GDP Growth Revised Upwards

In another signal that the US economy is growing at a nice clip, third quarter GDP growth was revised upwards to 3.9%. The Commerce Department originally reported a growth rate of 3.7% for the quarter. The adjustment was due to higher exports and consumer spending than was originally estimated for the quarter.

While this good news is certainly welcome, there are some dark clouds on the horizon which will be examined more closely in a future post. Specifically, consumer, commercial, and federal debt are very high by historical standards, and interest rates are too low. Combined with our tremendous trade deficit, our current economic environment is unsustainable over the long term. We are already seeing the implications of our debt-laden society in the form of the weak dollar overseas, as the US Dollar recently set another record low vs. the Euro. Other possible adjustments include rising interest rates, inflation, and downward pressure on wages.

The ACLU War on Boy Scouts

Over the past 5 years, the ACLU has vigorously fought the Boy Scouts of America in several law suits. It what should come as a shock to nobody, the ACLU has a big problem with the Boy Scout requirement that members swear an oath to ...... God! Apparently the ACLU is deeply concerned about the civil liberties of all those teen age boys who feel violated and oppressed because they're asked to profess faith in our Creator.

As a result of the latest lawsuit brought by the ACLU, the Defense Department is dropping support for hundreds of Boy Scouts units. The ACLU of Illinois charged that the Boy Scouts’ policy violates the religious liberty of youth who wish to participate, but do not wish to swear a religious oath. According to Adam Schwartz, an ACLU attorney from Illinois, "This agreement removes the Pentagon from direct sponsorship of Scout troops that engage in religious discrimination."

All scouting organizations include a profession of faith, and all organizations award religious medals. However, distinct medals are offered for children of different faiths, including Protestants, Catholics, Muslims, Jews, etc. But in the eyes of the ACLU, any faith based organization that is open to all people of faith is guilty of "religious discrimination" because atheists are not included.

Extrapolating the ACLU's attack on all things religious, as well as the court's decision in this case, it is only a matter of time before the tax exempt status of all religious organizations is challenged. After all, tax exemptions enjoyed by religious organizations are a form of government subsidy. And last I checked, every Christian, Jewish, and Muslim church professes faith in God.

How Can 1 Kerry Voter be so Dumb?

The post-election headline from the British tabloid, The Daily Mirror, has been widely reported. "How can 59,054,087 people be so dumb?" asked the Mirror. Personally, I'm not too concerned about what the Daily Mirror has to say about American Politics, just as I suspect Brits don't too get worked up about how the US press covers Tony Blair.

However, there is a man who takes this international critique very seriously. Op/Ed writer John Nichols from The Nation states that there is evidence that the 59 million voters are indeed dumb. His evidence? Apparently Bush voters didn't fully grasp Bush's lack of support overseas. According to a survey by the Program on International Policy Attitudes, only 31% of Bush supporters recognized that the majority of people in the world opposed the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq. In addition, 57% of Bush supporters assumed that the majority of people in the world would favor Bush's reelection.

This is big news to Mr. Nichols. Clearly, American voters made their choice of President before learning who the Indonesians preferred. And any self respecting Texan would change his vote if he knew that the French preferred Kerry, right? And I'm sure that at least 70,000 Ohio residents would have switched their vote if they knew Kerry was the candidate of choice in Iran. Nichols is so disconnected with mainstream America that he believes votes would have changed if Americans were more informed about international polling. Furthermore, the man is so "dumb" that he draws this conclusion: Bush voters were kept in the dark in regards to international opinion due in part to the pro-Bush coverage by the US Media! Apparently, CBS, NBC, and major US newspapers spent the past year putting a positive spin on the Bush Administration.

USANow is left to wonder: How is there any self-respecting journalist alive in America today who is not aware of the liberal bias in our mainstream media? How can a man call out CBS News as an organization biased in favor of the Bush administration? How can 1 Kerry voter be so dumb?

A Lesson in Generosity from The Stranger

This past Friday I had the misfortune of waiting for two hours for the Metro bus to take me to my park and ride. It was noon when I arrived at the stop, and I was looking forward to spending the rest of the day with my wife. But what I learned over the next two hours was well worth the inconvenience.

This particular bus stop is right next to Pierce Elevated, which is a large Interstate 45 overpass, populated by many of Houston's homeless. The stench from under Pierce Elevated is a combination of exhaust, garbage, and urine. Most Houstonians don't want to have their days interrupted by the harsh reality presented by this section of downtown.

As I sat down waiting for my bus (which was supposed to arrive in 3 minutes), I noticed a large bearded man sit down close to me, sitting in a position so that he was staring at me. I assumed he wanted money, but I happened to have no cash and had a mere quarter in my pocket. I didn't make eye contact with The Stranger until he asked me for a smoke. He spoke in very low tones, stumbling on his words. I told him I wished I could help him, but I don't smoke. I then gave him my quarter explaining that's all I had. Shortly thereafter a much older man approached the stranger, holding out a handful of change and exclaiming "can you believe it, and I didn't even have to ask". Judging from their brief conversation, it became evident that neither of these two men liked asking strangers for money.

Over the course of the next 45 minutes, The Stranger and I began to get to know each other. I was particularly interested in how he came to be living under the bridge. His grungy hair and dirty clothes hid a handsome man who was well groomed a short time ago. His clothes were relatively clean, and I was shocked to see he carried a cell phone. Something didn't add up.

The Stranger told me he was kicked out of his house by his wife a few weeks ago. She will not answer his calls, and his cell phone was to be disconnected any day. And although he came to Pierce Elevated with some cash, 3 weeks of homeless life had nearly depleted his money. According to the stranger, asking people for money was "fucked up". His wife kicked him out of the house because he "fucked up". And the fact that so many people were in his same position was "fucked up". For three weeks, he had been doing his best to take care of himself, to protect his 3 new buddies, and to give them cigarettes when they asked. But now, he was the one asking for smokes. He was the one who would soon have to start asking for change if he wanted to eat.

As it became clear that my noon bus was not going to arrive, I decided to do something to help these folks. The nearby McDonalds accepted debit cards, so I asked The Stranger if he was hungry. He motioned to his buddies and said they were all hungry. We walked over to their small patch of real estate where they slept, and I asked "who wants lunch?". All 3 jumped up with a resounding yes, and I took their orders. A mere $15 bought 4 quarter pounders, 4 apple pies, and a large coke. Each man expressed his gratitude for what I'd done, and I was quite happy to help them. I was also proud of myself for being so generous. I discovered shortly that my generosity was nothing compared to The Stranger's.

As the men pulled out their meals, a woman who was eating a sandwich nearby asked "Do you have anything for me?" I apologized and said I just bought lunch for the folks who were there at the time. Without hesitation, the stranger handed his meal to the woman. I looked with disbelief, saying "she already had something, don't you want to eat"? The stranger just shrugged and said "I know her. That sandwich was probably bad, and she's hungry". I had given of my excess, The Stranger gave nearly everything he had.

As I continued to wait for the 1:00 bus (which would never arrive), The Stranger and I continued to converse. He repeated many times how generous I was, and how my actions would be repaid. I told him his generosity far exceeded mine. As we spoke further, The Stranger told me his downfall lied in his water bottle. He has been an alcoholic for 10 years, and now drinks straight vodka from a water bottle all day. Asked if he could go back to his wife to try to get his life back in order, he said no. Asked if he could go back to his wife if he quit drinking, he said yes. He then asked "Can you help me?". At that moment, The Stranger's burden hit me squarely in the face. His dependence cost him his job, his home, and his wife. He wants all of those things back, but cannot get past his addiction. But despite his situation, his reluctance to ask for money and his incredible generosity make it clear that he is still holding strong to his dignity.

When the 2:00 bus arrived, I shook The Stranger's hand. His grip was strong and his hands were calloused, revealing years of hard manual labor. He thanked me for what I'd done, and I thanked him. For he had given me far more than I had given to him.

Now I'm left to ponder his question - "Can you help me?". The fact that I don't know what else I can do for him is "fucked up". So I'm left to spread these words as we approach the holidays: Be generous with others, reach out to strangers in need, and if you know anybody with a dependence problem, take action now before it's too late.

God bless, and have a happy Thanksgiving.

Racial Chip on Tony Dungy's Shoulder

Much has been made about ABC's Monday Night Football lead-in this week, involving Nicollete Sheridan and Terrell Owens. Sheridan, a star of Desperate Housewives, bears all in her attempt to seduce Owens in the Eagles' locker room. Owens, who is black, was reluctant at first. He then agrees to skip the game after Sheridan, who is white, jumps into his arms.

Much can be made about ABC's attempt to promote their new series. Most importantly, why do young football fans have to be exposed to seduction? Why did Sheridan have to get completely naked in this skit? With this backdrop, any guesses as to what offended the Indianapolis Colt's headcoach about the skit? Dungy found the skit to be racially offensive. He also said the skit perpetuated the idea that players are "sexual predators".

Let's see, Tony, who was the "predator" in the skit? The white woman. Who got completely naked in the skit? The white woman. Yet somehow Dungy thinks that the black man was exploited. The absurdity in Dungy's conclusion reveals just how big of a chip this man carries on his shoulder. A white woman was the aggressor, a white woman got naked, a white woman jumped in a black man's arms. But showing the black man simply consenting is racially offensive to blacks and to athletes. Were the roles reversed, and a Halle Berry bared all in her attempts to seduce Payton Manning, you can bet that Dungy wouldn't have been crying about the skit being offensive to whites.

Perhaps Dungy should open his eyes to the real problem in the skit - the portrayal of casual sex on prime time network TV, and the portrayal of a white woman as a desperate tramp.

One Iraqi's Take on Fallujah

If you get the chance, check out The Mesopotamian blog. Here is a recent entry from Salaam, offering his take on what's happening in Fallujah. What strikes me most is that much of the violence today is being committed by the same people using the same methods deployed by the Saddam Hussein regime. These people always have, and always will be obstacles to peace in Iraq.

Hi,

The killers who are loose in Dialla province this morning have murdered policemen in cold blood and distributed leaflets warning the population to stay away from government offices and schools; imagine this: schools! So what do they want: to stop life altogether? Their spite is driving them berserk. They want to murder everybody and everything. What do they mean: schools? That is very significant in understanding the psychology of these creatures, who by the way are the very same people of the old security forces of Saddam; the perpetrators of the mass graves.

I want to draw the attention of all the people of the world to the mentality of these, our home grown monsters. What they mean by “schools” is a direct threat against children, Iraqi children; because, children are the dearest things in the world; because if one can withstand all sorts of tortures and even death, still the thought of harm to one’s children is something unbearable. That, they know very well and therefore they want to use it and it is typical of these animals. That’s how they used to twist our arms before, for so many years, and they are at it again. It is not fear of death that used keep us subjugated. In fact we learnt something terrible and very real. Death is not the worst thing that could happen to you; it is not even in the “top league” of “worst things”. And they have hurt children before, and have tortured children before, and killed children before. The spite, hatred and cruelty of this race is something beyond the comprehension of normal human beings. And it is clear that the existence of the normal Iraqi human being and these is mutually exclusive. It is either “them or us”, as you say.

For the valiant soldiers doing battle in Falujah today: like the medieval knights, you have engraved on your shields severed heads of kidnapped victims, murdered children, the hundreds of thousands of the dwellers of mass graves. You are the instruments of the Lord’s retribution. Have no mercy on this vermin, they do not deserve any.

God bless you and protect you for you are doing his work.

Salaam

Chum for Liberal Sharks from Maureen Dowd

In a column yesterday in the NY Times, Maureen Dowd tried again to paint Christian conservatives as intolerant. Her adjective of choice in this column happened to be "vengeful". After reading her recent article, one is left with the impression that she is simply catering to New York liberals' insatiable appetite for Christian bashing. Well, two can play the game of hurling hate rhetoric, so here's USANow's rebuttal using the Maureen Dowd Demonize Your Opponent with Inflammatory Rhetoric Technique:

In order to discredit the agenda of the faithful right, liberal columnist Maureen Dowd paints Christians as a "vengeful mob - revved up by rectitude - running around with torches and hatchets after heathens and pagans and infidels". Her evidence? A letter written by noted anti-Catholic Bob Jones III. Since when does Bob Jones speak for 60,000,000 Americans?

Dowd goes on in dramatic fashion, saying "The Christian avengers and inquisitors, hearts hard as marble, are chasing poor 74 year-old Arlen Specter through Capitol's marble halls, determined to flagellate him and deny him his cherished goal of taking over the Senate Judiciary Committee." What's utterly reprehensible about Dowd's hyperbole is that the idea of Arlen Specter in the role of Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman is anathema to her. Clearly, she would prefer any Democrat on earth before Arlen Specter. But now that she's on the wrong side of history (again), she can do little more than jump in the middle of Republican party lobbying, and paint Christians as demons taking away an elderly man's "cherished goal". Quite pathetic. Since when does every 74 year old man have an inalienable right to his "cherished goal"? More importantly, since when does our Constitution mandate that Supreme Court Justices pass some sort of Roe v. Wade litmus test?

The brings us to the heart of the matter, which is that the Specter issue relates solely to maintaining the pro-infanticide status quo. Dowd, clearly shaken by the prospect of a Supreme Court which would protect unborn children, is now interjecting her opinions in Republican party machinations. She is terrified that a pro-life judge may be appointed to the Supreme Court, jeapordizing women's freedom to choose to dismember their unborn children. So Ms. Dowd would prefer to bow down to the most liberal Republican rather than let our democratic processes work their course.

Perhaps Ms. Dowd could spend more time writing about what went wrong with the neo liberal agenda in this year's election. Perhaps she could learn what it means to be compassionate, and at least try to develop an appreciation for Christian America's "cherished goals". More likely, however, Ms. Dowd will continue pandering to her liberal readers and feeding chum to the anti-life sharks of the Democratic party.

Tony Blair!

Tony Blair is a great man to have on our side. In today's joint press conference with George Bush, he made a great point. Paraphrasing, he said about the US - English relationship: "We aren't fighting this war together just because we're allies, we are allies because we are both fighting this war".

In other words, this isn't a matter of Great Britain going to Iraq just because the United States is calling in a favor from an ally. Great Britain shares the same view of the world as we do, and they understand the importance of this fight on terror. They would naturally be engaged in this fight against global terror, and this common world view is what makes the United States and Great Britain such strong allies.

I'm not stating that Blair would have independently invaded Iraq without US participation. But I am saying that given the evidence, and given the history of Saddam Hussein, and given recent trends in the spread of Islamic terrorism, Great Britain reached the same conclusions we did about Iraq. It's this view of the world, the belief that freedom and democracy will serve to spread peace, and the belief that we have to be aggressive in our fight against terror, that binds our nations.

Here's hoping Blair is as successful as was George Bush in Great Britain's upcoming elections.

More Tough Talk on Terrorism From Europe

Tough minded Americans have had a lot of fun lately mocking Europeans as being weak-kneed surrender monkeys. As was noted previously on USANow, the French have come out with tough anti-terrorism legislation, the types of laws which would make John Ashcroft proud.

In the wake of Theo van Gogh's murder by Muslim extremists, lawmakers in The Netherlands have also come out talking tough. The leader of the Christian Democrat party, Maxime Verhagen, said "When it comes to preparing a terrorist attack, it's better to have 10 possibly innocent people temporarily in jail than one with a bomb on the street". Other leaders have suggested the closing of any mosque that preaches violence, as well as arresting 150 Muslim extremists on the government's watch list.

For three years now, the United States has led the War on Terror. For three years, we have struggled to match our need for homeland security with our desire for civil rights. John Ashcroft has been unfairly crucified by our liberal media as well as the ACLU as a result of the Patriot Act. The US policy related to Guantanamo Bay detainees has also come under fire from all directions. But with the recent turn of events in Europe, US policies don't seem so tough after all.

With blood thirsty Muslims committing atrocities across the globe, and with more and more governments cracking down on Muslim extremists, it is clear that Americans are not alone in this fight. Let's hope US legislators listen to the advice of Maxime Verhagen, and resist calls by out of touch liberals to weaken anti-terror laws in the name of civil liberties.

More Denial from the "Cultural Elite"

Take a few moments to read what this so-called "cultural elitist" (he's actually just a guy who writes political cartoons) has to say about the election.

In the wake of the Democrat's crushing defeat, it's sad to think that Ted Rall's pompous drivel is being offered up as the reason they lost. Ted has tried (unsuccessfully) to package up his disconnection with mainstream America as a rationale for looking down on Republican voters. Ted tells us his life story, of growing up disenchanted with the Midwest because it was "culturally bland". So now Ted makes a living as a liberal lemming, doing his best to look, talk, and act just like every other media elitist. Of course, this irony is lost on Ted.

Ted cites bad Chinese food, cultural homogeneity, and lack of "high quality news coverage" as reasons to look down upon the Bush states. Ted seems to think he gets to watch "cooler movies" because he lives in a coastal city. Ted confuses "different" with "interesting" when he states that he gets to "meet more interesting people".

Ted, you can keep thinking "authentic" Chinese food can only be found on the East coast. Perhaps you haven't spotted the hundreds of thousands of Chinese living in the red states during your fly overs, but they're here and their fine food is available everywhere. In fact there are so many Chinese here in Houston that I've managed to pick up some Mandarin, and to you I say Ni bu xi dong xie.

I'm not sure what you consider to be "interesting", but based on your politics I can make a good guess. But I find neither American self-loathing nor alternative lifestyles to be interesting, so I'll continue to enjoy the company of people who don't have to be different to be interesting.

You can have your NY Times with its plagiarized stories and left wing propoganda spun just the way you like it. I've discovered that I don't have to live in the city that spins the news, I can enjoy the variety of online news services anywhere in the country. You are familiar with the internet, aren't you Ted? Or perhaps you're hesitant to logon in the fear of discovering there's more to the story than the neo-liberal spin you've been swallowing.

As for movie entertainment, you can spend your time watching recent Cannes Festival winners like "Sud Pralad". Frankly, I'm too busy enjoying life to catch every good mainstream Hollywood movie, much less to watch obscure movies you consider "cool".

Finally, for somebody who claims to be a part of the "better educated" party, you fail dismally at drawing the proper conclusion from your own statistical analysis. You state "You are 25 percent more likely to hold a college degree if you live in the Democratic northeast than in the red state south." You then draw the erroneous conclusion that Kerry voters are "25 percent more likely, therefore, to understand the historical and cultural ramifications of Bush's brand of bull-in-a-china-shop foreign policy". Gee Ted, have you even bothered to correlate actual votes with education? Just because a person lives in the northeast does not mean that person voted for Kerry, and just because a person lives in the south does not mean that person voted for Bush. Any 6th grader could grasp the concept that just because a state went to Kerry does not mean that every person in that state voted for Kerry. Perhaps I'm overstating this - any 6th grader in Texas could figure this out. For further proof, according to CNN, the college vote was split evenly at 49% each for Bush and Kerry.

My suggestion is to follow the lead of the countless other liberal media lemmings, and avoid heavy math the next time you try to trash 60 million Americans.

Post Election Pulse: National Organization of Women

Much can be learned by observing various political and social organizations in the wake of George Bush's election victory. Will left-of-center groups do their best to put the country first and their political agenda second, or will they do their best to undermine the efforts of our president?

Take a look at the National Organization of Women (NOW) website to see their response to the Bush victory. When you access their site, you are hit in the face with this message: "Four More Years. Let's Not Make it Easy." Perhaps I'm foolish to have expected more from NOW, considering a good portion of their website is dedicated to slandering the president and perpetuating lies about his administration.

Just in case NOW comes down with a severe case of decency and moral clarity (and removes their distasteful popup), here is a link directly to their popup political message.

My advice is to remember NOW's demeanor in these days after the election. Four years from now we can count on NOW chastising the Republican administration for "dividing America". But today, it is clear that groups like NOW are the ones responsible for ensuring that our country becomes further divided.

Move On, MoveOn.Org!

The great Bush victory of '04 has left many people in its wake. Half-wit celebrities like Cameron Diaz and Bruce Springsteen toured the country trying to turn the electorate away from Bush. They failed. Misguided businessman George Soros spent millions of dollars trying to buy the election for John Kerry. He failed. Shortly we'll see Michael Moore's fiction move Farenheit 9/11 in the $4.99 bargain bin at target. But of all the people and organizations who deserve their sad fate on the wrong side of history, MoveOn.Org is near the top of the list.

MoveOn was formed in 1998 as a political action committee focused on convincing America to "move on" to other issues in the wake of the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Apparently the activists with MoveOn didn't have a problem with Bill Clinton lying under oath. But remarkably enough, they've spent millions trying to push George Bush out of office, claiming he lied to the American people. Apparently MoveOn believes George Bush relying on US intelligence is a crime worthy of censure, but Bill Clinton's lies purely benign.

During the campaign, MoveOn lobbied senators to censure the president, they issued press releases stating Bush manipulated the war on terror for political purposes, and they organized a national "town hall meeting" around viewers of Farenheit 9/11 to brainstorm how to defeat George Bush. Apparently, MoveOn couldn't muster enough brainpower from their 2.2 million members to get the job done.

As I celebrate the great win for George Bush and for the entire Republican Party, it gives me great pleasure to say move on, MoveOn.org.

Economy Roars, Market Soars

In the 2 1/2 days since John Kerry conceded the presidential race on Wednesday, the Dow Jones Industrial Average is up roughly 350 points, or 3.5%. Given the close nature of the presidential race, the equity markets have been stuck in a holding pattern for months. Now that Bush has emerged as the clear winner, the equity markets are now responding to recent economic growth and, more importantly, expected growth in Bush's 2nd term.

In related news, the Department of Labor issued the first employment report since Bush's victory. The report stated that 337,000 new jobs were created in October. This figure widely exceeded expectations of economists, who were projecting a gain of 175,000 jobs. Further proof that the policies of the Bush administration are indeed providing the catalyst our economy needs.

In total, 1,982,000 jobs have been created in the first 10 months of this year.

Kerry Comes Around

Nice to see a gracious John Kerry concede the election this morning. It appears that John Edwards was one driving force behind pushing the issue to the bitter end. But more rational thinking on the part of John Kerry prevailed.

Kerry's actions serve America and his constituents very well, because it's clear that any attempts to challenge the results in Ohio would have been futile given Bush's large lead. In addition, the wide popular victory by Bush combined by the Republican gains in Congress illustrate the nation's preference for conservative leadership.

Kerry, unlike Gore, has lived to fight another day. Hopefully his gracious concession will serve as a catalyst for improved cross-party cooperation in Washington DC.

What Would Bush Do? He'd Be a Man and Concede

Let's assume for a moment that yesterday's vote was reversed, and John Kerry had won the popular vote by 3.5 million votes, and was winning in Ohio by 135,000 votes. What would George Bush have done? Bush would recognize that our nation wants clarity, our nation wants closure. My bet is that Bush would have demonstrated the honor and integrity to concede defeat. My bet is that Bush would have congratulated John Kerry, and asked our nation to support the president for the next 4 years.

But John Kerry is not that kind of man. Kerry campaigned vigorously to divide this nation, rich vs. poor, black vs. white, everyone vs. Bush. Kerry worked tirelessly to undermine George Bush's policies, his character, and legitimacy as Commander-in-Chief. What does he hope to accomplish today by stubbornly refusing to admit defeat? With this latest charade, it seems that Kerry is intent on promoting his divisive agenda beyond election day. I suspect he's also hoping to build the case that our president does not have a clear mandate of the people, which might undermine the legitimacy of Bush's second term.

Regardless of Kerry's slash and burn politics, his agenda is not supported by the majority of our nation, as over 58 million Americans cast their ballots in favor of George Bush. Unfortunately, Kerry does not have the honor nor the integrity to concede graciously. He'd rather pursue his divide America and undermine Bush strategy to the bitter end.

His exit from the American political scene can't come soon enough.

Bush Wins Florida!

Major networks are too afraid to call the state for Bush, so let me be the first.

With over 95% of precincts reporting, George Bush has a 320,000 vote lead. USANOw reports George Bush the winner of Florida.

On to Ohio!

How Do We Fight Terror Internally? Ask the French!

France has long been ridiculed by American critics (including USANow) as militarily weak, a nation quick to avoid a fight and even quicker to surrender. However, it is becoming clear that France is setting the pace with respect to combating terrorism within their own borders.

Specifically, France has implemented counter-terrorism laws which which would be considered tantamount to marshall law in your local ACLU office. Specifically:

Suspects can be preemptively arrested

Ethnic profiling is allowed

Law enforcement officials are able to interrogate suspects for days without involvement of a defense attorney.

A law was passed this year which allows for the deportation of non-citizens who preach "discrimination, hatred, or violence" against any group. A dozen Islamic clerics have been deported as a result of this law.

Detainees released from Guantanamo Bay by the United States are publicly blasting the US across Europe. Four detainees who arrived in France after their release recently were immediately detained. Under French law, they could be detained for up to 3 years while their fate is determined.

More details are available here, in an article from Washington Post's website. The bottom line is that the United States has not cornered the market on being tough on terror. Clearly, we could learn a thing or two from the French. Although implementing a model similar to the French would be challenged at every level by liberals in congress as well as the ACLU, the power and flexibility that our intelligence services would gain make this a battle well worth fighting