UK Gives a Big Payout to Terrorists

I wonder if this settlement money is earmarked for attacks against the UK or if it will just go into a general fund?

Giving money to people actively trying to kill you, while your country is going bankrupt. In 100 years, historians aren't really going to need to do a whole of indepth analysis to determine why the Britian collapsed.
"

AP - LONDON – Britain's agreement to pay hefty settlements to former Guantanamo detainees who accused the government of complicity in their torture averts a protracted legal battle that could have compromised national security and disclosed sensitive U.S. intelligence.
The agreement, which came after months of legal wrangling, was a first official step toward distancing Britain from the interrogation tactics sanctioned by President George W. Bush during the U.S.-led war on terror.
The payout could prompt other former detainees to push for compensation in U.S. courts and elsewhere — even though Britain admitted no guilt.
Justice Secretary Ken Clark did not disclose the size of the settlement or who was involved, saying in his announcement to parliament Tuesday there was a binding confidentiality clause.
However, a British lawyer with knowledge of the terms told The Associated Press that at least seven former detainees — all British citizens or residents — would receive payments and one man would receive more than $1.6 million (1 million pounds).
British spies were not accused of torturing detainees themselves, but former detainees alleged that British security services violated international law by knowing about the abuse and doing nothing to stop it.
Speaking to the House of Commons, Clarke said the government had not admitted any "culpability" in the settlement and the plaintiffs had not withdrawn their allegations.
"The alternative to any payments made would have been protracted and extremely expensive litigation," Clarke said, adding that the government could not be certain it could "defend the security and intelligence agencies without compromising national security.""

Your Choice: Virtual strip search or Groping.

Recently the TSA unveiled its new security procedures. If you are randomly selected you must go through the new enhanced scanner which can see through your clothes via x-rays or microwaves. The scanners are so detailed that they can tell if a man has been circumcized. If you don't like that, you can get an "enhanced pat-down" which involves the TSA worker feeling all parts of your body including your crotch.

I don't have time to write a flowing narrative on my thoughts, so I've providing it in bullet format.

1. I don't like being given the choice between low-tech molestation (aka groping aka enhanced pat-down) or high-tech molestation with a dose of radiation.
2. The TSA refuses to profile, which would be much more effective. Instead they put on security theater designed to fool people into thinking they were safe, while maintaining strict politcal correctness.
3. Randomly searching people when there is a discernable pattern present is not effective. A random search would be appropriate if previous terrorist attacks were commited by people with the following characteristics: a 4 year old girl, a 35 year old woman, a 80 year old woman, 40 year old male, and a 73 year old male in a wheelchair. Is that true? No. Terrorists have all been single males between 20 and 40. (You can't necessarily determine someone's religion necessarily by looking at them, so that is not even included). 
4. Janet Napolitano blatently lies when she says that images are deleted immediately, because it's been news that 35,000 were found saved.
5. Janet Napolitano is snide when she says "people are free to other means of transportation if they don't want to be virtually strip searched or groped" (paraphrase of course). People aren't always free to choose any form of transportation. Some people have to travel to work.  Some people have to fly for medical treatments. Some people find it difficult to visit family 2,000 miles away by driving. What is next? Can a city say, "We can search your house without a warrant. If you don't like it, you are free to live outside the city limits." When did the 4th amendment stop being applicable?
6. The Feds are reactionary. If terrorist hijack a plane with box cutters, they will ban box cutters, even though box cutters wouldn't be sufficent next time due to other passengers, an armed pilot, and a reinforced door.
7. The Feds refuse to enforce border protection. Drug cartels and who knows what are coming into the US through the southern border. It's like have a window locked tight, but leaving the front door open.
8. A lot of liberal groups that screamed when Bush was wiretapping phone calls to Yemen are surprisingly quiet when Obama's TSA goons are trying to frisk little girls. Why are liberals so willing to give up their rights when its a liberal making them do it?

For Reference, The 4th Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Revealing Cost of Trip May Endanger National Security

Re: Obama's $200M/day trip to India

Obama denies it cost $200 million per day, but refuses to state what it does cost and cites "security concerns."

It's almost laughable excuse. Why would disclosing the cost of a trip to a ally be a security risk?

Additionally, it's apparently not a security risk to let us know that it didn't cost $200 M per day. However, indicating whether the price is higher or lower, is a security risk.

Obama borrows $200M per day from the Chinese to pay for his opulent trip while there is 10% unemployment here. Obama knows he's toast in 2012, so he's going to live like a King.

Next Up 2012 - The Senate Elections

In the 2010 elections, Democrats had 18 Senate seats up for re-election, and about 10 were in play (Nevada, Colorado, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Arkansas, Pennsylavania,, Washington, West Virginia). They will lose 6-8 of them.Republicans had 19 Senate seats up for reelection and defended them all.

For 2012, Democrats have more seats up for reelection: 21, plus 2 independentst that caucus with the Democrats. I think 14 are in play (in blue) and 10 have higher potential (in bold)

Republicans, on the other hand, have only four seats in play (in red), only which 2 have a higher potential  (in bold)


 2012 Senate Elections Democratic incumbent elections

1. Dianne Feinstein of California
2. Tom Carper of Delaware
3. Bill Nelson of Florida
4. Daniel Akaka of Hawaii
5. Ben Cardin of Maryland
6. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan
7. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota
8. Claire McCaskill of Missouri
9. Jon Tester of Montana
10. Ben Nelson of Nebraska
11. Bob Menendez of New Jersey
12. Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico
13. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York
14. Kent Conrad of North Dakota
15. Sherrod Brown of Ohio
16. Bob Casey, Jr. of Pennsylvania
17. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island
18. Jim Webb of Virginia
19. Maria Cantwell of Washington
20. Joe Manchin of West Virginia
21. Herb Kohl of Wisconsin

Independent incumbent elections

1. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut
2. Bernie Sanders of Vermont

Republican incumbent elections

1. Jon Kyl of Arizona
2. Richard Lugar of Indiana
3. Olympia Snowe of Maine
4. Scott Brown of Massachusetts
5. Roger Wicker of Mississippi
6. John Ensign of Nevada
7. Bob Corker of Tennessee
8. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas
9. Orrin Hatch of Utah
10. John Barrasso of Wyoming

Election Predictions

First the semi-professionals:

Electoral-vote.com (run by a Democrat)
Senate: 51 Dem, 48 Rep, 1 Ind
House: 217 Rep, 201 Dem, 17 ties

Electionprojection.com (run by a Republican)
Senate: 49 Dem, 49 Rep, 1 Dem (+8 Rep)
House: 241 Rep, 194 Dem (+62 Rep)

For the Senate, Republicans are projected to pick up: Nevada, Colorado, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Arkansas, Pennsylavania,
Dems hold onto: Oregon, Washington, California, West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, New York (2), Vermont, Connecticut.



Me:
Senate: 51 Republicans
House: 255 Rep, 180 Dem

I think the turnout among Democrats is going to be low. Ancedotally, yesterday I posted "I've been looking forward to tomororow for a long time". All my friends that are Republicans knew what I was talking about. Friends that are liberals, asked, "What's tomorrow?"

In addition to the predictions by electionprojection, I think Republicans pick up two of three of the following: West Virginia, Washington, California.

Since polls only track about a third of the races that pundits have deemed competitive, I think there are several races which are not being considered in the equations. No pundit would have predicted the Scott Brown Senate win in Massachusetts, five months before he got elected. I think an additional 10-15 seats may break Republican.

It all may be wishful thinking, but I don't see a reason for Democrats to go to the polls.