http://www.cbsnews.com/…

The U.S. military’s failure to follow tightened rules for aerial strikes likely caused civilian deaths in a May 4 American bombing in western Afghanistan, a defense official said Wednesday.

The finding comes from an internal review of the incident, said the official, who spoke to The Associated Press on grounds of anonymity because the investigation is not complete.

“Errors were made” in the early May attack, the official acknowledged, discussing an incident that has strained relations between Washington and Kabul and caused resentment among the Afghan people.

American military commanders on a number of occasions have rewritten rules on U.S. bombing missions in an effort to avoid civilian casualties, most recently late last year. The official said these more restrictive rules were not followed in some of the air strikes May 4 in Afghanistan’s western Farah province.

The report, which must still be circulated and briefed to other officials before it’s final, was the most straightforward acknowledgment yet by the United States that mistakes were made in the strike. The story was first reported by The New York Times.

Afghans say 140 civilians died, while American commanders say video evidence recorded by fighter jets and the account of the ground commander suggest no more than 30 civilians were killed, as well as 60-65 Taliban.

Unlike most of the time when they murder innocent people purposely. How about the government just not invade other nations? If you want to go after terrorists have Congress issue letters of mark of reprisal.

http://www.nytimes.com/…

The National Security Agency intercepted private e-mail messages and phone calls of Americans in recent months on a scale that went beyond the broad legal limits established by Congress last year, government officials said in recent interviews.

Several intelligence officials, as well as lawyers briefed about the matter, said the N.S.A. had been engaged in “overcollection” of domestic communications of Americans. They described the practice as significant and systemic, although one official said it was believed to have been unintentional.

The legal and operational problems surrounding the N.S.A.’s surveillance activities have come under scrutiny from the Obama administration, Congressional intelligence committees and a secret national security court, said the intelligence officials, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity because N.S.A. activities are classified. Classified government briefings have been held in recent weeks in response to a brewing controversy that some officials worry could damage the credibility of legitimate intelligence-gathering efforts.

The Justice Department, in response to inquiries from The New York Times, acknowledged Wednesday night that there had been problems with the N.S.A. surveillance operation, but said they had been resolved.

Officials would not discuss details of the overcollection problem because it involves classified intelligence-gathering techniques. But the issue appears focused in part on technical problems in the N.S.A.’s ability at times to distinguish between communications inside the United States and those overseas as it uses its access to American telecommunications companies’ fiber-optic lines and its own spy satellites to intercept millions of calls and e-mail messages.

There is more than an “overcollection” problem. The entire thing is illegal and illegitimate. They spy on everything and supposedly filter out what they aren’t supposed to listen to? Who in their right mind thinks that could work or would not be abused?

http://www.nytimes.com/…

With two missile strikes over the past week, the Obama administration has expanded the covert war run by the Central Intelligence Agency inside Pakistan, attacking a militant network seeking to topple the Pakistani government.

Problems

1. Infringing on the so called sovereignty of another nation.
2. A ‘war’ being waged without Congress declaring it.
3. A supposed ‘covert war’ being executed, period.
4. How is it covert if it’s mentioned in the first sentence of an article in the nationally (internationally?) read New York Times?

http://www.forbes.com/…

The solid part of the naming hypothesis gives each person the exclusive right to name himself or herself, or for parents to name (jointly–another potential can of worms) their children. But it hardly follows that an exclusive right must necessarily be an unlimited one. After all, my exclusive use of my own land doesn’t allow me to pollute my neighbors with impunity. Quite simply, there are some names at least that have to be regarded as off limits.

Yes, you have unlimited, exclusive use of YOUR land. Your neighbors land is not yours so polluting it is a property right infringement. You can pollute your land all you want. Just because in practice the polluting of your property will likely leech onto your neighbors doesn’t change the unlimited right to your property.

The issue came to a boil in a recent episode reported in the New York Times, in which Heath Campbell vented his outrage that his local ShopRite supermarket did not bend to his will to decorate his son’s birthday cake with his first two given names, Adolf Hitler. Popular sentiment turned out to run feverishly hot against Mr. Campbell, and for good reason.

Analytically, names have two distinct functions. The first is to designate one individual to the exclusion of all others, for which a nine-digit social security number will do just fine. But many names carry an expressive content, as by naming a daughter Chastity or a son Jesus. In most cases, the right response is for others to use the name even if they do not like the message it conveys.

Yet there are fuzzy limits. A name enjoys a peculiar monopoly status. It is the only moniker that anyone else can use to designate the named person. It follows therefore that names do impose what might be termed a “soft” externality on other individuals that becomes really hard to bear when the name in question forces people to be respectful to someone whom they rightly hate. No moral relativism allowed. Who wants to be polite to an Adolf Hitler?

This topic isn’t about moral relativism. Morality and state are seperate topics. You can consider another’s actions immoral but so long as that person does not infringe on the rights of another there is no legitimate use of force against them and therefore no legitimate role for the state.

Yet the objection to the unlimited use of these names cuts deeper. Today, no adult could voluntary take the name Adolf Hitler either. This basic point is explicitly recognized under modern trademark law, which explicitly forbids any person from registering a trademark that consists of “immoral or scandalous matter.”

The established case law won’t let anyone register a new men’s cologne under the name “Adolf Hitler.” Forcing other individuals to use odious names is too high a price to pay when literally millions of other names are open to the user.

His mentioning this in a neutral if not positive light shows again he is no libertarian. Trademark law, just as all government enforced intelectual property monopoly, is unlibertarian.

These vexing controversies should remind us that even limited governments have to worry about externalities that go beyond the use of force and fraud. By all means keep a strong presumption against invoking state power to veto personal or trade names. But this libertarian says, don’t make it an absolute rule.

Perhaps Mr. Epstein should go back and look up what libertarianism is. Not Libertarian. If it’s not absolute its not a right. If it can have “reasonable restrictions” it’s not a right.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/…

http://www.lewrockwell.com/…

1. Saturday is supposed to be a day of rest, but the New York Times is hard on the job of promoting the total state. First, there is a front-page article on the plight of refugees from Zimbabwe, and it is well-written and interesting, and very, very sad. However, we should not forget that the Times was an early supporter of the man who is the source of this misery, Robert Mugabe. Furthermore, Mugabe’s policies pretty much square with the state economic control that the Times endorses every day in both its news and editorial sections.That the tragedy in Zimbabwe is an extreme example of what happens when the state confiscates private property, sets price controls, and prints money without end does not negate the fact that the Times for years has endorsed state seizure of private property, price controls, and fiat money. Indeed, one would think that the editors there would recognize the folly of those things endorsed by the Times, but we are speaking of the Newspaper of Walter Duranty, Jayson Blair, Judith Miller, and Duff Wilson (of Duke lacrosse fame).
2. The top editorial excoriates Gov. David Paterson for choosing Kirsten Gillibrand as Hillary Clinton’s U.S. Senate replacement. Why? In the Times‘ own words:
   

   What is the most disappointing about Ms. Gillibrand’s record is her extreme opposition to reasonable gun control laws. Her opposition to new efforts to trace illegal guns and support for rolling back gun control laws in the District of Columbia go well beyond her declared support for hunters’ rights. She earned a top rating and vigorous campaign support from the National Rifle Association. Her jarring views on guns could cost her a bitter Democratic primary fight next year for re-election if gun-control advocates like Representative Carolyn McCarthy of Long Island challenge her on this issue.

   I’m not sure what “unreasonable” gun control might be. However, the editors do hope that her views will “evolve” to fit those of the anti-private gun Senator Charles Schumer:

   On Friday, Ms. Gillibrand seemed ready to hear arguments against her views on guns. She vowed to help push Ms. McCarthy’s latest bill to speed background checks on those who buy guns at gun shows. She should also agree to Senator Charles Schumer’s offer to escort her on a listening tour of New York’s urban neighborhoods where guns are not used for hunting the Thanksgiving turkey. Senator Schumer said he was confident that once she saw the problem, her views on this grave issue would “evolve.”

   Read that, “Unless you are lockstep with Schumer, we will kneecap you in the upcoming election.” No doubt, she will be horrified. Who knows? Maybe they can have a REAL DRIVE-BY SHOOTING DURING HER VISIT!
   Read More…

Get the latest Flash Player to see this player.

http://rawstory.com/…

Former National Security Agency analyst Russell Tice, who helped expose the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping in December 2005, has now come forward with even more startling allegations. Tice told MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann on Wednesday that the programs that spied on Americans were not only much broader than previously acknowledged but specifically targeted journalists.

“The National Security Agency had access to all Americans’ communications — faxes, phone calls, and their computer communications,” Tice claimed. “It didn’t matter whether you were in Kansas, in the middle of the country, and you never made foreign communications at all. They monitored all communications.”

Tice further explained that “even for the NSA it’s impossible to literally collect all communications. … What was done was sort of an ability to look at the metadata … and ferret that information to determine what communications would ultimately be collected.”

According to Tice, in addition to this “low-tech, dragnet” approach, the NSA also had the ability to hone in on specific groups, and that was the aspect he himself was involved with. However, even within the NSA there was a cover story meant to prevent people like Tice from realizing what they were doing.

“In one of the operations that I was in, we looked at organizations, just supposedly so that we would not target them,” Tice told Olbermann. “What I was finding out, though, is that the collection on those organizations was 24/7 and 365 days a year — and it made no sense. … I started to investigate that. That’s about the time when they came after me to fire me.”

When Olbermann pressed him for specifics, Tice offered, “An organization that was collected on were US news organizations and reporters and journalists.”

“To what purpose?” Olbermann asked. “I mean, is there a file somewhere full of every email sent by all the reporters at the New York Times? Is there a recording somewhere of every conversation I had with my little nephew in upstate New York?”

Tice did not answer directly, but simply stated, “If it was involved in this specific avenue of collection, it would be everything.” He added, however, that he had no idea what was ultimately done with the information, except that he was sure it “was digitized and put on databases somewhere.”

Tice first began alleging that there were illegal activities going on at both the NSA and the Defense Intelligence Agency in December 2005, several months after being fired by the NSA. He also served at that time as a source for the New York Times story which revealed the existence of the NSA’s wireless wiretapping program.

Over the next several months, however, Tice was frustrated in his attempts to testify before Congress, had his credibility attacked by Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, and was subpoenaed by a federal grand jury in an apparent attempt at intimidation.

Tice is now coming forward again now because George Bush is finally out of office. He told Olbermann that the Obama administration has not been in touch with him about his latest revelations, but, “I did send a letter to, I think it’s [Obama intelligence adviser John] Brennan — a handwritten letter, because I knew all my communications were tapped, my phones, my computer, and I’ve had the FBI on me like flies on you-know-what … and I’m assuming that he gave the note to our current president — that I intended to say a little bit more than I had in the past.”

This video is from MSNBC’s Countdown, broadcast Jan. 21, 2009.

Rob… I hope you aren’t part of this.