The Uproar Over Pat-Downs

Americans understand the need for security screenings at airports and are remarkably patient. So there is no excuse for the bumbling, arrogant way the Transportation Security Administration has handled questions and complaints about its new body-scanning machines and more aggressive pat-downs.

The Times reported on Friday that civil liberties groups have collected more than 400 complaints since the new pat-downs began three weeks ago. That is a minuscule number compared with all the people who flew. But there are far too many reports of T.S.A. agents groping passengers, using male agents to search female passengers, mocking passengers and disdaining complaints.

Lawsuits have been filed asserting that new, more powerful body-scanning machines violate the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches. In general, it seems to us that the scanners are not unconstitutional, but the lawsuits are a healthy process that will require the government to prove that the scanners are reliable and more effective than other devices.

The Fourth Amendment would certainly protect Americans from unnecessary, overly intimate security checks. And nothing in the Constitution permits power-happy or just downright creepy people from abusing their uniforms and the real need for security. The government could start by making their screening guidelines clear. And they should respond to the concerns of people like the woman who told The Times that she is patted down every time because of an insulin pump.

Some passenger groups are planning demonstrations during the Thanksgiving rush. That’s their right, although if they interfere with air travel, or with security measures, they have to assume the risk that applies to any civil disobedience: they might be arrested.

The federal authorities need to take customers’ complaints seriously. And while they’re at it, they should be hard at work filling in the really huge hole in the security of air travel: the inadequate screening of cargo.

Editorial, New York Times

__________

Full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/20/opinion/20sat3.html

Russia’s Dictatorship of Law

Russia’s newly outrageous legal treatment of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the former owner of the country’s largest oil company, is a reminder that Russia has yet to grasp the idea of equal justice under law — especially when the Kremlin decides someone is in the way.

Mr. Khodorkovsky was convicted in 2005 on trumped-up charges of fraud and disobeying a court order and lost his company to Kremlin loyalists. Russians call his sort of case “telephone law,” imposed by the politically powerful through a call to the courthouse. With his sentence almost up, he was just tried again on suspect charges of embezzling and money-laundering. The judge is expected to reach a decision in December.

Two decades ago, the United States State Department urged the new Russia to resurrect the jury system, as The Times described this week, to put the law in the hands of the Russian people. Juries had been abolished after the Soviet revolution, along with anything recognizable as courts and lawyers. They were reborn in 1993.

Defendants have a right to a jury trial in a small fraction of crimes like murder and kidnapping. Compared with non-jury trials in the Soviet era, when the acquittal rate was likely less than 1 percent, the rate with juries has climbed to between 15 and 20 percent. Because of this apparent success, it is tempting to look for the growth of a familiar sense of justice. That search ends in disillusionment.

The Soviet system relied on prosecutors to find what passed for the truth in criminal cases, so the foundation for reform is at odds with the new system that juries are part of, with truth supposedly emerging from the competing accounts of the prosecution and the defense.

More to the point, the old system is not dead. Russia, the scholar Jeffrey Kahn said, has “a lot of bad legal habits.” One is the prosecutor’s “case file,” which sealed the guilt of countless Soviet citizens and retains its terrifying force. Of the 791,802 criminal cases disposed of this year through September, only 465 were decided by a jury. Mr. Khodorkovsky wasn’t allowed a jury in either of his trials. Deliberately, the prosecution charged him only with crimes that didn’t give that right. A jury couldn’t be trusted, apparently, to look out for the state’s interests.

When Vladimir Putin heralded the start of the era of law and democracy, he repeatedly described it as “the dictatorship of law.” As the Khodorkovsky case dramatizes, that is a chillingly accurate description.

Editorial, New York Times

__________

Full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/opinion/21sun2.html

When Rights Get Squeezed

If you want to understand the spontaneous outrage that combusted this week at the introduction of new airport security procedures—an electronic undressing for those who go through the fancy X-ray machines and a groping for those who “opt out”—just look at the pictures of our fellow citizens passing through the scanners. They stand, dishearteningly, with their hands above their heads in the universal pose of defeat and surrender.

A TSA officer at Reagan Airport looks at a scanner image last year.

Yet the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration are, frankly, annoyed at the “traveling public” for making such a fuss.

A senior Homeland Security official (who would not allow his name to be used) told CNN this week that “the mood at DHS and TSA is anger.” The official griped to CNN that the real outrage was how TSA agents were being treated. In San Diego, one such agent “was accosted and verbally abused by a member of the traveling public,” said the official. “The fact that some in the media would hail the traveler as some kind of folk hero is shameful.”

He was talking about John Tyner, the young man from Oceanside, Calif., who surreptitiously recorded his run-in with the TSA and posted it online. Mr. Tyner chose not to subject himself to radiation from the X-ray machine and was taken aside for a “standard pat-down.” The TSA agent explained to him how the “groin check” part of the pat-down would be executed. It was then that Mr. Tyner “accosted” the poor TSA agent by saying the immortal words, “If you touch my junk, I’m gonna have you arrested.” For shame, all of you who cheered. For shame.

Shame on those of you who have bought the “Don’t Touch My Junk” T-shirts that entrepreneurs made available this week. Shame too on the Tea Party types who mocked the inviolable authority of the TSA by replacing the Gadsden Flag’s “Don’t Tread On Me” with Mr. Tyner’s impertinent slogan. And treble shame on the blogger Iowahawk who demeaned not only the TSA but Frank Sinatra by recasting “Come Fly With Me” as “Comply With Me.” (The lyric “Once I get you up there” became “Once I get all up there.”) You should all be aware that the TSA is not amused.

“If you touch my junk…” may have garnered all the attention, but it is not the most important thing on Mr. Tyner’s recording. A TSA supervisor told him that if he was uncomfortable, he could be escorted out “and you don’t have to fly today.” Mr. Tyner asked how “sexual assault can be made a condition of my flying.” After a bit of back and forth, the TSA supervisor played the trump card: “By buying your ticket you gave up a lot of rights.”

Do we really want to make a practice of giving up “a lot of rights” (and without the advice of counsel, at that), especially when the TSA makes it clear it will use its authority to punish those who inconvenience or embarrass it? The agency’s San Diego office chief announced that he is pursuing charges and an $11,000 fine against Mr. Tyner for leaving the airport without allowing his naughty-bits to be inspected. Such blatant payback hardly inspires confidence in the TSA as a steward of our surrendered rights.

But it’s all in keeping with the “love pats” (Sen. Claire McCaskill’s unfortunate euphemism). The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg has flown several times since the new procedures went into effect Nov. 1. He has refused the X-ray machine every time and found that the TSA agents inspecting his “crotchal area” (as one of them said in a newly coined bit of bureaucratese) admit the procedure is meant to be so unpleasant that fliers will choose the naked-picture machine instead.

I’m gratified that enough Americans are still jealous guardians of their rights to have made this an uncomfortable week for the TSA. And I admire the impulse behind making Wednesday—one of the heaviest travel days of the year—”Opt-Out Day.” The idea is for everyone to gum up the works by refusing the X-ray. If the TSA has to give its lengthy semimolestations to everyone, the thinking goes, they won’t be able to do it to anyone. Alas, security gridlock isn’t likely to discomfit the TSA much. It is Thanksgiving travelers who will bear the brunt of the nightmare—hardly the best way to build popular support for a protest movement.

Instead, perhaps we should make 2011 “Opt-Out of Flying” year. Since buying a ticket means giving up “a lot of rights,” the best way to protect those rights is not to fly unless you absolutely have to. It will help if you let the airlines know why they haven’t had the pleasure of your company.

The old saw is that a conservative is a liberal who got mugged. Tom Wolfe riffed that “a liberal is a conservative who has been arrested.” We might add one more variation: A libertarian is anyone whose wife and children have had their groins groped by the TSA.

Eric Felten, Wall Street Journal

__________

Full article and photo: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704104104575622651744906116.html

Posted in Law

Chechen Exile Murder Trial Begins in Vienna

Kadyrov’s Web of Influence

Kadyrov (seen here in 2007) denies all involvement in the murder case.

A trial involving the spectacular murder of a Chechen exile begins Tuesday in Vienna. Austrian investigators believe it was a contract killing which may be linked to Chechen President Ramzan Kadyrov, who is alleged to have a network of ruthless agents across Europe.

The room in the Berlin apartment has a dark wooden table and oil paintings on the wall. Water is being heated in a samovar. Men with serious expressions come in, embrace each other and sit down to drink tea.

The apartment is home to the translator Ekkehard Maass. The 51-year-old was a dissident in the former East Germany and now runs the German-Caucasian Society. It’s a meeting point for Chechen exiles, people who have fled the violence in the Caucasus region and emigrated to the West.

When exiles meet for tea these days, two names are frequently mentioned: Ramzan Kadyrov and Umar Israilov. Israilov, a Chechen exile, was murdered in Vienna on Jan. 13, 2009. Kadyrov, the feared 34-year-old president of Chechnya, a man who likes to pose for photographs with a tiger or holding a gold-plated pistol, was allegedly behind the murder. Both Chechen exiles and Austrian investigators believe that it was a contract killing. Israilov had accused Kadyrov of torture and had brought a case against him before the European Court of Human Rights.

The trial of the suspected killers opens in Vienna on Tuesday. The spectacular murder is likely to be followed by an equally spectacular trial, in which prosecutors will seek to shed light on the exact circumstances of the crime, and on a “military intelligence service” that terrorism experts in Vienna believe Kadyrov developed in Europe. Kadyrov is currently being investigated, although charges have not been brought yet. He denies all involvement in the murder case.

Living in Fear

German investigators are also interested in the Chechen president’s activities. His agents have been spotted in Germany, where about 6,000 Chechens live. Some 500 of them are believed to be tied to extremist groups. German intelligence officials find it difficult to get a clear picture of the milieu. The distinctions among freedom fighters, terrorists and ordinary criminals are complicated. In addition, some Chechens owe their asylum status to their cooperation with German intelligence, and the lines are sometimes blurred between informants and troublemakers.

One thing is clear, however: Chechens in Germany live in fear of Kadyrov, who has unscrupulous bodyguards. Chechen exiles have frequently told German authorities about Kadyrov’s influence in Berlin. The president is apparently determined to convince exiles to return home, if necessary with rough measures. He allegedly has middlemen and agents that he uses specifically for this purpose.

The award-winning Chechen poet Apti Bisultanov was one of the exiles who received an unwanted visit from Kadyrov’s men in Berlin. Apparently two former members of the Chechen government were working as agents for Kadyrov in Berlin: the brothers Umar and Magomed Khanbiyev. A witness told Viennese authorities about a conversation he had had with Umar Khanbiyev in Berlin. The Chechen agent apparently told the witness that a major campaign was underway to bring Chechens home, and that Kadyrov was behind it. According to the agent, Kadyrov had a team of six agents working in Europe. They had been provided with Russian visas and were apparently staying in a Berlin hotel.

Kadyrov’s agents, say Chechens in Berlin, try to entice exiles to return home with promises of jobs. Apparently the agents have also threatened violence against the exiles’ families at home in Chechnya. In the case of Bisultanov, Kadyrov’s men and Russian officials worked hand in hand. Russia had demanded his extradition and was trying to torpedo his application for asylum, but was unsuccessful on both counts.

Car Was Found near Crime Scene

One of the men now on trial in Vienna has also been seen in Berlin: Otto K., who was born Ramzan E. in the Chechen capital Grozny in 1968. Among fellow Chechens living in Austria and Germany, he was considered an amiable father and an opponent of Kadyrov. But, as it turns out, he is the owner of a green Volvo that police found near the scene of the crime after the Israilov murder. That is one reason why he is at the center of the Vienna case. Investigators believe K. is one of Kadyrov’s henchmen, but K., who is in custody, denies the charges. But if K. is really an opponent of Kadyrov, then why did he go to Grozny in 2008 to meet with the Chechen president? The investigators’ files contain photos showing the two men meeting.

And what brought Otto K. to Germany? Officially, the asylum seeker was there in his role as the chairman of a Chechen cultural association in Vienna. Investigators believe, however, that K.’s work on behalf of the association was just a front that was intended to help him gain an insight into the exile community in Germany. In any case, the association’s activities appear to not be entirely cultural. During a raid several years ago, German police found firearms in the trunk of a car from Vienna. The car, a BMW, was registered to the cultural association.

In some ways, the conflict in Chechnya already reached Germany a long time ago. Domestic intelligence officials believe that some Chechen refugees are raising money in Germany, money that couriers later forward to rebels in Chechnya. Apparently there have also been attempts to recruit fighters in Germany and to smuggle them to the restive Russian republic.

‘There Was a Bad Person Among You’

The discussion around the table in Maass’s apartment, however, mainly centers on Kadyrov’s attempts at intimidation. The men talk about the Chechen agents’ attempts to blackmail exiles on the phone. The Viennese investigators are also familiar with the agents. The police have listened in on many telephone conversations in which the name Kadyrov is mentioned again and again, as are thinly concealed threats. The following exchange is an excerpt from the transcript of one of the calls:Agent: “There was a bad person among you, who has already been eliminated.”

Exile: “The one who was already murdered? I didn’t know him.”

Agent: “I know who you are. Do you want a few people to come to see you tomorrow and pick you up? Come to us voluntarily. You don’t want us to come and get you using force.”

Wealthy Suspect

In May 2009, a Chechen living in Vienna who had received similar calls contacted the authorities. The terrorism experts were even able to identify the suspect in the case: a wealthy Russian citizen known in Berlin for his big cars and his villa. Was he planning a murder from his base in Berlin? The files suggest that the telephone surveillance and the subsequent investigation did not lead to any action against the suspect in Berlin, however. A memo from Vienna states matter-of-factly that officials took “no further steps.” Police investigators in Berlin were told nothing about the case.

Kadyrov’s men are also interested in Maass’s apartment, but they’re not the only ones. As paradoxical as it may seem, German authorities are also keeping an eye on Maass, whose name crops up in the files of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution, Germany’s domestic intelligence agency. The files describe him as the representative of a Chechen government-in-exile. Exiled Chechen politician Akhmed Zakayev, who lives in London, named the Berlin-based translator as an honorary consul, prompting the Russian government to lodge a protest with the Foreign Ministry in Berlin. Maass, for his part, has reacted calmly to the Russians’ objections.

Sometimes suspicious-looking cars park near Maass’s home. The drivers and their passengers are not interested in talking to him, however.

__________

Full article and photo: http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,729330,00.html

Posted in Law

The Backdating Embarrassment

How did a meaningless violation of accounting rules become the crime the of century?

An array of influential friends urged leniency for Bruce Karatz in his stock-option backdating sentencing last week, including former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan and philanthropist Eli Broad. But these personages weren’t the reason Judge Otis D. Wright II rejected prosecutors’ request for a six-year prison sentence and instead gave Mr. Karatz probation. Judge Wright said he couldn’t see putting the former CEO away for a crime that did no harm to his company, KB Home, or its shareholders.

So endeth another episode in the annals of backdating, in which a fairly meaningless violation of accounting rules (though violation it was) became trumpeted from the media pulpits as the business crime of the century.

We suppose it’s humanly understandable that, finding themselves compelled to bring these cases, federal prosecutors stretched and kneaded the evidence to fulfill the media’s stereotype of backdating as theft and fraud against shareholders. Let this be a lesson to the children in how not to respond constructively to cognitive dissonance.

Such prosecutorial misconduct led to the dismissal of the backdating case last year against Broadcom founder Henry Nicholas. A judge also threw out the guilty plea of his partner, Henry Samueli, saying he didn’t think Mr. Samueli committed any crime. The first conviction of former Brocade Communications CEO Greg Reyes was similarly overturned on grounds of prosecutorial misconduct (though Mr. Reyes was retried and convicted by a new jury, and now is appealing).

A further irony is that backdating was abetted by a nonsensical accounting rule at the time that treated one kind of option as having value and another kind as having no value (though both have value). This split-the-baby rule itself arguably evolved out of the media’s perennial insistence on portraying stock options as emblems of greed rather than as business tools.

By the estimate of the University of Iowa’s Erik Lie, some 2,000 public companies must have engaged in backdating at some point, as testified by otherwise inexplicable patterns of options pricing. Some 150 companies eventually restated their past results to conform to the proper rule for expensing such options. Yet only a few executives were singled out for criminal prosecution, in a manner that left an observer scratching his head as to why the justice roulette wheel chose some but not others.

Further reason for pause: The handful of subsequent convictions seemed to turn less on the act of backdating than on the self-preserving prevarications executives uttered once the posse arrived at their doorstep.

The ultimate statement in this vein, of course, was the decision by Kobi Alexander, former CEO of Comverse Technology, to decamp to Namibia. We can think of two reasons somebody might flee the law—because he fears he will get justice, or fears he won’t. Presumably Mr. Alexander will one day appear in a U.S. court. It will be interesting to see what countenance he puts on his decision to become a fugitive—perhaps he will cite as a precedent the behavior of the legal system in Salem, Mass., circa 1692.

Meanwhile, the larger lessons of the backdating furor were drawn in an epic piece in May in the American Bar Association’s ABA Journal. By freelance reporter Anna Stolley Persky, the piece connected the dots between (among other things) the backdating witch-hunt, the tainted prosecution of Sen. Ted Stevens, and the government’s use of the vague “honest services” statute to criminalize various kinds of behavior post hoc (a practice the Supreme Court finally curbed earlier this year).

One critique can be found in the title of a book by Boston defense attorney Harvey Silverglate: “Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent.” Mr. Silverglate believes that only a mobilization of “civil society” can stop what he calls rampant abuse of prosecutorial discretion.

In contrast, former federal prosecutor Joseph diGenova puts the onus on DOJ overseers: “If anyone thinks it’s anything other than prosecute at any cost, then they are wrong. . . . The department has been AWOL in supervising the ethics of its prosecutors,” he told ABA Journal.

But it’s also hard not to see the self-interested ethics of the plaintiff’s bar spilling across the entire legal profession. In their official roles, prosecutors invent Kafkaesque new ways to ensnare the unpopular wealthy in legal trouble, then jump to private law firms and make seven-figure livings protecting the wealthy from the monster they themselves unleashed.

Shakespeare had a solution, but, alas, this would also be illegal. Thus it must fall to bloggers, the media and judges like Judge Wright to protect Americans from overzealous prosecutors.

Holman W. Jenkins Jr., Wall Street Journal

__________

Full article and photo: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704312504575618612636493250.html

Forget any ‘Right to Be Forgotten’

Don’t count on government to censor information about you online.

The stakes keep rising in the debate over online privacy. Last week, the Obama administration floated the idea of a privacy czar to regulate the Internet, and the European Union even concocted a new “right to be forgotten” online.

The proposed European legislation would give people the right, any time, to have all of their personal information deleted online. Regulators say that in an era of Facebook and Google, “People should have the ‘right to be forgotten’ when their data is no longer needed or they want their data to be deleted.” The proposal, which did not explain how this could be done in practice, includes potential criminal sanctions.

Privacy viewed in isolation looks more like a right than it does when seen in context. Any regulation to keep personal information confidential quickly runs up against other rights, such as free speech, and many privileges, from free Web search to free email.

There are real trade-offs between privacy and speech. Consider the case of German murderer Wolfgang Werle, who does not think his name should be used. In 1990, he and his half brother killed German actor Walter Sedlmayr. They spent 15 years in jail. German law protects criminals who have served their time, including from references to their crimes.

Last year, Werle’s lawyers sent a cease-and-desist letter to Wikipedia, citing German law, demanding the online encyclopedia remove the names of the murderers. They even asked for compensation for emotional harm, saying, “His rehabilitation and his future life outside the prison system is severely impacted by your unwillingness to anonymize any articles dealing with the murder of Mr. Sedlmayr with regard to our client’s involvement.”

Censorship requires government limits on speech, at odds with the open ethos of the Web. It’s also not clear how a right to be forgotten could be enforced. If someone writes facts about himself on Facebook that he later regrets, do we really want the government punishing those who use the information?

UCLA law Prof. Eugene Volokh has explained why speech and privacy are often at odds. “The difficulty is that the right to information privacy—the right to control other people’s communication of personally identifiable information about you—is a right to have the government stop people from speaking about you,” he wrote in a law review article in 2000.

Indeed, there’s a good argument that “a ‘right to be forgotten’ is not really a ‘privacy’ right in the first place,” says Adam Thierer, president of the Progress and Freedom Foundation. “A privacy right should only concern information that is actually private. What a ‘right to be forgotten’ does is try to take information that is, by default, public information, and pretend that it’s private.”

There are also concerns about how information is collected for advertising. A Wall Street Journal series, “What They Know,” has shown that many online companies don’t even know how much tracking software they use. Better disclosure would require better monitoring by websites. When used correctly, these systems benignly aggregate information about behavior online so that advertisers can target the right people with the right products.

Many people seem happy to make the trade-off in favor of sharing more about themselves in exchange for services and convenience. On Friday, when news broke of potential new regulations in the U.S., the Journal conducted an online poll asking, “Should the Obama administration appoint a watchdog for online privacy?” Some 85% of respondents said no.

As Brussels and Washington were busily proposing new regulations last week, two of the biggest companies were duking it out over consumer privacy, a new battlefield for competition. Google tried to stop Facebook from letting users automatically import their address and other contact details from their Gmail accounts, arguing that the social-networking site didn’t have a way for users to get the data out again.

When users tried to import their contacts to Facebook, a message from Gmail popped up saying, “Hold on a second. Are you super sure you want to import your contact information for your friends into a service that won’t let you get it out?” The warning adds, “We think this is an important thing for you to know before you import your data there. Although we strongly disagree with this data protectionism, the choice is yours. Because, after all, you should have control over your data.”

One of the virtues of competitive markets is that companies vie for customers over everything from services to privacy protections. Regulators have no reason to dictate one right answer to these balancing acts among interests that consumers are fully capable of making for themselves.

L. Gordon Crovitz, Wall Street Journal

__________

Full article and photo: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704658204575610771677242174.html

Acquittal in terror case shows justice system’s strength

THE STUNNING verdict in the first civilian trial of a Guantanamo detainee is an embarrassment for the Obama administration, but it should not deter officials from considering federal court prosecutions for others being held at the U.S. naval base.

Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani was acquitted of 284 of the 285 charges lodged against him for his role in the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in East Africa that killed 224 people, including 12 Americans. Mr. Ghailani, who was indicted in federal court months after the attack and then captured in 2004, was convicted only of conspiracy to destroy U.S. property and buildings. According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Manhattan, Mr. Ghailani purchased the truck and the tanks of oxygen and acetylene gas used in the suicide bombing of the embassy in Tanzania. Prosecutors also presented evidence that the day before the bombings, Mr. Ghailani used a fake passport and an assumed name to depart Africa on a flight with two al-Qaeda operatives also implicated in the attacks. The presiding judge prohibited the government from calling a witness who claims he sold Mr. Ghailani TNT because the government learned of the witness only after subjecting Mr. Ghailani to what his lawyers say was torture at an overseas CIA prison.

Administration critics say the multiple acquittals prove that a federal court is the wrong venue for such trials. They are right that a trial by its nature is a risky proposition, notwithstanding Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.’s brave assertion in 2009 that “failure is not an option.” Defense lawyers in this case effectively painted Mr. Ghailani as an unwitting accomplice.

But Mr. Ghailani did not escape responsibility. His conviction carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years, and the judge may impose a life sentence. Moreover, there is no guarantee that a military commission, the preferred alternative of many critics, would have produced a tougher result. Such commissions are not apt to admit statements coerced through torture, so the star witness rejected by a federal judge probably would have been excluded by the military court as well. And in 2008, a military jury rejected the Bush administration’s argument that Osama bin Laden’s former driver, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, was a hardened al-Qaeda operative, acquitted him of the most serious charges and sentenced him to a mere five months on top of time served.

The fact that a jury sitting in a terrorism case just blocks from Ground Zero declined to rubber-stamp the government’s assertions shows not the weakness of the federal court system but one of its principal strengths: independence.

Military commissions are a legitimate option to try accused terrorists, and in rare cases – if the administration would have the courage to seek a legal framework, with judicial oversight – indefinite detention is as well. But the Ghailani verdict provides no sound argument to remove federal courts from the mix.

Editorial, Washington Post

___________

Full article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/18/AR2010111805834.html