An anthrax letter addressed to Sen. Patrick Leahy was found when the FBI started sifting through the quarantined mail from the Senate. Is anyone noticing a pattern with these letters? They all seem to have been sent to prominent media figures and the Senate Democratic leadership. I hate to speculate, but based on extensive knowledge gained by watching TV, I profile the terrorist as an angry conservative who resents the fact that the Democrats have the majoriity in the Senate and hates the “liberal” media.

The Daily Rotten says that the nuclear bomb “plans” found by the Times of London are actually a printout of a humor publication called The Annals of Improbable Research. One wonders whether the Al Qaeda guys printed them out to laugh at or implement … being that laughter was banned in Afghanistan, I’ll go with the latter. (When I think about it, there’s a third possibility — which is that some Al Qaeda members left the documents behind intentionally to mess with the people who found them.) (Link via Interesting People.)

Microsoft is looking to pay off the remaining states in the antitrust lawsuit to join the settlement.

Law.com has a detailed account of the Supreme Court decision that allowed FDR to try German saboteurs in military court back in 1942. That case will most likely be cited as the precedent for the Bush administration’s current plans to try terrorists in military tribunals. The ruling that allowed the Germans to be tried before a military court is certainly nothing to be proud of or to try to duplicate today.

BBC profile of Muhammed Atef, a senior Al Qaeda member reportedly killed during a US air attack.

Apparently Iron Chef USA sucks. That’s disappointing.

Lawrence Lessig: The Internet Under Siege

One thing is for sure, Al Qaeda was definitely looking into the nastiest stuff they could find. Not only were plans for nuclear weapons found in Kabul, but so were other nasty recipes, like the one for ricin, a poison with no known antidote that can be spread via inhalation and kills its victims within a week. We have no idea whether they actually made any of this stuff, but there’s little doubt that they would have if they could.

Bruce Schneier’s response to Microsoft flack Scott Culp’s plea to end full disclosure of software vulnerabilities is definitely worth reading. Needless to say, Schneier is very much in favor of full disclosure:

What we’ve learned during the past eight or so years is that full disclosure helps much more than it hurts. Since full disclosure has become the norm, the computer industry has transformed itself from a group of companies that ignores security and belittles vulnerabilities into one that fixes vulnerabilities as quickly as possible. A few companies are even going further, and taking security seriously enough to attempt to build quality software from the beginning: to fix vulnerabilities before the product is released. And far fewer problems are showing up first in the hacker underground, attacking people with absolutely no warning. It used to be that vulnerability information was only available to a select few: security researchers and hackers who were connected enough in their respective communities. Now it is available to everyone.

Dahlia Lithwick on the Justice Department’s new rule allowing them to listen in communications between attorneys and their clients without any sort of judicial oversight:

The new rule presumes not only the guilt of the alleged terrorist, but also the complicity of his attorney. But ample protections already exist to keep lawyers from acting as terrorists’ couriers. The ethical canons forbid lawyers from conspiring with their clients to commit crimes. The laws against conspiracy make it illegal for attorneys to aid terrorist enterprises, and if the state suspects lawyers and their clients of colluding to break the law, it can quickly apply to a federal judge for a warrant to monitor these conversations. It’s hard to imagine how warrantless eavesdropping is going to provide the government with much more information than they could already have obtained through lawful methods. In exchange for all this, prisoners give up any meaningful right to consult honestly and privately with their counsel.
…
The Justice Department has a new agenda: indefinite detentions, acquiring information, and centralization of power. Moreover, should the Bush administration go forward with the plan to try “terrorists” (as defined by the president) in military tribunals, illegally obtained evidence may not be barred. How convenient for the Justice Department that the military may soon be able to try suspects who were detained and searched unconstitutionally, in courts that might not shed a tear over warrantless searches.