Zogby Poll: 52% Support U.S. Military Strike Against Iran

Bush still has it when he wants it, at least on foreign affairs:

Most see Clinton as the presidential candidate best equipped to deal with Iran, followed by Giuliani and McCain—but many express uncertainty

A majority of likely voters – 52% – would support a U.S. military strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon, and 53% believe it is likely that the U.S. will be involved in a military strike against Iran before the next presidential election, a new Zogby America telephone poll shows.

The survey results come at a time of increasing U.S. scrutiny of Iran. According to reports from the Associated Press, earlier this month Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice accused Iran of “lying” about the aim of its nuclear program and Vice President Dick Cheney has raised the prospect of “serious consequences” if the U.S. were to discover Iran was attempting to devolop a nuclear weapon. Last week, the Bush administration also announced new sanctions against Iran.

Democrats (63%) are most likely to believe a U.S. military strike against Iran could take place in the relatively near future, but independents (51%) and Republicans (44%) are less likely to agree. Republicans, however, are much more likely to be supportive of a strike (71%), than Democrats (41%) or independents (44%). Younger likely voters are more likely than those who are older to say a strike is likely to happen before the election and women (58%) are more likely than men (48%) to say the same – but there is little difference in support for a U.S. strike against Iran among these groups.

American war policy post-World War 2 has been consistent: early hopes of a complete victory, then moving on to a successful spoiling of our enemies. North Korea, North Vietnam, Iraq I, Kosovo, Iraq II all end with a primary enemy identified and forced to take enormous losses such that further expansion is impossible. This sets up the field for what comes next. If we decide to go to war with Iran, what happens next probably won’t be a liberal democracy, but it will also be enormously costly for their Islamic Revolution.

Hat-tip to Democratic Underground.

2007 Dozier Internet Law Google Rankings – Week 3

This weeks poll includes the story of an upset worthy of Boston College. After seeing their FindLaw entry fall a point and a press release fall out of the Top 25 midweek, Dozier rallied to maintain the status quo by beginning of morning Wednesday. Though their eWorldWire fluff piece fall off the radar, John Dozier Jr’s rarely updated personal blog took its place at #23.

The major story is Gamespot, who’s apparently censored story on Dozier inexplicably makes the top 10. Early in the week, gamespot.com also made the Top 25, but finally collapsed. No Top 25 incumbent managed to rise more than one place: this accomplishment was shared by Blog of M’Gath, CLP, and Dreaming 5GW.

The biggest fall is J-Walk Blog, which fell from #13 to not even receiving votes. Of those that remain in the Top 25, I Hate Linux and ihatelinux.blogspot both fell 11 places. In fairness, however, CodePrairie .Net, which appears to be a spidered copying of the I Hate Linux properties, take up two of the four “others receiving votes” slots.

Name This Week Last Time Change
Dozier Internet Law, PC 1 1 holds
cybertraillawyer.com 2 2 holds
tdaxp 3 3 holds
tdaxp.com 4 4 holds
Blog of M’Gath 5 6 +1
Ars Techncia 6 5 -1
FindLaw 7 7 holds
CLP 8 9 +1
New York Personal Injury Lawyer 9 8 -1
Gamespot 10 ( – ) new
Tailrank 11 ( – ) new
Accidental Blogger 12 ( – ) new
Plagiarism Today 13 10 -3
Dozier Internet Law Sucks 14 ( + ) received votes
Yahoo! Delicious 15 11 -4
del.icio.us 16 12 -4
South Dakota Politics 17 ( – ) new
Dreaming 5GW 18 19 +1
dreaming5gw.com 19 ( + ) received votes
Phatic Communion 20 16 -4
Jim River Report 21 17 -4
jimriverreport.com 22 18 -4
Jown W Dozier Jr 23 ( – ) new
I Hate Linux 24 14 -11
ihatelinux.blogspot.com 25 15 -11

“Others Receiving Votes:” Public Citizen Litigation Group, Code Prairie (23), codeprairie.net, pubcit.typepad.com (24)

“Dropped From Rankings:” J-Walk Blog (13), Topix (20), Public Citizen (21), eWorldWire (22), Code Prairie (23), pubcit.typepad.com (24), WordPress (25)

Dozier Internet Law, PC: Give us seven million dollars. Stop laughing.

Dozier Internet Law, PC, those legal beagles in charge of the Cuppy’s Coffee and DirectBuy catastrophes, didn’t start there.

Thanks to dEarth / dx, I learned about their attempt to get seven million dollars from a website for criticizing “Manchester Who’s Who.”

From the article that inspired the lawsuit:

She asked, “Will you be using your membership for networking or credibility?”

I explained that I would probably be using it for both. “Being I high school drop-out, I have always had to struggle with public opinion on my credibility…”

$7,000,000. Hahaha. That’s even better that “Bull,” “Cyber Lawyer,” or “Super Lawyer.”

God bless you, John “$7,000,000” Dozier. You bring the smile to the face of everyone you threaten.

10 Questions on Torture (Guest Post by Eddie of Hidden Unities)

[tdaxp note: My thanks to Eddie of Hidden Unities for accepting an opportunity to guest blog on this site. Eddie’s introduction immediately follows this note. Below the fold you will find his 10 Questions on Torture.]

Due to my past writings on the subject, I can’t and wouldn’t want to hide the fact that I view waterboarding as torture. Further, Pres. Bush and those in his administration, the military and the intelligence community who engaged in the illegal authorization and implementation of enhanced interrogation techniques, torture, whatever you want to call it, are clearly war criminals. No official is above and beyond the Constitution, no one can claim the law does not apply to them and in particular, the American government has no business ever denying the most basic of Constitutional rights to American citizens (Jose Padilla), no matter how heinous their supposed crimes. Such actions weaken the strongest asset we have as a nation and civilization; namely our superior legal system and traditions. That’s the real reason why we’re so successful as a society in business, education and the opportunity to pursue and achieve a better life.

Nevertheless, unlike the President and his advisers, I can place my personal feelings aside for the good of the nation and suggest a course of action that can resolve much of this contentious issue.

The debate over enhanced interrogation techniques has continued in a variety of forums, of which the Small Wars Journal is certainly not a latecomer to. Malcolm Nance, a highly experienced SERE school master instructor, weighed in with a powerfully descriptive yet overly emotional and sentimental post on the SWJ blog. The sheer gravitas of his professional experience made certain that his opinion would be widely read and discussed in the blogosphere, with everyone from Dan of TDAXP to Abu Muqawama commenting.

Yet emotions, opinions and feelings must stay out of this debate. Nothing less than the future of our rule of law rests on our ability to view this dangerous world we live in as dispassionately and factually as possible. That means the information must be made available to make the hard calls on the issue and not be based on ideological rants from a minuscule minority of lawyers (John Yoo, David Addington) or the Pollyannaish views of another minority who believe that terrorists are little different from enemy soldiers in their tactics and grand strategy.

Educated and informed members of our civil society must ask a momentous series of questions of our lead practitioners and experts with vast experience in counter-terrorism, Constitutional law, law enforcement, intelligence-gathering, interrogation and warfare.

Such a gathering of the minds could occur under a commission brought to order by the President-elect in November 2008. They would be tasked with surveying all the evidence, facts and informed testimony available about the usage of enhanced interrogation techniques throughout modern history to include the post 9/11 era.

My suggestions for the co-chairs of the commission are none other than Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, to include additional representation from Sen. John Warner and Sen. Bob Kerrey, two retired four-star military officers, two retired senior intelligence officials, two former heads of the NCIS and Army CID as well as former FBI director Louis Freeh and two highly respected Constitutional scholars.

They would first need to answer a qualifying question that would prevent needless research and wasted time:

Until the past presidential term, were any of the enhanced interrogation tactics currently utilized by the USG considered torture by a serious majority of criminal prosecutors, lawmakers and historians?

After disqualifying any tactics that are clearly legal though perhaps counterproductive or just politically incorrect, they would need to determine the answers to the 10 pressing questions the use of enhanced interrogation techniques has brought to the fore:

1. Given the historical record available, does the use of enhanced interrogation tactics utilizing methods currently utilized by the US government work?

(Care will be taken to classify those tactics that have not yet been publicized, unless of course they are found to be “torture” and thus denounced in the final report.)

2. What do you do with the detainees who we utilize the enhanced interrogation tactics on?

(Can we afford to release them if they turn out to be low-level players or innocent and allow them to spread their knowledge of US interrogation tactics, or worse, publicize them to the national and global media, as has already happened?)

3. If the US has failed to keep secret its use of such tactics over the past six years, how does it plan on doing so in an age of global media, independent journalists and skillful activists who often combine observations on the ground, investigative daring and open source government statements and testimony to identify black interrogation sites and apprehended persons of interest?

4. What is the negative cost of using enhanced interrogation tactics to US relations with other countries?

(Has/will the use of such tactics proven detrimental to joint efforts? Are foreign intelligence, military and police agencies increasingly forbidden by law or edict to share information and individuals of interest with us because of such usage? How harmful has it proven to be, if at all, with public diplomacy efforts? Are foreign leaders and elites less likely or politically disinclined to assist America now because of domestic opposition made worse because of usage? Does such usage drag on coalition building or isolate America in international forums and agreements? )

5. In the event of suspected/potential terror attacks on America, what will be the effect on the American Muslim community if American Muslim citizens are interrogated by such methods?

(Will it be a galvanizing force or have a limited effect? Where does the usage fall under the Constitution?)

6. What safeguards are in place to prevent the unnecessary abuse of these tactics? Who and how are detainees selected for enhanced interrogation tactics?

7. Most important, what effects on good order, discipline and morale will the authorization of these tactics have on military, intelligence and law enforcement units?

8. What is the difference in the interpretation of the Constitution between the use of such tactics (for example) on an American citizen who is suspected of plotting the detonation of a crowded bus terminal in Dallas versus an American citizen suspected of killing 31 young women over the last 15 years?

9. Can the United States afford to support the use of enhanced interrogation tactics in the global spotlight for itself and its allies (Ethiopia, Thailand, Egypt, India, etc.) while still retaining the authority to identify and protest the use of such tactics (and worse) against people in Russia, Cuba, China, Syria, Iran, Burma, Nigeria, Venezuela, etc.?

Any illusions that the global activist community (who we depend upon and share serious interests with in areas like Eastern Europe, Central Asia, Southeast Asia and sub-Saharan Africa) will not rein contempt and doubt on American efforts as hypocritical and useless should be dispelled now.

10.Lastly, and admittedly, a lesser matter because it still remains a relatively theoretical event; what will happen to American officials traveling abroad if such tactics are authorized while much of the rest of our allies denounce their usage? What are the chances of the arrest of a former Secretary of Defense or a current CIA chief by prosecutors in Europe or Latin America?

Let us all have a serious, informed debate about the use of enhanced interrogation techniques. Are they torture? Are they legal with regards to our Constitution, our federal laws and the UCMJ? Are Americans supportive of the use of such tactics? Are Americans prepared to be branded a nation of torture by the majority of the rest of the world?

The President, the intelligence community and the military should not have the authority to engage in such actions unless they are approved by the American electorate in an informed manner. The issue at hand is far too important to be decided for the long term in a “long war” by so few, particularly in the (thus far) overwhelming opposition of former intelligence, military and law enforcement officials who know nearly as well as their contemporaries today the problems at hand and the options available.

What the Core, and Africa, need from China

Two excelent posts this morning: Tom focuses on Chinese growth while Steve and Bradd note African stagnation. From Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog:

China today looks like the U.S. of the 1920s to Marc Faber, a well-known money manager based in Thailand. He notes that just as Chinese investors are confident about their economy, the U.S. economy was surging on hopes about technological changes like the radio and about the rise of a consumer class.

Of course, the 1929 crash set in motion a host of new rule sets in America, prompting “the creation of basic investor safeguards that strengthened the market and probably limited fallout from later tumbles.”

Not “probably,” I would say.

So like I say, China will learn from scandals and crashes. The key for us, is how we mentor them in this process, because we’ve been there and done all that before.

But you look at all that uncertainty and looming new rule sets that the Party knows full well it’ll have to adopt as the country matures and moves through all these inevitable crises, and it’s little surprise to me that China has no desire whatsoever to stick its neck out on the Burmas and Darfurs and Irans and North Koreas of the world. Why pick up the quagmire when you got this much going on at home?

The rest of the Core needs China to do three things:

  1. Do not attack attack Taiwan or otherwise threaten the security of another Core state
  2. Develop a civil society
  3. Bring security to Africa

The first goal is achieved through making it quietly but profoundly clear that the Communist Party could not survive a war with Taiwan. From encouraging the nuclearization of Japan and Taiwan to deepending military relationships with India, America has many tools to complement her navy and air force.

The second part is achieved through economic and cultural openness, both by encouraging civil society organizations to develop within China and convincing China to drop protectionism against civil society organizations without. From Soros’ Open Society Institute” to Ratzinger’s “Catholic Church,” large scale institutions are able and eager to replicate themselves within China.

The last goal is harder. China’s deepending engagement with Africa is fueld by her need for raw materials. As this rebel faction or that group of thugs kidnap Chinese workers to gain cash, China will be forced to export security to Africa. It combined with American logistics and UN bureaucratization, a substantial part of Africa’s security oversight could be removed from locals and given to the Core.

China is sometimes referred to as the “future of profit” or “future of threat.” She may also be the future of Africa.

The origins of Dozier Internet Law’s "intellectual property" Part 1: Javascript Code

My thanks to Freesome to demonstrating how one can view Dozier Internet Law, PC’s source code without violating the terms of use. I had been relying on Slashdot‘s reporting, but I’ll use Freesome from now on.

Because Dozier has issues with intellectual honesty, I was curious how much of the javascript (the code that is executed on your computer) is original, and thus can rightfully be copyright by Dozier. In particular, there are four javascript functions defined on the page:

function CSClickReturn
function CSAction(array)
function CSAction2(fct, array)
function MPOpenPopupLite(action)

a quick trip to Google Code Search reveals numerous pages with the first three function. For instance, they are included in this “netscape bugfix code. Dozier does not acknowledge this lifting, however.

The law firm is a bit more honest with “MPOpenPopupLite,” where they provide this acknowledgement:

OpenPopUpLite 2.0.1 action by Nate Baldwin, www.mindpalette.com, copyright 2004

On a standard website, of course, this would be no big deal. But Dozier’s pecular terms of use (see a description over at Public Citizen) apperas to claim exclusive rights over other people’s work.

My opinion is fact, period: On rhetoric, waterboarding, and torture

Upfront: Malcom Nance’s bio is incredible. Whatever else is the case, he clearly knows what he is talking about. My criticism is not against his knowledge, but rather the way he presents his argument in “Waterboarding is torture… period,” an article posted in the Small Wars Journal. For instance:

Yet, once captive I believe that the better angels of our nature and our nation’s core values would eventually convince any terrorist that they indeed have erred in their murderous ways.

makes no sense as a logical argument. Among other things, it implies either that no unrepentant terrorists have died in US custody or else implies a requirement for infinite life.

Well, that said, of course it is not a logical argument. It’s a rhetorical argument. It’s meant to sound good and feel good and subvert reason with intuition. Even though Nance’s argument is on Small Wars Journal, it thus reads more like a political tract that an objective analysis of a technique.

Nance’s three bulleted points likewise work better as bromides than as lemas:

Waterboarding is a torture technique. Period

No logical argument for this is given — merely it is asserted several times that arguments against it exist.


Waterboarding is not a simulation.

What follows is a semantic distinction between two virtual phenomenons: the simulated nd the controlled. I’m not sure how such a distinction is relevent, nor does Nance provide any cypher to help those who are not initiated.


If you support the use of waterboarding on enemy captives, you support the use of that torture on any future American captives.

This is an empirical question and probably demonstrably false, as the set of survey respondents who who support waterboarding on enemy captives is probably distinct from those that support such a technique on “any future American captives.” But again, in fairness to Nance, reason, logic, and facts do not concern his claim: Only the sound of the words does.

Alternatively, one might interpret Nance to be saying that we should seek a policy of reciprocity with regards to treatment of detainees with al Qaeda. However, he appears to reject this notion:

We must now double our efforts to prepare for its inevitable and uncontrolled use of by our future enemies.

I have no idea why criticisms of torture are so poor. My guess is that those who get the public ear achieve resonance on something other than logical validity of argument, while others have a hard time translating their first hand knowledge into such an argument.

(Many thanks to Eddie of Hidden Unities for passing on this link.)

The urchinTracker() method: How Dozier Internet Law, PC’s website secretly spies on its visitors

Many web sites track or (to use a less friendly word) “spy”on their users. As tdaxp.com sits on top of blogspirit’s blog content system, I can view aggregate data about who is accessing my posts. Many other sites use SiteMeter or another third-party tool to get even more detailed information.

Some attempt to hide their espionage, however. One such good example is Dozier Internet Law, PC (a company which forbids hyperlinking). They forbid the “view source” option in a web browser that allows individuals to see what code is being activated by their presense. A view source on Slashdot‘s copy of their web code reveals the following

<script type="text/javascript">
_uacct = "UA-294347-1";

Curious about what this (I was inspired by Raise the Hammer‘s investigation) I searched, and found that it is part of Google Analytics:

Google Analytics’ urchinTracker allows you to track events on your site that do not generate a pageview. Using the urchinTracker JavaScript, you can assign a specific page filename to Flash events, JavaScript events, file downloads, outbound links, and more.

For more information on using urchinTracker, please refer to the following help articles:

To be, this presents an ethical dilemma. Dozier eavesdrops on the browsers that visits it. Simultaneously, Dozier’s rules make it impossible to notice the eavesdropping while obeying its terms of use. I’m not sure what the ethics rules for “attorney advertising” (which Dozier’s website is classified as) are for lawyers in the jurisdiction where they operate, but I assume they do not encourage making informed consent impossible.


Global warming religion and the Peace Prize

Global warming religion is that form of public faith that is common among those too cool for Christianity but too human to have faith in nothing. Only superficially related to animsm, Global warming religion is closer to a search-and-replace on Protestant Christianity, focusing on

  • Sins – CO2 emitting activities
  • Tribulation – climate change, as a result of Sins
  • Salvation of Man – to occur after the Tribulation
  • Personal Salvation – to be done through turning the heart from Sins, even if Sins do not cease

The fetishism around Al Gore ads a messianic tone to the movement, as is the case for many cults.

Soob takes a pot shot at the Prophet by noting how Irene Sendler did more, but the real shame is that if the Nobel Peace Prize committee wanted to do name a former Clinton administration official, they couldn’t have done better than: Bill Clinton.

NAFTA and the WTO were two of the three most important trade organizations formed in the 1990s, and both were created under Bill Clinton.

But Al’s cool too. Who else will help me save myself while the costs of sins lead us to the tribulation? Oh, to hurry the day for the salvation of man!