“Baiting is putting an object out there that we know they will use, with the intention of destroying the enemy,” Capt. Matthew P. Didier, the leader of an elite sniper scout platoon attached to the 1st Battalion of the 501st Infantry Regiment, said in a sworn statement. “Basically, we would put an item out there and watch it. If someone found the item, picked it up and attempted to leave with the item, we would engage the individual as I saw this as a sign they would use the item against U.S. Forces.”

So I have to ask, do they chum the streets before they go fishing?

More seriously, how is this not a war crime?

Here’s another bit that make this story even better:

Hensley is also charged with killing an Iraqi man whom he approached after the sniper team noticed the man placing wires on a road. Hensley shot him outside his home, maintaining that the man appeared to be moving for a weapon.

Two and a half months after the shooting near the pump house, authorities seized Sandoval while he was vacationing at his mother’s house in Laredo, Tex. The charges have baffled family members, who describe Sandoval as a caring and honest young man who is being punished for following orders.

Ah, he was just following orders… Where have I heard that one before? Of course he’s innocent until his guilt is proven, but this is a rather disgusting turn of events.

An MIT student wearing a device on her chest that included lights and wires was arrested at gunpoint at Logan International Airport this morning after authorities thought the contraption was a bomb strapped to her body.

Star Simpson, 19, was wearing a black hooded sweatshirt and approached an airport employee in Terminal C at 8 a.m. to inquire about an incoming flight from Oakland, according to Major Scott Pare of the State Police. She was holding a lump of what looked like putty in her hands. The employee asked about the plastic circuit board on her chest, and Simpson walked away without responding, Pare said.

Picture of the “bomb” after the jump.

Yep folks, that’s the bomb. I know I was more of a biologist, but that just looks like a small breadboad, some resistors and a few flashing lights. The kind of thing that will distract me at a moment’s notice.

I just have to ask, why are the guards at a major international airport so stupid? Their job is to protect people, and part of that job must entail knowing the difference between a bomb and a Radio Shack electronics kit, right? Furthermore, for years I went from SEA to ONT and back with a backpack filled with random wires, hard drives and other computer equipment. I’ve never had any issues.

Here’s the quote that gets me:

“Thankfully because she followed our instructions, she ended up in our cell instead of a morgue,” Pare said. “Again, this is a serious offense … I’m shocked and appalled that somebody would wear this type of device to an airport.”

It would have been one thing to simply ask to look at it to see what it was. That’s perfectly reasonable. But to threaten her life, find out they made a mistake and then charge her with “having a ‘hoax’ device” as a sort of consolation prize is ridiculous.

Screw these idiots.

Charleston novelist James Oliver Rigney Jr., 58, known to millions of readers by the pen name Robert Jordan, the best-selling author of “The Wheel of Time” fantasy series, died Sunday after a fight with the rare blood disease amyloidosis, a progressive disorder first diagnosed in December 2005 at the Medical University of South Carolina.

Ouch, I always thought the jokes about not starting his “Wheel of Time” series until he had finished them in case of an untimely death were just that, jokes.

Behold the full interactive DNA of Craig Venter – online and zoomable.

(Via The Daily Dish.)

Also, this is the first time I’ve really had a chance to browse the Public Library of Science. What an incredible publication. It’s about time we started being able to see more primary results in the public domain.

From Human Rights Watch:

“Human Rights Watch shares the public’s goal of protecting children from sex abuse,” said Jamie Fellner, director of the US program at Human Rights Watch. “But current laws are ill-conceived and poorly crafted. Protecting children requires a more thoughtful and comprehensive approach than politicians have been willing to support.”

In many states, registration covers everyone convicted of a sexual crime, which can range from child rape to consensual teenage sex, and regardless of their potential future threat to children. Unfettered public access to online sex-offender registries with no “need-to-know” restrictions exposes former offenders to the risk that individuals will act on this information in irresponsible and even unlawful ways. There is little evidence that this form of community notification prevents sexual violence. Residency restrictions banish former offenders from entire towns and cities, forcing them to live far from homes, families, jobs and treatment, and hindering law-enforcement supervision. Residency restrictions are counterproductive to public safety and harmful to former offenders.

Sex offender laws reflect public concern that children are at grave risk of sexual abuse by strangers who are repeat offenders. As the report documents, however, the real risks children face are quite different: government statistics indicate that most sexual abuse of children is committed by family members or trusted authority figures, and by someone who has not previously been convicted of a sex offense.

In addition, the laws reflect the widely shared but erroneous belief that “once a sex offender, always a sex offender.” Authoritative studies indicate that three out of four adult offenders do not reoffend. Moreover, treatment can be effective even for people who have committed serious sex crimes.

The full report (all 146 pages) can be found here, in both .pdf and browsable formats.

Here are a few interesting bits I found:

On Recidivism:

The most comprehensive study of sex offender recidivism to date consists of a meta-analysis of numerous studies yielding recidivism rates for a period of up to 15 years post-release for people convicted of such serious offenses as rape and child molesting.44 The analysis, which included over 29,000 sex offenders, found that within four to six years of release, 14 percent of all sex offenders will be arrested or convicted for a new sex crime.45 Over a 15-year period, recidivism rates for all sex offenders averaged 24 percent.46 This is not a trivial rate by any means, given the seriousness of the offenses committed. Yet it also indicates that three out of four sexually violent offenders do not reoffend.

On Residency Restrictions:

There is no evidence, however, that these laws do in fact diminish crimes against children. For registered offenders, the main impact of the laws may be simply to drive them underground or to uproot them from their families and communities. Iowa’s experience with residency restrictions has caused at least one state to resist enacting such laws. In November 2006 lawmakers in Kansas decided not to adopt residency restrictions after reviewing evidence that Iowa’s law had doubled the number of registered offenders unaccounted for since it took effect.412

Residency restriction laws reflect an assumption that former offenders are most likely to commit new offenses against children who gather near where they live—either because the proximity of children tempts them or simply because they are easier to access. But this assumption is not borne out by research. The Colorado Department of Public Safety found that convicted child molesters in Colorado who reoffended while on probation were randomly scattered throughout the geographical area, and did not seem to live closer than non-recidivists to schools or child care centers.413 A small study by the Minnesota Department of Corrections found that the proximity of a former offender’s residence to schools or parks was not a factor in recidivism. In fact it found the opposite: sex offenders who recidivated were more likely to travel to another neighborhood to seek victims. During the study period, the only two recidivist acts of child sexual assault committed in parks on unknown victims occurred several miles away from the offenders’ homes.414

I’m still reading bits and pieces of this report as I have time, but the more I read the more damning this report becomes. I find it sickening that so many claim to want to do something about this issue, yet never study it to find out what the best thing to do is. There is no question that many of these people are dangerous members of society and need to be dealt with in an appropriate manner.

Yet if they are such a risk to the rest of us, why aren’t we enacting ;aws which actually work?

While watching today’s coverage of the Petraeus/Ryan meetings, I was struck by the utter lack of tact and forethought in the actions of some lucky enough to get a seat in the gallery. Despite being warned of the decorum to be followed during official proceedings by the Chair, some felt it appropriate to chant, yell and prevent the proceedings from continuing. When it came to the point of being arrested, they screamed and resisted and generally made their existence known to all around them.

Representatives of groups like Code Pink seem to believe that dressing up in poorly made costumes, chanting inane rants and acting like you’re being tortured when the DC Police come to arrest you does nothing but alienate your members and your message from the field of rational political discourse. Much like a child at a store who was refused a candy bar, these individuals yelled and stamped around and held their breath until they were removed from the situation.

So I ask these people, what good did you do? You understand that the party in control of Congress generally supports your views, right? Do you understand parliamentary procedure enough to understand that there is a limited amount of time for questions, and that by holding up the proceedings, you give less time for questions to be raised and oversight to be accomplished? Do you understand that by dressing and acting like toddlers you and your positions will be treated as though they are and came from toddlers?

I don’t care if their intentions are good. In the face of good acts, good intentions are meaningless. What these people did hurts their cause, a cause that most of America actually supports. If your goal is to save the lives of the troops and the citizens of Iraq, congratulations. You’ve worked against those goals. Your actions make an easy target for those opposed to ending this war, and make it more difficult for those who support an end to keep supporting it.

There is no need for hack political commentators to construct rhetorical straw men when you and your ilk so readily do it for them.

I understand that the war is one of the biggest mistakes the current administration has made. I understand that it’s frustrating to see our soldiers die every day for seemingly nothing. I understand that the Republicans are generally dragging their feet and the Democrats are generally not pulling every trick they can. I understand that the President is a poor military leader. I and many others feel the same way you do.

Yet how many soldiers did dressing up and getting arrested bring home?

This isn’t the 1960s and the tactics need updating. No one cares about people who chain themselves to a door, or walk around with signs or get arrested in the middle of Congress. Walking around looking like a mob of zombies chanting about your favorite cause also does little to endear you to the average American, who has little time for such things. The tactics I see over and over again do not draw attention to your cause, they simply draw attention to yourself.

I find that incredibly selfish.

I’m not expecting any huge surprises, but I’m hoping for a good grilling.

Hagel Will Not Run for Re-Election: “The Omaha World Herald reports Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) is calling it quits. Hagel plans to announce on Monday that ‘he will not run for re-election and that he does not intend to be a candidate for any office in 2008,’ said one source.

Hagel informed Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) of his decision yesterday morning and informed his staff later in the day.

(Via Taegan Goddard’s Political Wire.)

Folks, this is rather huge. The senate will be losing Craig at the end of the month, and Warner has already announced his retirement in 2008. Craig will undoubtably be replaced by another Republican, but Warner could easily be replaced by a Democrat. Less likely is another Democrat taking a spot in Nebraska, but the new chair of the Democratic party is a big fan of the so called, “50 State Strategy”.

The other thing this means is perhaps a turn on policy matters. Warner has already come out against the war, and Hagel is a rather moderate Republican. It will be interesting to see how they both spend the remainder of their senatorial career.