As you might have heard or read, if you have gone anywhere near any sort of news vendor, 11 people have been charged in the 'airline bomb plot'. The charges are varieties of conspiracy to commit terrorism, or knowing about it and not reporting it. So I decided to go through the various articles and coverage I could find with a google news search and create a quick overview of what I think should be important in the media coverage.

Some quick numbers:

• 25 people arrested since August 10 in Britain for the airline bomb plot
  
• 11 people of the above 25 were charged today
• 3 people have been released with no charges
• 11 others remain in custody without being charged with a crime
• British police can detain someone for 28 days without pressing charges under recent terrorism legislation
• "Scotland Yard has until Wednesday evening to question 10 of the other 11 suspects and was tonight applying for a custody extension in the case of the 11th."
  
• Up to 17 people are also being held in Pakistan for the plot.
• 69 locations have been searched
• 400 computers, 200 cellphones and 8,000 data storage devices have been confistcated(6000 gb worth of data)
  

Evidence so far:

• hydrogen peroxide
• electrical components
• suicide notes & wills
• 'martyrdom' video recordings
• surveillance data

I am also giving the Irish Examiner extra points in the media fairness game for including this quote:
"Ms Hemming reminded the media to report today’s developments in a responsible manner which would not prejudice forthcoming legal proceedings. She said: 'These individuals are only accused of these offences and they have a right to a fair trial.'"

I would say I read about 15 articles which were written with the data from the same press conference, this article was the only one to mention that! It's also important to understand that giving the government greater powers to prevent terrorist attacks and supporting preemptive actions, such as detaining people without pressing charges, and looser rules of search and seizure, also means that we need to give people a better trial.

Some sources:
The Chron
The Star
The Irish Examiner
I read quite a few other articles, including ones from more respected sources such as the Financial Times, CNN and more, but they didn't have any more information to report and didn't have the detail and different perspectives that these did. Also they blended together and were boring.

Signing Statements: The Torture Example

The latest and most legally and procedurally intricate complaint about President Bush has been regarding his use of signing statements. These historically operate by:
"(1) explaining to the public, and particularly to constituencies interested in the bill, what the President believes to be the likely effects of its adoption,
(2) directing subordinate officers within the Executive Branch how to interpret or administer the enactment, and
(3) informing Congress and the public that the Executive believes that a particular provision would be unconstitutional in certain of its applications, or that it is unconstitutional on its face, and that the provision will not be given effect by the Executive Branch to the extent that such enforcement would create an unconstitutional condition,"
according to this memo on the Department of Justice website.

The Torture Example
One example of a signing statement(with a ticking bomb scenario straight out of 24 used as justification by the administration) is this in the latest Defense Bill HR 1815:

The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks. Further, in light of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2001 in Alexander v. Sandoval, and noting that the text and structure of Title X do not create a private right of action to enforce Title X, the executive branch shall construe Title X not to create a private right of action.

Now that refers to Title X, relating to Detainees(Section 1092), which is on the web and searchable here, which basically says they can't use statements gained through "undue coercion" and clarifies some peculiarities of the Guantanamo Bay situation and deserves a whole nother post. Important things to note are that it specifies one court for all these issues to go to: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and that the main question it can address is "whether subjecting an alien enemy combatant to such standards and procedures [as exist at Guantanamo Bay] is consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States"

Now what does the signing statement mean? From a good article in the Boston Globe: David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues...''The signing statement is saying 'I will only comply with this law when I want to, and if something arises in the war on terrorism where I think it's important to torture or engage in cruel, inhuman, and degrading conduct, I have the authority to do so and nothing in this law is going to stop me,' " and why does this mean more than him just saying it? Well because Justice Alito, during his confirmation hearing revealed that the administration felt they were still authorized to commit torture abroad on non-US citizens so as the Boston Globe article said an Amendment was passed by veto-proof majorities "explicitly saying that that the cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees in US custody is illegal regardless of where they are held". Then Pres. Bush had a press conference, praised the measure and signed the bill with this signing statement!

Go here if you are interested in an even longer, (well)written by a professional, interpretation.

First, yesterdays LATimes Opinion Piece by Nancy Pelosi(the House Minority Leader and Representative for San Francisco), discussing Chinese President Hu Jintao's visit. The Wall Street Journal also gave the story a front page column today discussing how the visit has gone. A few facts stood out in the Wall Street Journal article:
1) Hu spent more time with CEO's and business people than with political leaders
2) no concrete promises were made
3) an agreement was reached that the US and China would pursue peaceful means to deal with Iran and nuclear proliferation

The trade deficit and amount of American dollars held by the Chinese is probably the most worrisome thing in the Chinese-American relationship. They are helping their own ability to sell by financing our debt. No agreements were reached, in fact Hu did not seem to respond to Bush's overtures in that direction.

They apparently avoided human rights as an issue , which seems pretty wise considering the American and Chinese records pretty much cover the gamut. Interestingly different defences though. The Chinese say the human rights advocates are powerless because the victims are Chinese criminals on Chinese soil. The Americans say the human rights advocates are powerless because the victims are foreign nationals on foreign soil and we are at war.

The protesting woman was also interesting. A 47 year old pathologist snuck into the ceremony to start shouting at the Presidents. I still don't understand how that is supposed to accomplish anything.

So... ineffective Democratic protest of the meeting, business getting done, a screaming protestor and a elephant in the room that no one will mention, sounds like your usual diplomatic meeting with an added bonus: war with Iran is further away today than it was yesterday.

"The populace is like the sea motionless in itself, but stirred by every wind, even the slightest breeze" -- Titus Livius

Blogging has been touted as a wonder of communication, networking, global communication and a useless hobby. It's also a community of people thinking, reading and writing. "The human heart is like a ship on a stormy sea driven by winds blowing from all four corners of heaven," says Martin Luther. Blogging is another breeze, or storm wind, and it can be wild and shifting. The understanding that there are many influences and they can slowly influence a few, or greatly influence many is the best thing to be had from the blogging community.

We are not all guided by any set of priorities, beliefs or editorial systems. We will disagree over facts as much as opinions and I won't be an authoritative source. I don't do research(I may research a post, but when I do you'll be able to tell because I will link and/or cite), I don't have access to privileged information. I read. I think. I write.

Everyone should be influenced by the thoughts and feelings of others. Writers are not gods and just because a phrase rolls off the tongue does not mean it is meaningful or true. Writing and communicating, thinking, discussing and sharing, are however the truest democratic influences. It balances any lobby or spinmaster eventually. We can vote on the basis of commercials or a couple news articles. We can even read biographies and judge the voting history of candidates. But how do we understand the issues? the opposing opinions? Discussion and thought and writing.