06/14/13 – Eric Margolis – The Scott Horton Show

Hey, I'm Scott Horton here for WallStreetWindow.com.
Mike Swanson is a successful former hedge fund manager whose site is unique on the web.
Subscribers are allowed a window into Mike's very real main account and receive announcements and explanations for all his market moves.
Federal Reserve has been inflating the money supply to finance the bank bailouts and terror war overseas.
So, Mike's betting on commodities, mining stocks, European markets, and other hedges against a depreciating dollar.
Play along on paper or with real money and then be your own judge of Mike's investment strategies.
Find out what happens at WallStreetWindow.com.
For Pacifica Radio, 90.7 FM in Los Angeles, June 14, 2013.
I'm Scott Horton.
This is Anti-War Radio.
All right, y'all, welcome to the show, it is Anti-War Radio.
I'm your host, Scott Horton.
My full interview archives are all at scotthorton.org if you want to sign up for the podcast feed there.
And you can follow me on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube at slashscotthortonshow.
And tonight's guest is Eric Margulies.
He is the author of War at the Top of the World, an American Raj, Liberation or Domination, foreign correspondent for decades.
And writes at ericmargulies.com.
You can also find what he writes oftentimes at lourockwell.com.
Welcome back to the show.
Eric, how are you doing?
I'm just fine.
Thank you.
Lots of news these days.
Yes, lots of news.
Well, and I was telling my other radio show audience earlier today about what Lou Rockwell says about you, speaking of that website, lourockwell.com.
Lou introduced you in a recent interview as, hey, a guy who actually has been there and speaks the languages and knows what he's talking about.
So isn't that nice for a change to hear someone who knows what he's talking about, talk about American foreign policy?
Well, certainly it is.
That's why I interview you about every week or two.
Lou also said a great line.
I was telling him how all the neocons were baying for my blood.
And he said, that's why that's why the baloney hates the slicer.
Yeah, exactly.
Good line.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Eric, for those of you not familiar, Eric Margulies, he's the kind of guy who hasn't been on TV since 2002 when he was so right about Iraq and they didn't want to hear it.
That's who he is.
All right.
Let's talk Turkey here.
But first, Syria.
It's been announced at the Wall Street Journal version here, U.S. stepping up military support to Syrian rebels.
Your latest piece is along the same lines.
It's a couple of days early, but refers to the lifting of the sanctions, the arms embargo against the Syrian rebels so that now they can be directly armed by Britain and France.
Now Obama is announcing that America is going to begin directly arming them.
So I guess my first question for you then is, what difference does that make from what they've been doing this whole time, which is pay the Saudis to arm them and coordinate the Saudis arming them?
It makes no difference except possibly that more potent and larger arms can be now shipped in directly via Jordan or Lebanon or the Turkish border, like armored vehicles, anti-aircraft systems, artillery that you can't just pretend, you know, you're sneaking them in.
They'll be there.
They'll be photographed.
So but essentially, it's a game because everybody knows that the West began the uprising and has been fueling it, funding it and arming it and providing all the weapons.
Now before and it really has been what it was, December 2011, when Phil Giraldi reported the new CIA findings that Obama had signed for Iran and for Syria and that they authorized this covert support for coordination, I guess, for the Saudis and the Qataris and the Turks and whatever by the CIA.
But now that never really was very plausible deniability, but that's all it was ever meant to be, I guess, was, hey, we're not doing it.
Just the Saudis are doing it, even though, of course, if the Americans really didn't want them to, they could ask them to stop.
Right.
Oh, yeah.
It was the same ploy used in overthrowing the Libyan government.
The U.S. led from behind, as they said, and had the French and the British and the Qataris front for them in actually delivering arms and advisers, British special forces, French special forces, that type of thing.
But everybody knew Uncle Sam was standing behind it.
And now, you know, at this point, I talked with Pepe Escobar last week, and he was saying that at this point, at least half the fighters are foreigners.
They're not even Syrians.
They're not Syrian rebels at all.
They're Mujahideen.
It's like a replication of Afghanistan in the 1980s, where the CIA and the Saudis are sending fighters off to go to war.
In fact, I even saw one of the just this week, one of the Syrian rebel groups was saying, foreigners, please leave.
And that's Hezbollah.
But that's also the Jabhat al-Nusra guys helping us.
You're actually, your help is counterproductive by delegitimizing us because you're not even from here.
Well, it's true, but I must say that there are a lot of native born Syrians who are fighting the Assad regime, opposition, bitter opposition amongst the Sunnis has been percolating for 50 years, 40, 50 years, and there's a lot of grievance there.
But certainly the professional fighters are, a lot of them are foreigners and more and more are coming in from Iraq as Iraq's Shiite regime lends more support to the Assad regime.
Right.
And then, you know, I saw one of the things was, as this thing has gone on for so long, now you have Hezbollah on, correct me if I'm wrong, their first foreign expedition and successfully helping the Shiite Baathist government take back the city of, you pronounce it for me, starts with a Q there and, but then that has just provoked some Imams down in Saudi Arabia into saying, you know, it's a holy blessed mission now to, you know, double down and even more fighters should go now to resist now that Hezbollah is involved on the other side.
Oh, those are your typical rent, a rent and Imams in Saudi Arabia, the government's got a whole amen chorus of those guys.
Yeah, we got them here too.
Yeah, they have them in Egypt too, at Al-Azhar, but they are the, you know, Radamullah.
But the point is, where Hezbollah intervened was just across the border.
And there is talk that some Hezbollah units will move against Aleppo in the north, maybe Hama or Homs as well.
Now, is Qusayr, is that the city they took?
Qusayr, yes.
And that had been in rebel hands for about a year or something, and they just took it back last week, correct?
It had, and it was important.
It's an obscure little place, but it was important because it was the conduit who was on the supply route for arms coming in, munitions coming in for the Syrian rebels.
Right.
And now, you know, I probably should have started this, especially, you know, it's not the usual daily show audience here.
It's a gigantic Los Angeles radio audience, and they may not be as familiar with you as I tend to assume my regular show listeners are, Eric.
So I should give you a chance to describe the Ba'athist regime from your own point of view, you know, aside from the context of the current American intervention, of who these guys are as far as your concern, and then we can get back to your concerns about the current policy.
Well, the Ba'ath Party was founded in, I think it was the 1940s, early 1940s, as the Arab Renaissance Party.
And it was formed at a time of growing Arab nationalism.
But it was founded by Syrian Christians, Michel Aflak being one of the leaders.
And it was designed to modernize the Arab world and to bring him in a more democratic form of government, and to liberate the Arab world from foreign control, which it was entirely controlled in those days.
Ba'ath was then fought between leftists and rightists.
The Iraqis had their own Ba'ath Party, and they fought with their brotherly Syrian Ba'athists.
And eventually, the Ba'ath Party was co-opted by the Assad family, and by old Hafez al-Assad, the old strongman of Syria, and is really almost vanished now, for the time being.
However, Kuma, the vanished Ba'ath Party in Iraq, which was part of Saddam Hussein's apparatus, is now beginning to come to life again, interestingly, leading the resistance to US forces in Iraq.
Well, it's interesting, right?
It's not the Ba'ath Party.
There's no solidarity between the two here, apparently, the old Iraqi Ba'athists.
They're fighting.
They're resisting the American and Iranian-installed Da'wah Party government in Baghdad.
But they're also, at least more or less, if not outright, on the side of the insurgency against the Ba'athists in Syria, which is, as you were saying, the creation of the Christians, and then is backed by the Shiites and the other sects.
It's pretty complicated.
I remember arriving at Damascus Airport in the 1970s, and everything was all ruined.
The whole airport arrival section was in ruins, with cables hanging down, broken glass, and everything else.
I said, what happened?
They said, oh, our brotherly Ba'athists from Iraq sent us a message.
Yeah, that'll happen.
But now, I think you told me before that you're not entirely safe in Damascus.
You know, in the past, before the revolution ever even broke out, that Assad's secret police have been a problem in your life, personally.
Well, yes.
I was menaced a couple of times.
And they do have a nasty tendency of hanging spies, as they did in Iraq.
Iraqis were even worse that way.
So I always felt very nervous in Syria, although I moved around a lot.
I was with the Syrian government.
I mean, I got the Minister of Defense to take me on a tour of the Golan Heights to see the Israeli and Syrian positions.
But nevertheless, one is always a bit edgy in Syria.
It's a tough, scary place.
Well, and the government, they're just outright murderers.
They've killed, people debate now, I guess, somewhere between 70 and 100,000 people have died in this thing.
Many of those have got to be civilians.
And then, I don't know if anybody's counted the excess deaths, the way they have done in Iraq, as far as the people have died just from deprivation from the circumstances of the war, if not outright, you know, killed in combat.
Well, that's true.
And I don't know how they come to these numbers, either.
It's said the UN had documented them, but I find that hard to believe.
There's fighting going on, you know, there are combatants who are getting killed, there's civilians, there are outsiders who come who are shot, and their names aren't even taken down.
But the numbers are very high, and the infrastructure of Syria is being ground up by this.
Now, I think the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which is just one Syrian expat living in London, I think, and I just assume working for MI6, but I don't know.
But he actually had a lower number, and he's just basically a propagandist, as far as I could tell, a propagandist for the rebels.
You know, not much nuance or honest, just straight reporting there.
But he actually even had a lower number than the UN.
When they said 80, he said 70, or something like that.
But anyway, I'm really just trying to set up the fact that you and I both, looking at this situation, me as a host and you as a journalist working this story, that, you know, we're both realistic and honest about just what a dictatorship Syria is, and how bad it must be to have to live under that sort of police state.
But on the other hand, it doesn't mean that it necessarily would justify American intervention.
And as you write in your latest piece here, and again, everybody, it's Eric Margulies from ericmargulies.com.
The latest piece here is Those Old Colonial Lusts.
And I think just right there in the title, you dispense with any humanitarian concern as having anything to do with American, British or French policy here.
Well, that's right.
You know, the British and French happily watched the Iraqis and Afghans being slaughtered by the millions in recent years.
They did nothing.
They couldn't care less.
Here's another little choice point, Scott.
I was asked this morning on TV, what, well, you know, poison gas, poison gas.
The Syrian regime is using poison gas, I said, maybe, maybe not.
We don't know.
It sounds suspicious to me.
But what I do know is that the first use of poison gas like nerve gas, sarin plus mustard gas first, its first recorded use in the Middle East, in recent years was in Iraq, during the Iran-Iraq war, when we in the West supplied poison gas and technicians to Saddam's Iraq to use it and spray these poisons on Iranian troops.
So we have absolutely no moral high ground on this.
And in fact, another little historical tidbit, first use of poison gas in Iraq and Afghanistan, for that matter, was authorized by none other than the sainted Winston Churchill when he was home secretary in 1923, and he authorized the RAF to bomb what they called primitive tribes with chemical weapons.
Yeah.
He mocked anybody who was squeamish about it, too.
They're all just a bunch of savages anyway.
Right.
But now, fun little data point.
Winston Churchill, everybody's hero for some reason.
All right.
Anyway, so now, and in this case, too, you know, they're saying, I don't know how they come up with this as a Causus Belli, they test it in the focus group or what, but they're only even claiming that 150 people have died of chemical weapons.
They say that they are certain that it was the regime that did it.
But this has been in debate ever since the Israelis started with the accusations about chemical weapons back, what, four or five weeks ago, and even included Carla Del Ponte, the war crimes prosecutor.
I don't know her exact position in the, you know, would-be world government over there in Europe, but she's the lady that prosecuted Milosevic, I think, or was in the middle of prosecuting him when he died.
And she was saying that she's got evidence of chemical weapons use, but by the rebels, not by the government.
That's correct.
And anyway, you know, Assad is shooting and bombing people all day long, more than 150 in any given couple-a-day time span, anyway.
And so what the hell difference does it make if he kills them with sarin, really?
And how in the world, Eric, can that be a position in America where the president can say, I've drawn a red line, and I'll decide when it's been crossed with secret intelligence and whatever?
I mean, this is worse than Bush.
At least Bush went to Congress over Iraq and tried to go to the UN over Iraq.
Obama's just saying, I got a red line.
I feel like escalating.
Stop me.
Well, that's exactly right.
It's the complete breakdown of the American democratic system, Republican system begun by Bush, and now has reached its apotheosis under President Obama, unfortunately.
But you know, I don't believe this story.
What a coincidence is it that the minute the Assad forces gain the military momentum and appear to be winning this war, that suddenly the United States has conclusive proof that chemical weapons are being used.
Well, first of all, why does the U.S. care, anyway, whether people are killed with sarin nerve gas or with the white phosphorus bombs that we used extensively in Fallujah, Iraq?
Secondly, it's such a coincidence.
One of the senior Russian defense officials said that this is obviously faked.
The Russians would know, because they used to fake a lot of stuff themselves, that it's an absolute fake.
And third, that it's so easy for the Syrian rebels to promote this cunard, because all they have to do is get some bottles of chemicals from a chemical supply company and mix them together and spread them around, splash them on some dead bodies, and claim that it's sarin or just simple plain old chlorine.
It's too convenient.
And why would the Assad regime countenance the use of chemical weapons when President Obama has said that if they use them, this will give America a green light to enter the war?
The Syrians are not stupid.
So it really makes you wonder.
Right.
I mean, I guess I could imagine.
And, you know, politicians, they're not always rational, and they're often cruel.
And the ones in Damascus are, you know, as mean as any.
But it seems to me like it could make sense, plausibly, you know, if you were to make the case that if it came down to it, are they going to die today or are they going to use chemical weapons, then at that point they would have to, for their most short-term interest, living to see the morning and that kind of thing.
But or making it to the airport so they can get away.
But but they would have to know that that would be crossing Obama's phony red line and that that would mean in the medium term the Americans are going to escalate, which is just as deadly, only give you a few more nights, you know, a few more mornings to wake up to.
But still, you're in terrible trouble.
But so then, in other words, in Scott Horton's game theory, they wouldn't use sarin unless they were otherwise up against the wall, literally with no other option.
It doesn't make sense that they would kill 150 here, 75 here and 25 there in order to what, just to provoke an intervention by the Americans or what?
It doesn't make any sense at all.
So it's totally counter rational.
And anyway, chemical weapons are pretty useless.
Maybe in a in a battle, a World War One battlefield scenario, such as the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s or 1916.
But in this kind of urban fighting, chemical weapons are unreliable.
They're tricky.
They have to be utilized by trained military personnel.
And they're best dispensed from bombs or rockets these days or sprayed by aerosol from helicopters.
It just doesn't make much sense that they would be used in a city fighting category.
The Syrians have plenty of other more much more useful weapons.
And by the way, when they talk about, oh, we got a soil sample in that straight out of when they bombed the antibiotics factory in Sudan that led to the deaths of thousands of people from easily treatable diseases.
I was always brought up to believe that everything that the American leadership said was the truth, that we were a very straightforward, straight shooting bunch of guys.
Well, that was back what?
Truman Eisenhower?
Yeah.
Eisenhower.
I have a picture of General Eisenhower over my desk.
That to me was the golden age of the Republican Party.
But we've become the Pinocchio of the world or the boy who cried wolf with all these outrageous claims about Iraq, about Sudan.
Bill Clinton's just as guilty for this.
Now he's beating the war drums, too.
And there's Mr. Loose Cannon, John McCain, who's advocating war and more war, war songs.
It's it's very scary.
Yeah.
All right.
Now, last few minutes here.
We need to talk about some definitions.
One of the things that I really like about the way you analyze America's war on terrorism is the part about how you use a very minimalist definition for the term Al Qaeda.
And if I could more or less speak for you, I think basically what you're saying is that's bin Laden and Zawahiri's few dozen friends, maybe as many as a few hundred back in 2001, most of whom were bombed off the face of the earth by the Air Force and the CIA laser pointers there.
And just a few dozen of whom escaped and almost all of whom were dead, except apparently Zawahiri hiding in somebody's basement, podcasting every once in a while.
And then you have, you know, Sunni Mujahideen all over the place.
We fight for them in Libya.
We fight against them in Mali.
We fight against them in Pakistan and Afghanistan and Yemen, I guess you could say.
Just create a petri dish breeding ground for them in Somalia and Yemen, both really.
But here in Syria, even more so than in Libya, America is really, it seems to me, backing – is it, you just want to call them Mujahideen or what do you want to call them when these guys do use suicide attacks against women and children?
They cut people's heads off.
The moderate guy, not from al-Nusra, but from the al-Farouk brigades is the one on camera eating the man's heart and lungs.
And if these guys ain't Al Qaeda, they sure as hell are bad guys, whoever they are.
And I could see why, you know, apparently majority opinion in Syria is that they prefer even a Ba'athist totalitarian dictatorship to these guys who have declared their loyalty to Zawahiri and act a lot like him.
These are religious mercenaries or monetary mercenaries.
They're very scary.
They're not part of al-Qaeda.
We've overused, we've beaten the al-Qaeda word to death and applied it to so broadly that it's lost all meaning.
It only resonates with the American public, where you say people still get a Pavlovian reaction.
But no, this is something new.
These are Jihadists.
But the al-Nusra guys call themselves that, right?
They had their official merger with the Islamic State of Iraq, aka al-Qaeda in Iraq, and then they even had a little quibble about whether they were loyal to al-Qaeda in Iraq or whether they were equally loyal with al-Qaeda in Iraq to Zawahiri hiding in Pakistan.
That kind of thing.
Right?
Publicity hounds.
They know that the Somalis did it, too.
The minute you mention the word al-Qaeda, or the people in Mali mention al-Qaeda and suddenly get Western media attention.
If you announce you're the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Eastern Kordofan, nobody pays any attention to you.
And these kind of wars, these are fought in the media.
Everybody wants paparazzi after them in interviews.
But the point is we have to think that some of these groups are not necessarily anti-American.
They don't want to destroy the U.S.
They just want to kick the U.S. and its allies out of their part of the world.
And that's what we're seeing now in spades in Syria with these very rough, battle-hardened people.
Right.
Okay, but I want your sympathy here, Eric Margulies, expert in all things foreign policy and Middle Eastern policy especially.
I want it both ways, okay?
I want to characterize the rebels in Syria as not al-Qaeda enough that we've got to have a war against them, or that we should back Assad against them, or anything like that.
But they are al-Qaeda enough, when they declare that they're loyal to Zawahiri, when they suicide-bomb little children at school, that it ought to be treason to back them, and John McCain and Barack Obama ought to both be in the supermax for providing aid and comfort to America's designated terrorist enemies.
Well, to quote, to paraphrase the wicked Talleyrand, after Napoleon had the Duke Dungan murdered, he said, worse, he said, worse than a crime, it's a mistake.
And I think that's how we define our policy.
But look, we're masters of short-sightedness, we'll use anybody to get these goals, and we have some pretty ugly other allies, too, around the world.
And now, so, now there's way too many to count here, there's Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, the Americans have their interests, but can you give us a few words about Britain and France and their immediate interest in regime change in Syria?
How hell-bent are they on this?
Well, in the last column of mine that I mentioned about old colonial lusts, Britain and France have been affected.
The Arab Spring has given them an opportunity to reassert their colonial inference.
Remember, France and Britain used to rule this entire region, from the Atlantic Ocean to Iran, and then jump over to Afghanistan and India.
Britain invaded Afghanistan four times.
All the borders of the modern Middle East were drawn by the British and French.
Lebanon used to be a British, Syria was a French colony, Lebanon was created by the French, and so was Kuwait, and so on and so forth.
So all the problems of these regions date back to the British and the French, and these countries now try to tag along on the coattails of U.S. power in the Middle East and pick up the crumbs from oil and gas and export shipments, or are trying to reinsert their influence in the region.
We see it on the right hand in the conservatives in England, and we see it on the leftists among Hollande's socialists as well.
Well, they've just been bitten by that old colonial bug and saying, we're going to go in and re-establish order, all done, of course, for humanitarian reasons.
Right.
And of course, lost in all this, except for your quick mention there, which good for you for even bringing them up at all, there are some decent, honest Syrians who are shooting their government to death for good reasons, and have the right to, to declare their own independence and overthrow their regime, who aren't cannibals, who aren't suicide bombers, who aren't bent on some weird theocracy in the future or whatever, and it's just too bad for them that you can't be a revolutionary in Syria, except for being a sock puppet of a bunch of different foreign powers who are trying to carve your poor country up.
And sorry for that, but, you know, if you're fighting for your own independence in Syria right now, you're fighting for Israel, America, Saudi Arabia, France, and Britain, and everybody but yourself, really, unfortunately.
Well, that's one of the tragedies of the Middle East.
For sure.
It's going to stay that way.
All right.
Well, thank you very much for your time, Eric.
As always, it's great to talk to you.
Great pleasure.
Cheers, Scott.
All right, everybody.
That is the heroic Eric Margulies.
He writes at ericmargulies.com, spelled like Margolis, ericmargulies.com, and he's the author of War at the Top of the World, an American Raj, Liberation or Domination.
And that's it for Antiwar Radio tonight.
Thanks very much, everybody, for listening.
We'll be back here next Friday from 630 to 7 for Antiwar Radio here on KPFK 90.7 FM in L.A.
My full interview archives from this show and my other radio show are all available at scotthorton.org.
See you next week.
Over at AIPAC, the leaders of the Israel lobby in Washington, D.C., they're constantly proclaiming unrivaled influence on Capitol Hill, and they should be proud.
The NRA and AARP's efforts make them look like puppy dogs in comparison to the campaigns of intimidation regularly run by the neoconservatives and Israel firsters against their political enemies.
But the Israel lobby does not remain unopposed.
At the Council for the National Interest, they put America first, insisting on an end to the empire's unjustified support for Israel's aggression against its neighbors and those whose land it occupies, and pushing back against the lobby's determined campaign in favor of U.S. attacks against Israel's enemies.
CNI also does groundbreaking work on the trouble with evangelical Christian Zionism, a neocon engineered Islamophobia, and drumming up support for this costly and counterproductive policy.
Please help support the efforts of the Council for the National Interest to create a peaceful, pro-American foreign policy.
Just go to councilforthenationalinterest.org and click Donate under About Us at the top of the page.
And thanks.
Hey, y'all.
Scott here.
First of all, thanks to the show's sponsors and donors who make it possible for me to do this.
Secondly, I need more sponsors and more donors if the show is to continue.
ScottHorton.org has all the links to use PayPal, Give.org, Google Wallet, WePay.com, and even Bitcoins to make a donation in any amount.
You can also sign up for monthly donations of small and medium-sized amounts through PayPal and Give.org.
Again, that's ScottHorton.org for all the links.
To advertise on the site or the show, email me, Scott at ScottHorton.org.
And thanks.
Hey, y'all.
Scott Horton here for the Future of Freedom, the journal of the Future of Freedom Foundation.
Every month, Plum Line individualist editor Sheldon Richman brings you important news and opinions on policy by heroic FFF President Jacob Hornberger, hard-hitting journalist columnist James Bovard, and others from the best of the libertarian movement.
The Future of Freedom tackles the most important issues facing our country, from the bankrupt and insane welfare and regulatory states, to foreign wars and empire, the dismal state of our economy, and ongoing assaults on civil liberties.
This society needs peace and freedom for prosperity to prevail.
Subscribe to the Future of Freedom in print for just $25 a year, or online for $15 a year at FFF.org/subscribe.
And hurry up, because this summer they'll be running my articles about the wars in Libya, Syria, and Somalia in the Future of Freedom, too.
That's FFF.org/subscribe for the Future of Freedom.
And tell them Scott sent you.
Admit it.
Our public debate has been reduced to reading each other's bumper stickers.
Scott Wurtten here for LibertyStickers.com.
I made up most of them, and most of those, when I was mad as hell about something.
So if you hate war, empire, central banking, cops, Republicans, Democrats, gun grabbers, and status of all stripes, go to LibertyStickers.com and there's a good chance you'll find just what you need for the back of your truck.
Own a bookstore?
Sell guns at the show?
Get the wholesaler's deal.
Buy any hundred stickers and they drop down in price to a dollar apiece.
You can spread the contempt and make a little money, too.
That's LibertyStickers.com.
Everyone else's stickers suck.
Oh, man, I'm late.
I sure hope I can make my flight.
Stand there.
Me?
I am standing here.
Come here.
Okay.
Hands up.
Turn around.
Whoa, easy.
Into the scanner.
Ooh, what's this in your pants?
Hey, slow down.
It's just my...
Hold it right there.
Your wallet has tripped the metal detector.
What's this?
The Bill of Rights.
That's right.
It's just a harmless, stainless steel wallet.
It's not a bill of rights.
It's a bill of rights.
It's a bill of rights.
It's a bill of rights.
It's a bill of rights.
It's a bill of rights.
It's a bill of rights.
It's just a harmless, stainless steel business card-sized copy of the Bill of Rights from SecurityEdition.com, there for exposing the TSA as a bunch of liberty-destroying goons who've never protected anyone from anything.
Sir, now give me back my wallet and get out of my way.
Got a plane to catch.
Have a nice day.
Play a leading role in the security theater with the Bill of Rights Security Edition from SecurityEdition.com.
It's the size of a business card, so it fits right in your wallet, and it's guaranteed to trip the metal detectors wherever the police state goes.
That's SecurityEdition.com.
And don't forget their great Fourth Amendment socks.
Hey guys, I got his laptop.