Month: July 2014

He Could Always Read the Report from the Well of the Senate

Ron Widen (D-)R) is looking at using Congressional authority to declassify the CIA torture report:

A senior Senate Democrat is firing a warning shot at the White House against stalling the release of a report about the past use of torture by the U.S. intelligence community.

Sen. Ron Wyden is talking with his colleagues about the possibility of using a seldom-invoked procedure to declassify an Intelligence Committee report on the use of torture in the event the White House does not move ahead quickly.

Speaking with reporters on a variety of subjects Thursday, the Oregon Democrat referred to the Senate’s “Resolution 400″ — the Abraham A. Ribicoff-sponsored resolution that established the Intelligence Committee back in 1976.

Wyden said he was discussing invoking the resolution “in order to move this along if we have to, through the committee process, to get it declassified.”


Bringing up Senate Resolution 400 in conversations this week is a reminder from Wyden that the legislative branch would have recourse in the event the Obama administration stonewalls the release, a point made clear in the Senate manual:

“The select committee may, subject to the provisions of this section, disclose publicly any information in the possession of such committee after a determination by such committee that the public interest would be served by such disclosure. Whenever committee action is required to disclose any information under this section, the committee shall meet to vote on the matter within five days after any member of the committee requests such a vote. No member of the select committee shall disclose any information, the disclosure of which requires a committee vote, prior to a vote by the committee on the question of the disclosure of such information or after such vote except in accordance with this section.”

Of course he would actually have to get a majority vote in the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is pretty unlikely, which is why I think that invoking the Constitutionally granted Congressional immunity might be the way to go, though this would almost certainly get Wyden tossed of the Intel Committee.

Today’s Episode of Not Surprised at All: CEO Pay Edition

It turns out that there is No relationship whatsoever between a CEO pay and performance:

With all the public chatter about exorbitant executive compensation and income inequality, it’s useful to look at the relationship between chief executive officer pay and corporate performance. Typically, when the subject of their big pay packages arises, CEOs—usually through their spokespeople—say they are paid for performance. Does data back that up?

An analysis of compensation data publicly released by Equilar shows little correlation between CEO pay and company performance. Equilar ranked the salaries of 200 highly paid CEOs. When compared to metrics such as revenue, profitability, and stock return, the scattering of data looks pretty random, as though performance doesn’t matter. The comparison makes it look as if there is zero relationship between pay and performance.

Actually, it’s on the order of 1%, and certainly not worth it. (Click on the image for a better view of the trend line)

The cult of the overpaid CEO has no basis in reality.

It’s  all a game where one hand washes the other.


Cell Phone Unlocking Legal Again

Following on the Senate’s lead, the House has passed a bill re-legalizing the abilities of consumers to unlock cell phones:

This afternoon, the House passed S. 517, the Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act, under unanimous consent. The bill allows consumers to “unlock” their cell phones so they can take a phone with them from one service provider to another. The bill already passed in the Senate, and will now make its way to the President’s desk for signing.

The following can be attributed to Laura Moy, Staff Attorney at Public Knowledge:

“This important legislation responds to hundreds of thousands of Americans who signed petitions, called, and wrote to government leaders asking for the right to unlock devices they legally own.

“We are particularly grateful to Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Conyers, and Ms. Lofgren for their work on this important issue and their willingness to find a compromise that works for their constituencies, as well as for the wireless industry and public interest groups like ours.

“This bill ensures that consumers will be able to do what they rightfully expect to be able to do with phones they have purchased: use them on whatever network they like. It protects consumers who unlock their devices from possible criminal and civil liability under an overreaching copyright law known as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which was designed to protect copyright but has had enormous unintended consequences.

“Not only will this legislation deliver on consumers’ expectations that they can use devices they own the way they see fit, but it will have other positive effects as well. It will make it easier for consumers to switch from one provider to another, improving competition in the wireless market; it will improve the availability of free and low-cost secondhand phones for consumers who cannot afford to purchase new devices; and it will keep millions of devices out of landfills.

“This is also an important first step toward reforming the DMCA, which goes far beyond its original intent to protect copyright. Ms. Lofgren has introduced a bill that would go beyond phone unlocking to allow Americans to break any digital lock as long as they’re not violating copyright. This could apply to consumer products that all Americans use, ranging from cars to tractors to hearing aids. We hope the House will take up the Lofgren bill soon.”

The Library of Congress decided that unlocking cell phones should become illegal under the DMCA, and people’s heads exploded, because they were being told that they could not unlock cell phones that THEY owned.

BTW, the Lofgren bill that is mentioned would change Section 1201 of the DMCA by making it it only applies to attempted piracy, and not to people doing things unlocking their own phone:

New legislation sponsored by Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Thomas Massie (R-KY), Anna Eshoo (D-CA), and Jared Polis (D-CO) takes a broader approach to the issue. In addition to explicitly legalizing cell phone unlocking, the Unlocking Technology Act of 2013 also modifies the DMCA to make clear that unlocking copy-protected content is only illegal if it’s done in order to “facilitate the infringement of a copyright.” If a circumvention technology is “primarily designed or produced for the purpose of facilitating noninfringing uses,” that would not be a violation of copyright.

For example, Lofgren’s bill would likely make it legal for consumers to rip DVDs for personal use in much the same way they’ve long ripped CDs. It would remove legal impediments to making versions of copyrighted works that are accessible to blind users. And it would ensure that car owners have the freedom to service their vehicles without running afoul of copyright law.

Here is hoping that the rent seekers of the IP debate don’t win.

This is F%$#ing Brilliant!

(Click for Slideshow)


A couple in North Carolina has come up with a unique counter protest to the Talibaptist abortion criminalization crowd:

……… One Raleigh, N.C., couple—Grayson Haver Currin, a writer for Pitchfork and music editor at Indy Week, and his wife Tina, a copywriter and creative strategist—has been protesting alongside pro-lifers at a clinic in Cary, N.C., every Saturday morning since March. But their signs take a different approach.

Two days ago, Tina started the Tumblr Saturday Chores to document their glorious counter-protest technique. Grayson explains how this movement came about:

“There’s no big-box hardware store very close to where we live, so we were driving toward a suburb of Raleigh called Cary, which runs over with strip malls. We were getting supplies for a garden box. We both grew up not too far away, and we’ve seen the clinic in question hundreds of times. But for some reason, on this morning in particular, the protesters got under our skin a little more than normal. I’m full of crazy ideas and jokes, and Tina tells me which rare ones are good. I suggested that we make a sign that said ‘Weird Hobby’ and point at one of the protestors. She loved the idea and vowed that, if they were there when we passed back by, we’d do it.


He states that though this is satire, there’s an important message behind the signs.

“While it’s true that we’re mocking people, we consider the chief value of what we’re doing the solidarity that we demonstrate for the individuals or families that need to use the clinic’s services for whatever reasons they may have,” Grayson says. “Generally, upon arrival, they only encounter hate. We want to offer a rejoinder, however slight. And we also hope to show passersby on the busy thoroughfare that the far religious right need not be the only ones with a voice; those with progressive views have one, too, and we should use it.”

This is so F%$#ing brilliant.

No shouting, no screaming, nothing to make them feel like they are fighting “the man,” you just make them look, and feel, stupid.

I love it!

H/t Crooks and Liars.

Not the Onion: Open Carry Group Protest at Dealey Plaza

A pink rifle, a guy complaining about the English not celebrating July 4, a preacher decrying sexual immorality, and (of course) a memorial to John F Kennedy at the spot he was shot.

No, I am not joking here,

They actually thought that it was a good idea to pack heat on Dealy Plaza as a way to win hearts and minds:

As they’ve been doing on each third Saturday for months, advocates for the open carrying of firearms gathered — semiautomatic weapons in tow — at Dealey Plaza over the weekend. As usual the demonstrators, who call themselves Come and Take It Dallas, handed out literature and preened with their armaments of choice.

Seriously. Really?

Well, This Explains Something About the MH17 Shootdown

Bill Sweetman has a very good article on the Buk missile system, and how it was likely deployed, and how this contributed to the shoot-down of the Malaysian Airlines jet:

With mounting evidence that Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 was shot down by Ukrainian separatist rebels who believed they were engaging a military aircraft, attention is focusing on the Russian-built Almaz-Antey Buk-M1 ground-based air defense system (GBADS) that destroyed the airliner.

The Buk-M1 (SA-11 Gadfly to NATO) can be used by minimally trained operators to deliver a lethal attack, without the safeguards built into other comparable GBADS, an Aviation Week analysis shows. It is also one of the two GBADS — both of Soviet origin — that are most widely distributed in conflict zones with the potential for large-scale, cross-border or civil violence.

The feature that makes the Buk-series weapons uniquely dangerous was introduced in the 1970s when Tikhomirov NIIP, now part of Almaz-Antey, designed the system to replace the 2K12 Kub low-altitude missile system, known to NATO as the SA-6 Gainful. (The similar names are coincidental: “Kub” means “cube” and “Buk” means “beech.”)

The Buk transporter-erector-launcher is designed to operate both as a part of an integrated air defense system (IADS) and independently, and this capability is what probably led to the incident:

The designers of the replacement Buk system had anticipated this problem. In addition to a new radar vehicle – the Phazotron 9S18M, Snow Drift to NATO – they fitted each launch vehicle with its own X-band multi-mode radar, under a radome on the front of the rotating launch platform. The vehicle is defined as a transporter/erector/launcher and radar (Telar). Similar to a fighter radar, the Telar radar (known to NATO as Fire Dome) has search, track and illuminator functions and can scan through a 120-deg. arc, independent of the movement of the platform.

This feature may have been a crucial factor in the destruction of MH17. The Fire Dome radar’s main job was to permit simultaneous engagement of more targets – one per Telar – under control of the battery’s 9S18M Snow Drift. But the Soviet military and the designers installed a set of backup modes that would permit the Telars to detect and attack targets autonomously, in the event the Snow Drift was shut down or destroyed by NATO’s rapidly improving anti-radar missiles.

The autonomous modes are intended for last-ditch use by the Telar operators, not the more highly trained crews in the battery command vehicle. According to an experienced analyst of Russian-developed radar, the automatic radar modes display targets within range. The operator can then command the system to lock up the target, illuminate and shoot.

Critically, these backup modes also bypass two safety features built into the 9S18M Snow Drift radar: a full-function identification friend-or-foe (IFF) system and non-cooperative target recognition (NCTR) modes. The IFF system uses a separate interrogator located above the main radar antenna and most likely will have been upgraded to current civilian standards.

The 9S18M introduced new NCTR processing technology, according to a 1998 interview with Buk designer Ardalion Rastov. NCTR techniques are closely held, but one of the most basic – jet engine modulation, or the analysis of beats and harmonics in the radar return that are caused by engine fan or compressor blades – should easily discriminate among a 777 with high-bypass turbofans, a turboprop transport or an Su-25 attack fighter.

There is no sign of an IFF interrogator on the Buk Telar’s Fire Dome radar or elsewhere on the vehicle. In normal operation, it would not be necessary since the target’s identity would be verified (according to the prevailing rules of engagement) before target data was passed to the Telar. Other GBADS also leave identification to the main search radar and the command-and-control center; however, the launch units cannot engage and fire without central guidance. The Buk’s combination of lethality and lack of IFF/NCTR is unique.

In a heavy SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses) environment, the capability to operate autonomously, with the main battery turning on only briefly, and then passing the general targeting parameters to the TELs would be highly desirable.

However, in a situation like the Ukrainian civil war, where the rebels clearly are not operating an IADS, nor they are even operating as a complete Buk system.  They are operating as a lone TEL.

No central guidance, acquisition radar, no IFF, no trained command center, no kidding.

Why on earth airlines were routing aircraft through the Ukraine in such a situation, and the rebels possession of Buk TELs was well known, is completely beyond me.

Live in Obedient Fear, Citizen!

In his latest, someone, almost certainly not Edward Snowden, leaked him Jeremy Scahill, “The Secret Government Rulebook For Labeling You a Terrorist,” and finds a document that can be shortened to, “Because I said so.”

It’s truly horrifying:

The Obama administration has quietly approved a substantial expansion of the terrorist watchlist system, authorizing a secret process that requires neither “concrete facts” nor “irrefutable evidence” to designate an American or foreigner as a terrorist, according to a key government document obtained by The Intercept.

The “March 2013 Watchlisting Guidance,” a 166-page document issued last year by the National Counterterrorism Center, spells out the government’s secret rules for putting individuals on its main terrorist database, as well as the no fly list and the selectee list, which triggers enhanced screening at airports and border crossings. The new guidelines allow individuals to be designated as representatives of terror organizations without any evidence they are actually connected to such organizations, and it gives a single White House official the unilateral authority to place “entire categories” of people the government is tracking onto the no fly and selectee lists. It broadens the authority of government officials to “nominate” people to the watchlists based on what is vaguely described as “fragmentary information.” It also allows for dead people to be watchlisted.

Over the years, the Obama and Bush Administrations have fiercely resisted disclosing the criteria for placing names on the databases—though the guidelines are officially labeled as unclassified. In May, Attorney General Eric Holder even invoked the state secrets privilege to prevent watchlisting guidelines from being disclosed in litigation launched by an American who was on the no fly list. In an affidavit, Holder called them a “clear roadmap” to the government’s terrorist-tracking apparatus, adding: “The Watchlisting Guidance, although unclassified, contains national security information that, if disclosed … could cause significant harm to national security.”

National security, the last refuge of scoundrels.

The rulebook, which The Intercept is publishing in full, was developed behind closed doors by representatives of the nation’s intelligence, military, and law-enforcement establishment, including the Pentagon, CIA, NSA, and FBI. Emblazoned with the crests of 19 agencies, it offers the most complete and revealing look into the secret history of the government’s terror list policies to date. It reveals a confounding and convoluted system filled with exceptions to its own rules, and it relies on the elastic concept of “reasonable suspicion” as a standard for determining whether someone is a possible threat. Because the government tracks “suspected terrorists” as well as “known terrorists,” individuals can be watchlisted if they are suspected of being a suspected terrorist, or if they are suspected of associating with people who are suspected of terrorism activity.

“Instead of a watchlist limited to actual, known terrorists, the government has built a vast system based on the unproven and flawed premise that it can predict if a person will commit a terrorist act in the future,” says Hina Shamsi, the head of the ACLU’s National Security Project. “On that dangerous theory, the government is secretly blacklisting people as suspected terrorists and giving them the impossible task of proving themselves innocent of a threat they haven’t carried out.” Shamsi, who reviewed the document, added, “These criteria should never have been kept secret.”

The document’s definition of “terrorist” activity includes actions that fall far short of bombing or hijacking. In addition to expected crimes, such as assassination or hostage-taking, the guidelines also define destruction of government property and damaging computers used by financial institutions as activities meriting placement on a list. They also define as terrorism any act that is “dangerous” to property and intended to influence government policy through intimidation.

This combination—a broad definition of what constitutes terrorism and a low threshold for designating someone a terrorist—opens the way to ensnaring innocent people in secret government dragnets. It can also be counterproductive. When resources are devoted to tracking people who are not genuine risks to national security, the actual threats get fewer resources—and might go unnoticed.

“If reasonable suspicion is the only standard you need to label somebody, then it’s a slippery slope we’re sliding down here, because then you can label anybody anything,” says David Gomez, a former senior FBI special agent with experience running high-profile terrorism investigations. “Because you appear on a telephone list of somebody doesn’t make you a terrorist. That’s the kind of information that gets put in there.

Here is the kicker:

The nomination system appears to lack meaningful checks and balances. Although government officials have repeatedly said there is a rigorous process for making sure no one is unfairly placed in the databases, the guidelines acknowledge that all nominations of “known terrorists” are considered justified unless the National Counterterrorism Center has evidence to the contrary. In a recent court filing, the government disclosed that there were 468,749 KST nominations in 2013, of which only 4,915 were rejected–a rate of about one percent. The rulebook appears to invert the legal principle of due process, defining nominations as “presumptively valid.”

(emphasis mine)

Half a million people put on the list every year, and they have no obligation to prove you guilty.

The term Kafkaesque comes to mind.

The Intercept has published the whole document on their site, and I have embedded it after the break.

Note correction.  I did not loook at the byline.  It was Jeremy Scahill and Ryan Devereaux, not Glenn Greenwald who broke this story.

Seriously, Republican Judges are Just Phoning it in Now

In the Hobby Lobby case, we have Justice Alito pulling a religious privilege for corporations out of thing air, but not for blood transfusions or psychology, because the people who oppose medical procedures are, Jehova’s Witnesses and Scientologists,  are icky.

They did the same thing with 150 years of precedent on recess appointments, etc.

Now with the ruling of the DC Court of appeals on Obamacare subsidies, they went off the deep end, and ruled that the subsidies only apply to states that have set up their own exchanges.

2 hours later, the 4th circuit court of appeals ruled the other way.

What’s more in the 4th Circuit’s opinion has an assent that absolutely nails the amazing level of hackitude in the DC Circuit’s opinion:

In fact, Appellants’ reading is not literal; it’s cramped. No case stands for the proposition that literal readings should take place in a vacuum, acontextually, and untethered from other parts of the operative text; indeed, the case law indicates the opposite. National Association of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644, 666 (2007). So does common sense: If I ask for pizza from Pizza Hut for lunch but clarify that I would be fine with a pizza from Domino’s, and I then specify that I want ham and pepperoni on my pizza from Pizza Hut, my friend who returns from Domino’s with a ham and pepperoni pizza has still complied with a literal construction of my lunch order. That is this case: Congress specified that Exchanges should be established and run by the states, but the contingency provision permits federal officials to act in place of the state when it fails to establish an Exchange. The premium tax credit calculation subprovision later specifies certain conditions regarding state-run Exchanges, but that does not mean that a
literal reading of that provision somehow precludes its applicability to substitute federally-run Exchanges or erases the contingency provision out of the statute.

Seriously, conservative Judges will take any cockamamie fringe idea that some desperate for tenure right law professor, desperate for tenure can scrawl on a bathroom wall, and they are running with it.

They have completely lost it, because, to quote Blazing Saddles, “The Sheriff is a Ni!!!”

Detroit Retirees Vote to Cut Own Pensions, Bond Scum Plan to Fight it in Court

I understand how insurance works: You sell insurance, and when someone makes a claim, you do whatever you can to screw your policy holders.

In the case of Detroit pensioners, who have no access social security as municipal employees, made concessessions, but the bond insurers want it all:

Two major bond insurers that could lose billions on Detroit’s bankruptcy blasted the city’s plan to pay retirees more than financial creditors and vowed to fight retirees’ endorsement of the deal.

After pensioners voted by a wide margin to accept cuts and allow the Detroit Institute of Arts to spin off into an independent charitable trust, bond insurers Syncora and Financial Guaranty Insurance Co. (FGIC) pledged to continue their vigorous legal fight against the city.

Judge Steven Rhodes will now conduct a confirmation trial starting Aug. 14 to consider evidence and witness testimony before determining whether the plan is fair, feasible and legal and can be approved.

The bond insurers — which backed a $1.4-billion debt deal brokered in 2005 by Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick’s administration to fund pensions — voted no on the city’s offer to them, which ranged from 0 to 10 cents on the dollar.

BTW, they want the Detroit Institute of Art, one of the finest art collections in the United States, to sell off all of its art, because they cheated Detroit with their (probably illegal) interest rate swaps, fair and square.

Not enough bullets.

Why Snowden Going Through Channels was Never a Real Options

NPR looks at what happened to other people who attempted to complain about agency misconduct, and it ain’t pretty:  Harassment, bogus charges, and systematic vilification, specifically the cases of Bill Binney and Thomas Drake.

I think that the quote describes just how effective the inspectors general are about such things:

“Perhaps it’s the case that we could’ve shown, we could’ve explained to Mr. Snowden his misperceptions, his lack of understanding of what we do,” [NSA Inspector General George] Ellard said.

We he is refer”Perhaps it’s the case that we could’ve shown, we could’ve explained to Mr. Snowden his misperceptions, his lack of understanding of what we do,” Ellard said.

If you listen to the interview, you realize that he’s not talking the Inspector General’s office, he’s talking about the NSA.

The IG, and the whole whistle blowing apparatus are completely captured, and have not the slightest interest in addressing any potential issues.

His goal is talking Edward Snowden and other potential whistle-blowers out of actually blowing the whistle.

Also, it as it is noted in in the report, the new “protections” for intelligence operatives does not apply to contractors, and almost all new hires of the intelligence agencies are contractors.

How convenient.

This Makes Me Chuckle

Hedge fund billionaire William Ackman promised to deliver a deathblow to Herbalife from a Manhattan stage, but his long presentation on Tuesday bombed with investors and left the diet shake seller unscathed.

Herbalife CEO “Michael Johnson is a predator,” Ackman said fighting back tears as he wrapped up the second hour of the presentation while referring to his family’s American story, which started when Ackman’s great-grandfather immigrated to the U.S. from Russia. “This is a criminal enterprise.” Ackman called Herbalife a $24 billion “scam.” “The fraud is affecting more and more people,” said Ackman. “It is time to shut the company down.”

Shares of Herbalife rose steadily in the morning after Ackman started giving his talk on Herbalife’s nutritional clubs, increasing by 8% to $58.40 in the first hour of the presentation. Two hours into the talk the stock had risen by 11% to $60. That’s a little higher than the shares were changing hands for on Monday before Ackman drove down the stock by 11%, saying he would be delivering “the most important presentation that I have made in my career.” Ackman had promised in a CNBC interview on Monday that “we won’t disappoint.” Ackman’s presentation was still going on at 1:07 p.m., with the stock up by 15% to $62.22. During the presentation, Ackman suggested that Herbalife had been repurchasing shares in a material way on Tuesday. Shares of Herbalife continued to rise after the three-hour presentation ended, closing at $67.77, up 25% for the day.


The company, which has vigorously denied Ackman’s accusations, said on Tuesday that Ackman was trying to drive down Herbalife’s shares over a relatively short period because a “substantial portion of the bet expires on January 17, 2015,” referring to put options Ackman purchased when he restructured his short position in the company’s shares. Circumstantial evidence suggests Ackman’s put options are currently not in the money.


During the presentation, Ackman invoked Enron, Bernard Madoff, totalitarian regimes and even the Nazis. “The big lie is used by totalitarian regimes, and by the Nazis and by lots of people and people generally believe big lies because they are so bold that how can they possibly be false,” Ackman said. He criticized former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright for supporting Herbalife and claimed that Albright had successfully used her connections to make sure the company could continue to operate in the key China market after Ackman had attacked Herbalife’s China operations earlier this year.

Oh, yeah, and then there is those accusations of free babysitting:

“They are not selling weight loss in these clubs, they are selling business opportunities,” Ackman said at the presentation to investors in New York, adding the clubs provided free babysitting and had people working making nutrition drinks without pay.

“This is all free labor, totally illegal,” he said.

Herbalife jumped, and his short bet dropped in value as a result.

I joke about schadenfreude all the time, but this really does make me feel good.

Does that make me a bad person?

In Which a Pundit Gets it Completely F%$#ing Wrong

Over at The Atlantic they are wringing their hands because gay rights groups are now balking at religious exemptions embedded in gay rights legislation because of the Hobby Lobby decision:

In the Hobby Lobby decision handed down last month, the Supreme Court was asked to strike a balance between women’s rights and religious freedom. But the major conflict that has erupted in the wake of that decision has been between religious freedom and gay rights. The resulting controversy has split gay-rights and faith groups on the left, with wide-ranging political fallout that some now fear could hurt both causes.

One chapter of the controversy is set to close on Monday, when President Obama plans to sign a long-awaited executive order banning federal contractors from discriminating against gays and lesbians, according to a White House official. But the debate that began over that order’s provisions for religious nonprofits has spilled over into a broader conflict. Many prominent gay-rights groups have now withdrawn their support from a top legislative priority, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, over the religious exemption it contains.

It’s not a bad thing, this response is essential to good governance.

As I have noted before, “My dear, religion is like a penis. It’s a perfectly fine thing for one to have and take pride in, but when one takes it out and waves it in my face we have a problem.” 

Civil rights should not be conditioned to kowtowing to those who use religion for self-aggrandizement or as an excuse to show hostility.

Religion is a private matter, and not a matter of public morality, nor should it ever be.

On a more pragmatic level, these religious carve outs create an impetus for more carve outs, so now we have a nurse suing a birth control clinic because they would not hire her because she would refuse to prescribe to birth control.

This is insanity, and it needs to stop.

Least Surprising News of the Day

You know all those terrorism plots that the FBI uncovered?

A study has revealed that the FBI manufactured most of the terror plots that it broke up:

Nearly all of the highest-profile domestic terrorism plots in the United States since 9/11 featured the “direct involvement” of government agents or informants, a new report says.

Some of the controversial “sting” operations “were proposed or led by informants”, bordering on entrapment by law enforcement. Yet the courtroom obstacles to proving entrapment are significant, one of the reasons the stings persist.

The lengthy report, released on Monday by Human Rights Watch, raises questions about the US criminal justice system’s ability to respect civil rights and due process in post-9/11 terrorism cases. It portrays a system that features not just the sting operations but secret evidence, anonymous juries, extensive pretrial detentions and convictions significantly removed from actual plots.

“In some cases the FBI may have created terrorists out of law-abiding individuals by suggesting the idea of taking terrorist action or encouraging the target to act,” the report alleges.

Which ones weren’t? Those ones:

The four high-profile domestic plots it found free of government involvement were the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing; Najibullah Zazi’s 2009 plot to bomb the New York subway; the attempted Times Square carbombing of 2010; and the 2002 shooting at Los Angeles International Airport’s El Al counter.

So, while the FBI has been finding random idiots (read the case files, they are really stupid, while missing all of of the plots that actually went through to fruition.

But they did catch one potential terrorist that they did not sponsor ……… They just missed the other ¾ of them.

It’s an adequate batting average, for a pitcher, I guess.

You know, maybe the FBI should stop manufacturing terrorist plots, and start looking at real terror plots.

And while they are at it, how about going after the f%$#ing banksters?  They are still defrauding the rest of us.

And while we are at it, how about a pony.

I’m not gonna get that either.