for key escrow about 10 years from now.

Oh, and yeah, hackers will be considered a "national security" issue. So will a number of unfavored political groups.

Congressional Probe of NSA Spying Is in Doubt

in the public sphere, the argument goes, one's religious views must be put forward with diffidence and circumspection. You can still have them and express them - that's what separates us from theocracies and tyrannies - but they should be worn lightly. Not only must there be no effort to make them into the laws of the land, but they should not be urged on others in ways that make them uncomfortable. What religious beliefs are owed - and this is a word that appears again and again in the recent debate - is "respect"; nothing less, nothing more.

The thing about respect is that it doesn't cost you anything; its generosity is barely skin-deep and is in fact a form of condescension: I respect you; now don't bother me.

This is, increasingly, what happens to strongly held faiths in the liberal state. Such beliefs are equally and indifferently authorized as ideas people are perfectly free to believe, but they are equally and indifferently disallowed as ideas that might serve as a basis for action or public policy.

Strongly held faiths are exhibits in liberalism's museum; we appreciate them, and we congratulate ourselves for affording them a space, but should one of them ask of us more than we are prepared to give - ask for deference rather than mere respect - it will be met with the barrage of platitudinous arguments that for the last week have filled the pages of newspapers.

Stanley Fish strikes at a nerve. What he is missing is that a responsible believer wishes his ideas to win in the open marketplace of ideas rather then through force. If everyone agrees with you that 1+1=5 because you've got the most guns then what have you really won? By respecting people's individual right to make decisions about what they believe you create an environment where the best ideas win, rather then those supported by the most influential people. If you want someone else to join in your strongly held belief you actually have to convince them that you are right, rather then passing legislation requiring them to go along with it, or simply blowing them up if they don't comply. The use of force to project an idea is an admission that you're wrong.

The fundamental idea of the islamists isn't rooted on a side of the western culture war that he describes. It seeks to transcend it. The islamists beleive the tension in western culture illustrated by Fish's article is a problematic side effect of Christianity which Islamism resolves. I don't agree with them. I think they are just idealoges, like Fish, and I'd offer that we aren't going to win by becoming them.

Our faith in letting it all hang out - Editorials & Commentary - International Herald Tribune

"That's the argument of flexibility and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break."

"But you would have to be an idiot to believe that," Scalia said. "The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something and doesn't say other things."

I'm growing a little sceptical of "strict constructionalism." I like strict constructionalism, I just don't think these federalist guys are strict constructionalists.

To begin with, the words "cruel and unusual" do not mean the same thing that they meant 200 years ago. But it goes beyond that. The 14th amendment changed the nature of the Constitution, and amendments which were written as restrictions on the federal government became individual rights. In order to accept the "strict constructionalist" view one must claim that the 9th amendment is a "garnish" that has no real legal force or meaning. I think thats clearly insane and hypocritical. The Constituion established a very limited federal government. The 14th amendment made the state governments limited too. Liberals and Conservatives who wish to use government power in new ways to control what people can do ought to amend the consitution to do it.

Honestly, I think the government likes the tension that this has wrought. They like having a second amendment and gun laws at the same time. It allows them to regulate while having strong pressures against regulation. They like having a right to an abortion while having this dialog about whether or not its real. It creates a legal safe ground without creating an ethical one. Its an environment where abortion can be simultaneously legal and immoral. If you reversed Row people would be hurt. If you accepted Row people would be more comfortable with getting actual abortions. There is wisdom in the way these extremes have been set up against eachother, but it makes our legal system a very delicate balance that constantly threatens to implode.

Scalia Dismisses 'Living Constitution' - Yahoo! News

The FBI learned that Clark was interested in robbing banks to fund the activities of the Neo Millennium Liberation Army, whose stated goal was to "free the oppressed minority population of Atlanta."

There was another firebombing today. Its not clear if they are connected, but it sounds like an Anarco-Terrorist group is attacking Atlanta.

Anarchist May Have Set Atlantic Station Fire

Married people are happier than unmarrieds. People who worship frequently are happier than those who don't. Republicans are happier than Democrats. Rich people are happier than poor people. Whites and Hispanics are happier than blacks. Sunbelt residents are happier than those who live in the rest of the country.

Get rich, get married, get religion, get a gun, get a place in Miami, and vote for Jeb...

One wonders if Democrats are less happy because they spend more time thinking about poor people, gun violence, and the long term impacts of foreign policy rather then enjoying low taxes and military ass kicking.

Pew Research Center: Are We Happy Yet?

When You Make the Cover of Time

The shark has been jumped.

Sell, Sell Sell, God Damnit Sell!

John Battelle's Searchblog: When You Make the Cover of Time