This is huge, over from Black Box Voting Forums. A test election held in Florida allowed hackers to completley change the election requiring only the same kind of access needed by volunteer poll workers all over the country

.Finnish security expert Harri Hursti, together with Black Box Voting, demonstrated that Diebold made misrepresentations to Secretaries of State across the nation when Diebold claimed votes could not be changed on the “memory card” (the credit-card-sized ballot box used by computerized voting machines. A test election was run in Leon County on Tuesday with a total of eight ballots. Six ballots voted “no” on a ballot question as to whether Diebold voting machines can be hacked or not. Two ballots, cast by Dr. Herbert Thompson and by Harri Hursti voted “yes” indicating a belief that the Diebold machines could be hacked. At the beginning of the test election the memory card programmed by Harri Hursti was inserted into an Optical Scan Diebold voting machine. A “zero report” was run indicating zero votes on the memory card. In fact, however, Hursti had pre-loaded the memory card with plus and minus votes. The eight ballots were run through the optical scan machine. The standard Diebold-supplied “ender card” was run through as is normal procedure ending the election. A results tape was run from the voting machine. Correct results should have been: Yes:2 ; No:6 However, just as Hursti had planned, the results tape read: Yes:7 ; No:1

Time to dump these machines.

Or so the White House thinks. First Bush admits that we had bad intel for Iraq, but that it was a good invasion anyway. Now, he admits that he authroized the spying on of Americans.

I can’t be the only person who just shakes his head at this. Just because you admit something doesn’t make it right, you actually have to do something to fix it, you know retribution. I mean last time I checked a murderer didn’t go free by simply saying “yeah, well I did it.”

Also, finals are over so more posting.

I’ve come down with a case of the flu, so I doubt I’ll be posting much in the coming days as I am not even taking my finals. However, the NYTimes has a must read article on the National Security Agency tapping lines in America without warrants.

Some officials familiar with it say they consider warrantless eavesdropping inside the United States to be unlawful and possibly unconstitutional, amounting to an improper search. One government official involved in the operation said he privately complained to a Congressional official about his doubts about the program’s legality. But nothing came of his inquiry. “People just looked the other way because they didn’t want to know what was going on,” he said. A senior government official recalled that he was taken aback when he first learned of the operation. “My first reaction was, ‘We’re doing what?’ ” he said. While he said he eventually felt that adequate safeguards were put in place, he added that questions about the program’s legitimacy were understandable. Some of those who object to the operation argue that is unnecessary. By getting warrants through the foreign intelligence court, the N.S.A. and F.B.I. could eavesdrop on people inside the United States who might be tied to terrorist groups without skirting longstanding rules, they say.

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2005/12/curious-word-honor.html

You should read this post at Balkinization–it’s brilliant. In particular, it brings to the forefront one of the largest unspoken dilemmas of modern politics and philosophy: pragmatism vs. aspiration. As John McCain is quoted in the above as saying, “It’s not about who they are; it’s about who we are.” Whether or not you think torture is permissible, how we approach the problem speaks volumes about our qualities as a nation and a culture. See my previous post for more on this.

The CIA Leak case is of course not over, and now Raw Story is reporting that tomorrow Fitzgerald may seek an indictment on Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove. From the article, here’s the important part:

In a bid to keep Rove out of Fitzgerald’s crosshairs, Luskin recently told Fitzgerald that he had a conversation with Time magazine reporter Viveca Novak in February 2004 where she inadvertently revealed that Rove had been a source for her colleague Matt Cooper. Luskin said this prompted an exhaustive search for evidence that Cooper and Rove spoke. The search turned up an email Rove had sent to then Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley just minutes after his conversation with Cooper in which he told Hadley what they had spoken about. Luskin said he promptly turned over the email to Fitzgerald and that led Rove to change his testimony. A week ago, Fitzgerald briefed the second grand jury hearing evidence in the leak case for more than three hours. During that time, he brought them up to speed on the latest developments involving Rove and at least one other White House official, the sources said. The attorneys refused to identify the second person.

Well maybe Fitzmas will come closer to Christmas after all. This of course is important because people already forgot that Fitzgerald wasn’t limited to the first grand jury at all, not sure how that meme ever got started.

Food for thought: “Intelligence sharing between Europe and the United States certainly won’t grind to a halt but European political elites are coming under increasing pressure from their angry publics to distance themselves from any U.S. practices that infringe on human rights and international law. That spells trouble for European intelligence officers who cannot say with certainty how the intelligence they share will be used by their U.S. counterparts.” –democracyarsenal.org [emphasis mine]

Intelligence cooperation has apparently been the unspoken backbone of political goodwill between Europe and the United States, even during moments of tense policy debate. That our stance on human rights could affect that backbone is troubling as well as unforeseen.

I mention this merely to provide more context for the human rights/terrorism defense debate, which rages unabated–and apparently unprogressed–in the news. What other practical considerations ought to be included when we weigh the hefty philosophical and moral burdens of sullying our souls through torture? Such actions are, I believe, like abortion: even on those occasions when they are both permissible and better than the alternative, they are NEVER to be wished for. No one is ever either pro-abortion or pro-torture; such choices are merely, as Winston Churchill might have said, the worst options except for all the others.

India, a nation of one billion, was able to hold an election using electronic voting. And by saying an election, I should remind you that it was an earthquake of an election leading to many changes and surprises, and because of the system they set up, none of the players questioned it. There were no complains of fraud or lost votes, no there was confidence. Is it that American’s just don’t trust anyone, or is it something bigger that the people we trust can’t be trusted.

The chief executive officer of electronic voting company Diebold who once famously declared that he would “deliver” Ohio for President Bush has resigned effective immediately, RAW STORY has learned. “The board of directors and Wally mutually agreed that his decision to resign at this time for personal reasons was in the best interest of all parties,” the company’s new chairman said in a statement.

This comes after rumors of possible fraud charges being bought against O’Dell and Diebold. Additionally after a GAO report that listed the possible ways in which the current electronic voting system could be tampered with. truthout provides an analysis of the report and some of its more disturbing findings.

The Brad Blog has excellent coverage over the resignation and imminent legal woes to face the company and O’Dell.

But back to India. The land of tech support was able to get electronic voting right, and yet we in America can’t demand or perhaps our leaders in Congress don’t think we deserve the same security. How can a nation of one billion have a better system of election than America? Back in February of 2004 the BBC put together an article explaining the Indian voting system. They even had a redundant back up system, something that our nation refuses to adopt, one can only be left asking why.

Both photos courtesy of Reuters, via the NY Times, these are pictures of Stanley Tookie Williams when he was first sentenced to death and committed to jail, and of him today, hours before his lethal injection.

With the same basic facts as Zac’s post on Mr. Williams, co-founder of the Crips gang, I have a different question: Why do we use prison as a punishment? Rehabilitation? Punishment? Deterrence? Protection? How many of these goals does it actually serve? What are the good reasons for putting someone behind bars–to wit, depriving them of their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness–for any length of time? How about for a year? For two years? For twenty? For fifty? Is fifty years worse than the death penalty?

Have we ever considered alternatives? Would such alternatives be viable if it meant not depriving prisoners of their youth while still punishing and exacting payment for society?

Again: Why do we use prison?

State and local governments have been irresponsible, to the tune of perhaps a trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities. These governments have made unsustainable promises to current and future retirees.

For years, governments have been promising generous medical benefits to millions of schoolteachers, firefighters and other employees when they retire, yet experts say that virtually none of these governments have kept track of the mounting price tag. The usual practice is to budget for health care a year at a time, and to leave the rest for the future. Off the government balance sheets - out of sight and out of mind - those obligations have been ballooning as health care costs have spiraled and as the baby-boom generation has approached retirement. …most states and cities have set aside no money to pay for retiree medical benefits. Instead, they use the pay-as-you-go system - paying for former employees out of current revenue.

I do love them, I use to watch CSPAN all the time in high school. Today Byrd and Frist had a fun back and forth.

Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia said Monday he doesn’t expect Democrats to filibuster the nomination of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, but he still chastised Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist for threatening to stop any such effort through a drastic parliamentary effort that has been dubbed the “nuclear option.” “If he ever tries to exercise that, he’s going to see a real filibuster if I’m living and able to stand on my feet or sit in my seat,” Byrd said in a Senate debate with Frist, R-Tenn. “If the senator wants a fight, let him try it,” said Byrd, the Senate’s senior Democrat. “I’m 88 years old, but I can still fight, and fight I will for freedom of speech. I haven’t been here for 47 years to see that freedom of speech whittled away and undermined. ”

and another part of the debate from Think Progress

BYRD: And the Constitution says that the Senate has the power of advice and consent. It doesn’t say how that consent would be measured. It doesn’t say it has to be an up or down. Nothing in the history, nothing in the Constitution says that. Yes, you can point that out in the Constitution to me, where it says a nominee shall have the right to an up or down vote. Can the Senator point that out in the Constitution to me? Can the Senator point that out in the Constitution to me? FRIST: If the distinguished Senator from West Virginia would let me answer, I would be happy to. BYRD: Yes. FRIST: It’s not in the Constitution that a United States Senator specifically has the up or down – the right for an up or down vote.

Good graphic on the Washington Post’s website called “Abramoff Spread the Wealth.”

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Monday refused to spare the life of Stanley Tookie Williams, a death row inmate. I had been hopeful about this all week. I am plainly against the death penalty and Williams has done a lot of good in jail. Many have spoken about redemption and whether one can get it, and I believe this man has really done good things not as a show but out of a legitimate and serious change of heart. Life in jail is no fun time and I abhor that we as a society put anyone to death, especially someone who seems to be benefiting society a great deal now.

Good Talk Left post on the matter.