Wiretap Denial a Criminal Cover-Up

By Jon Eisenberg
The Recorder

Friday 10 August 2007

Eight words: "These calls are not intercepted within the country." That's how President Bush has described the so-called "Terrorist Surveillance Program" - the president's warrantless wiretapping of communications between persons inside and outside the United States when the government claims a link to al-Qaida. The president said this during a press conference on Dec. 19, 2005, three days after The New York Times revealed the program's existence.

But now it seems those eight words weren't true. In fact, they concealed unlawful conduct.

Over this past weekend, Congress passed a hastily drafted bill amending FISA - the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. One of the bill's key provisions amends FISA to allow warrantless wiretapping whenever the target of the surveillance is "a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States."

In little-noticed testimony before a Senate committee on May 1, director of national intelligence Mike McConnell disclosed the reason why the White House wanted this amendment. He said: "When seeking to monitor foreign persons suspected of involvement in terrorist activity who are physically located in foreign countries, the intelligence community is required under today's FISA to obtain a court order to conduct surveillance." At the same hearing, National Security Agency director Keith Alexander explained that a FISA warrant is required because the communication is "collected in the United States."

Alexander was referring to a provision in FISA that requires a warrant for electronic surveillance if "such acquisition occurs in the United States." At FISA's inception in 1978, the interception of most communications between persons inside and outside the United States occurred outside the United States. In the 21st century, because of technological innovations, such communications pass through switching stations within the United States, where they are subject to interception - thus bringing them within the scope of FISA's warrant requirement. That's what Sen. John Boehner was referring to when he told Fox News on Aug. 2 that a recent court ruling prohibits electronic surveillance "where the communication could come through the United States."

But this means it's untrue that, as the president previously told us, "These calls are not intercepted within the country." They are. That's what has made their warrantless interception unlawful. And that's why the White House wanted this weekend's amendment - to exclude such communications from FISA and its warrant requirement if the person targeted is located outside the country.

President Bush has been untruthful to the American people before, perhaps most infamously in his 2003 State of the Union address, where he uttered these 16 words to back up his claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." As former ambassador Joseph Wilson revealed in The New York Times on July 6, 2003, those words were untrue, and the White House knew it.

The president's 16-word falsehood about Iraq in January 2003 helped take us to war. Although the claim might have been morally repugnant, technically it was not a criminal cover-up.

But the president's eight-word falsehood in December 2005 is something else entirely. If it is true that the Terrorist Surveillance Program intercepted communications from switching stations inside the United States, that means each warrantless interception was a criminal violation of FISA - a felony, punishable by up to five years' imprisonment. And that means the president's false assertion that "these calls are not intercepted within the country" was arguably a cover-up, in that the true facts reveal unlawful conduct.

Some fine-tuning of FISA is indeed overdue. There is no disputing that legislation governing the protection of national security must keep pace with today's rapid advances in technology. But, under the rule of law that prevails in America, the right way to deal with an outdated act of Congress is to update it, not to ignore it. Regardless of whether this weekend's amendment is a good solution, the president's prior flouting of FISA definitely was not. Nor was his untruthful statement on Dec. 29, 2005. As the United States Supreme Court said in its 1974 decision rejecting President Nixon's claims of absolute executive privilege, no American - not even the president - is above the law.

--------

Jon Eisenberg represents the now-defunct US arm of the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, a Saudi charity that was shut down by Saudi authorities after the US Treasury Department declared it a terrorist organization that was allegedly funding al-Qaeda. Eisenberg sued the US government in Portland, Ore.'s federal court, alleging the National Security Agency had illegally intercepted telephone calls without warrants between Soliman al-Buthi, the Saudi national who headed Al-Haramain's US branch, and his two American lawyers, Wendell Belew and Asim Ghafoor. The case is scheduled to be heard by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco next week.

-------

Bottom line - what will it take to get Articles of Impeachment on the House floor????

Bottom line - what will it take to get Articles of Impeachment on the House floor????

At least a million Americans marching on Washington.

Join us there on September 15th.

Come be part of the solution.

:thumbs:

There is no concrete proof that the calls were intercepted inside or outside the United States. You are just using generalizations to come to an exact conclusion.

It also stands to reason that with technological advances the NSA probably has the ability to monitor every single call that comes into the United States.

Please show me any instance where the United States government has used it's intelligence gathered over communication sources (TV, internet, phone) without a warrant to prosecute an American citizen in the court of law.

They haven't. Because no judge would allow that kind of intelligence to be used nor would the government want to disclose how they got that information. I have no problem with the government monitoring every single one of my calls, they will come up most terribly disappointed.

When someone makes a cell phone call. How does one know the place of origin or reception?

All US phones are equipped with GPS components.

The government recently found themselves in a position where they could only track people inside of a few miles of their actual location and even that took 30-60 minutes, despite what is broadcast in the news and in movies, the government was seriously lacking in technological advances intelligence wise in the 90's. DCI Tenet made some huge strides in the intelligence analyzation and collection which I expect is where this wire tapping business came from.

At least a million Americans marching on Washington.

Join us there on September 15th.

Come be part of the solution.

:thumbs:

Whats happening on sept 15th?

Please show me any instance where the United States government has used it's intelligence gathered over communication sources (TV, internet, phone) without a warrant to prosecute an American citizen in the court of law.

They haven't. Because no judge would allow that kind of intelligence to be used nor would the government want to disclose how they got that information. I have no problem with the government monitoring every single one of my calls, they will come up most terribly disappointed.


You're looking at --and arguing against-- the objections to this wiretapping issue in a very narrow way.

"Well, no one has been prosecuted!"............"Well, I have nothing to hide. I don't care if they listen to my calls!"..............neither of these adresses in any way why the People of this country are enraged over the government spying on them.

Virtually no one who is protesting the wiretapping of Americans is doing it because they're worried they might --because of what the president has ordered-- now be monitored if they want to help their friend Ali-Rahman come here and set up a t3rrorist attack; they are protesting it because it is a crack in the wall of protections from unwarranted government intrusion that the Constitution guarantees.


If the People roll over and allow this, what is to stop them from taking more freedoms in the future?

_______________________________

http://homepage.mac.com/leperous/.Pictures/pledge.jpg

I have no problem with the government monitoring every single one of my calls, they will come up most terribly disappointed.
great. can I listen in too?

But the fact still remains that YOU have absolutly no right to give the government permission to listen in on MY calls.

Please show me any instance where ....
That's an important point.
You just know that the left in the ACLU, Congress and AllForums have been simply salivating for examples of systemic abuse.
Why is it they can't find any?

You just know that the left in the ACLU, Congress and AllForums have been simply salivating for examples of systemic abuse.

Why is it they can't find any?

The only reason you could possibly believe such hyper-partisan nonsense is that you have not been paying attention.

-Voter caging
-Warrentless wiretapping
-attempts to strong arm a sick former A.G. into signing off on an illegal program
-The partisan politicization of the Justice Department
-unprecedented secrecy and lies
-punishing whistle blowers
-fixing of intelligence in order to manipulate America into an invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation
-signing statements

And yet you claim they cannot find any examples of systematic abuse...

:rolleyes:

At least a million Americans marching on Washington.

Join us there on September 15th.

Come be part of the solution.

:thumbs:

Is this (http://www.eaglesup.us/)the march you're referring to, dbum?

Is this (http://www.eaglesup.us/)the march you're referring to, dbum?

No.

This (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=148x2897) is.

:thumbs:

Looks lilke a confrontation between those who have served & those who have not is brewing.

I guarentee you that the peace march will dwarf the pro-war march.

It always does.

By the way, there are lots of veterans in the anti-war movement.

:thumbs:

All US phones are equipped with GPS components.

The government recently found themselves in a position where they could only track people inside of a few miles of their actual location and even that took 30-60 minutes, despite what is broadcast in the news and in movies, the government was seriously lacking in technological advances intelligence wise in the 90's. DCI Tenet made some huge strides in the intelligence analyzation and collection which I expect is where this wire tapping business came from.

GPS can be turned off.

You're looking at --and arguing against-- the objections to this wiretapping issue in a very narrow way.

"Well, no one has been prosecuted!"............"Well, I have nothing to hide. I don't care if they listen to my calls!"..............neither of these adresses in any way why the People of this country are enraged over the government spying on them.

Virtually no one who is protesting the wiretapping of Americans is doing it because they're worried they might --because of what the president has ordered-- now be monitored if they want to help their friend Ali-Rahman come here and set up a t3rrorist attack; they are protesting it because it is a crack in the wall of protections from unwarranted government intrusion that the Constitution guarantees.


If the People roll over and allow this, what is to stop them from taking more freedoms in the future?

_______________________________

http://homepage.mac.com/leperous/.Pictures/pledge.jpg


Why should communciations between two people, neither of whom is located in the US, be subject to a judges approval?

Why should a judge, who is not elected to the position, be the inidividual determing intelligence protocols?

When someone makes a cell phone call. How does one know the place of origin or reception?

Because the call is logged in the telco's DACS and frame switches and the packets can be traced back to the cell tower the call originated from.

At least a million Americans marching on Washington.

Join us there on September 15th.

Come be part of the solution.

:thumbs:

I'll be there!

http://www.protestwarrior.com/gallery/lefties/29.jpg

That's all known ex post facto.

So here's a conundrum. a guy from pakistan calls a guy in NY. Using their eavesdropping techniques they learn of a plot. They go to the judge ask for a tap on the receivers cell. The judge says you learned about the plot illegally you didn't have a warrant. I can't give you one. Now what?

And you still haven't touched the foreign based to foreign based call which all the wackos object to as well.

The judge says you learned about the plot illegally you didn't have a warrant. I can't give you one. Now what?

That is not how FISA works.
In it's 30 year history the FISA court has only ever turned down 2 warrents.

that doesn't answer either question.

It's also more than twice. As the NYT article shows it was the rejection of just such a warrant that has created the present 'problem'.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/11/washington/11nsa.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1186847921-zOcq2zQDShqNsyPoNwuDlQ

Liberals like yourself don't seem either aware of the issues or very interested in security. Why is that?

that doesn't answer either question.

I already answered your original question.

Partisan hyperbole aside, What do you want to know?

It's also more than twice. As the NYT article shows it was the rejection of just such a warrant that has created the present 'problem'.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/11/washington/11nsa.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1186847921-zOcq2zQDShqNsyPoNwuDlQ
The ruling in question wasn't a rejection of a warrant. The court was requiring that a warrant be obtained.

From the article:

A ruling a month or two later — the judge who made it and its exact timing are not clear — restricted the government’s ability to intercept foreign-to-foreign communications passing through telecommunication “switches” on American soil.

The security agency was newly required to seek warrants to monitor at least some of those phone calls and e-mail messages. As a result, the ability to intercept foreign-based communications “kept getting ratcheted down,” said a senior intelligence official who insisted on anonymity because the account involved classified material. “ We were to a point where we were not effectively operating.”Liberals like yourself don't seem either aware of the issues or very interested in security. Why is that?You aren't even aware of what the article you posted says.

Why is that?

The ruling in question wasn't a rejection of a warrant. The court was requiring that a warrant be obtained.

From the article:

A ruling a month or two later — the judge who made it and its exact timing are not clear — restricted the government’s ability to intercept foreign-to-foreign communications passing through telecommunication “switches” on American soil.

The security agency was newly required to seek warrants to monitor at least some of those phone calls and e-mail messages. As a result, the ability to intercept foreign-based communications “kept getting ratcheted down,” said a senior intelligence official who insisted on anonymity because the account involved classified material. “ We were to a point where we were not effectively operating.”You aren't even aware of what the article you posted says.

Why is that?
It used to be frustrating. Then sad. Now it's just plain funny. Every time Sedan tries to pooh-pooh the reams of solid evidence pointing to the existence and operation of an unbridled coterie of vigilantism, like clockwork, his minions defend that sort of rummy behavior. Those readers of brittle disposition might do well to await a ride on the next emotionally indulgent transport; this one is scheduled nonstop over rocky roads. As soon as you're strapped in, I'll announce something to the effect of how Sedan just reported that we can all live together happily without laws, like the members of some 1960s-style dope-smoking commune. Do you think that that's merely sloppy reporting on Sedan's part? I don't. I, not being one of the many doctrinaire brigands of this world, think that it's a deliberate attempt to fuel the censorship-and-intolerance crowd. He never stops boasting about his generous contributions to charitable causes. As far as I can tell, however, Sedan's claimed magnanimousness is entirely chimerical and, furthermore, I, for one, want to unify our community. Sedan, in contrast, wants to drive divisive ideological wedges through it. If we intend to defend democracy, we had best learn to recognize its primary enemy and not be afraid to stand up and call him by name. That name is Sedan.

Why should communciations between two people, neither of whom is located in the US, be subject to a judges approval?

Why should a judge, who is not elected to the position, be the inidividual determing intelligence protocols?

BECAUSE OF 9/11.
And to make Goddamned sure it can't possibly happen again.
Entry,training and plotting happened under a haranguing Horny Toad,
{Slick Willy} and those willing minions who also turned a blind eye
{ Madame Albright,Sandy Berger et.al.}
The lesson is phenomenal and dire.
Being a Dimocrat is ridicuously simple and tragic.
Just forgo any modicum of Patriotism and simple common sense.

It used to be frustrating. Then sad. Now it's just plain funny. Every time Sedan tries to pooh-pooh the reams of solid evidence pointing to the existence and operation of an unbridled coterie of vigilantism, like clockwork, his minions defend that sort of rummy behavior. Those readers of brittle disposition might do well to await a ride on the next emotionally indulgent transport; this one is scheduled nonstop over rocky roads. As soon as you're strapped in, I'll announce something to the effect of how Sedan just reported that we can all live together happily without laws, like the members of some 1960s-style dope-smoking commune. Do you think that that's merely sloppy reporting on Sedan's part? I don't. I, not being one of the many doctrinaire brigands of this world, think that it's a deliberate attempt to fuel the censorship-and-intolerance crowd. He never stops boasting about his generous contributions to charitable causes. As far as I can tell, however, Sedan's claimed magnanimousness is entirely chimerical and, furthermore, I, for one, want to unify our community. Sedan, in contrast, wants to drive divisive ideological wedges through it. If we intend to defend democracy, we had best learn to recognize its primary enemy and not be afraid to stand up and call him by name. That name is Sedan.

Yeah Right.I'm not sure what This Sedan Bubba is all about.
Seems he may be conflicted.That is an initial phase of Liberalism.
One isn't sure if they are acting or thinking in The Right.
By Right,I mean...Smartly.
Smart don't mean squat,if one is short-sighted and flawed.
Like Hillary and all her smart talk.
It's merely a cover for Dupes.
It appears fairly obvious,there is a vast movement in this Country to
see plain governance and common sense as Hokey and fuddy-duddy.
That's akin to laughin at one's Grandma,when she just cured the
lastest little pesky homefront problem.

Yeah Right.I'm not sure what This Sedan Bubba is all about.
Seems he may be conflicted.That is an initial phase of Liberalism.
One isn't sure if they are acting or thinking in The Right.
By Right,I mean...Smartly.
Smart don't mean squat,if one is short-sighted and flawed.
Like Hillary and all her smart talk.
It's merely a cover for Dupes.
It appears fairly obvious,there is a vast movement in this Country to
see plain governance and common sense as Hokey and fuddy-duddy.
That's akin to laughin at one's Grandma,when she just cured the
lastest little pesky homefront problem.
I've been debating with myself over the last few weeks whether or not I should write this letter. Obviously, I outvoted myself and wrote it. I concluded I absolutely had to tell you that I find Foolsworth's canards to be a perversion of the truth. But first, let me pose you a question: Is Foolsworth actually concerned about any of us, or does he just want to perpetuate harmful stereotypes? After reading this letter, you'll certainly find it's the latter. By this, I mean that I, hardheaded cynic that I am, respect the English language and believe in the use of words as a means of communication. Brutish so-called experts like him, however, consider spoken communication as merely a set of noises uttered to excite emotions in judgmental election-year also-rans in order to convince them to expand, augment, and intensify the size and intrusiveness of his gang. Now that this letter has come to an end, I hope you walk away from it realizing that the Foolsworth-induced era of sham and deceit and pretense will draw to a close eventually.

I find Foolsworth's canards to be a perversion of the truth..... Is Foolsworth actually concerned about any of us, or does he just want to perpetuate harmful stereotypes?

Two things stop me from knowing;

One, I have him on Ignore.

Two, the words he writes seem(ed) to have little relation to one another, rendering them gibberish.

Two things stop me from knowing;

One, I have him on Ignore.

Two, the words he writes seem(ed) to have little relation to one another, rendering them gibberish.
I do not apologize for the amount of space in this letter I intend to devote to telling you about Freethinker. Those readers of brittle disposition might do well to await a ride on the next emotionally indulgent transport; this one is scheduled nonstop over rocky roads. As soon as you're strapped in, I'll announce something to the effect of how blockish and daft, Freethinker's squibs resemble a dilapidated shed. Kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will collapse, proving my claim that it's amazing that jaundiced manipulators of the public mind like Freethinker still exist in this day and age. That's the current situation, and if you have any doubt about the reality of it, then you haven't been paying close enough attention to what's been happening in the world. That fact is simply inescapable to any thinking man or woman. "Thinking" is the key word in the previous sentence. I conclude this letter with an appropriate quote: "Freethinker must believe that if he doesn't annihilate a person's personality, individuality, will, and character, he'll have led a meaningless life." I believe we all know who said that, don't we?

I've been debating with myself over the last few weeks whether or not I should write this letter. Obviously, I outvoted myself and wrote it. I concluded I absolutely had to tell you that I find Foolsworth's canards to be a perversion of the truth. But first, let me pose you a question: Is Foolsworth actually concerned about any of us, or does he just want to perpetuate harmful stereotypes? After reading this letter, you'll certainly find it's the latter. By this, I mean that I, hardheaded cynic that I am, respect the English language and believe in the use of words as a means of communication. Brutish so-called experts like him, however, consider spoken communication as merely a set of noises uttered to excite emotions in judgmental election-year also-rans in order to convince them to expand, augment, and intensify the size and intrusiveness of his gang. Now that this letter has come to an end, I hope you walk away from it realizing that the Foolsworth-induced era of sham and deceit and pretense will draw to a close eventually.
*********************************
Yeah Right.
I means left.
Maybe center Butt loin with a sheering of the tailbone.
However sum may prefer the gourmet sweetbreads.
Whatever yer delight,I'm hears to set the record.

Democrats Lie
Republicans Talk Turkey

The quicker one realizes that,the better they can live a normal
and content existence,w/o the added frenzy of constantly defending
the Indefensible.

*********************************
Yeah Right.
I means left.
Maybe center Butt loin with a sheering of the tailbone.
However sum may prefer the gourmet sweetbreads.
Whatever yer delight,I'm hears to set the record.

Democrats Lie
Republicans Talk Turkey

The quicker one realizes that,the better they can live a normal
and content existence,w/o the added frenzy of constantly defending
the Indefensible.
Foolsworth thinks that our unalienable rights are merely privileges that he can dole out or retract. Unfortunately for him, he's wrong. For openers, his statements such as "Foolsworth acts in the name of equality and social justice" indicate that we're not all looking at the same set of facts. Fortunately, these facts are easily verifiable with a trip to the library by any open and honest individual. I can repeat with undiminished conviction something I said eons ago: If he continues to lay the foundation for some serious mischief, I will truly be obliged to do something about him. And you know me: I never neglect my obligations. Foolsworth finds reality too difficult to swallow. Or maybe it just gets lost between the sports and entertainment pages. In either case, if Foolsworth's bait-and-switch tactics get any more officious, I expect they'll grow legs and attack me in my sleep. Some day, I want to grant people the freedom to pursue any endeavor they deem fitting to their skills, talent, and interest. But you don't have to wait for that. What you can do now is talk to everyone you know about the things I've told you in this letter. Use every medium available to you. Use the Internet. Use your telephone. Use radio and newspapers. And whatever you do, never be afraid to speak out against the evil that is Foolsworth.

Foolsworth thinks that our unalienable rights are merely privileges that he can dole out or retract. Unfortunately for him, he's wrong. For openers, his statements such as "Foolsworth acts in the name of equality and social justice" indicate that we're not all looking at the same set of facts. Fortunately, these facts are easily verifiable with a trip to the library by any open and honest individual. I can repeat with undiminished conviction something I said eons ago: If he continues to lay the foundation for some serious mischief, I will truly be obliged to do something about him. And you know me: I never neglect my obligations. Foolsworth finds reality too difficult to swallow. Or maybe it just gets lost between the sports and entertainment pages. In either case, if Foolsworth's bait-and-switch tactics get any more officious, I expect they'll grow legs and attack me in my sleep. Some day, I want to grant people the freedom to pursue any endeavor they deem fitting to their skills, talent, and interest. But you don't have to wait for that. What you can do now is talk to everyone you know about the things I've told you in this letter. Use every medium available to you. Use the Internet. Use your telephone. Use radio and newspapers. And whatever you do, never be afraid to speak out against the evil that is Foolsworth.
***********************************
I've Partied with the Hells Angels.
I wrestled in High school and was a shot putter/Discus thrower.
I've kicked butt on the projects Playground shootin Hoops.
I also wrastled in High school,spent years joggin,and also
partied like Hunter Thompson.
The very least I'm scardy diiddy OF is some Loon slacker,
probably half pile of blubber/milquetost little Fag whipper bugger boy.
On me worst day,i could beat the noddles right out yer pig guts.

***********************************
I've Partied with the Hells Angels.
I wrestled in High school and was a shot putter/Discus thrower.
I've kicked butt on the projects Playground shootin Hoops.
I also wrastled in High school,spent years joggin,and also
partied like Hunter Thompson.
The very least I'm scardy diiddy OF is some Loon slacker,
probably half pile of blubber/milquetost little Fag whipper bugger boy.
On me worst day,i could beat the noddles right out yer pig guts.
What happened to Foolsworth's common sense? Why is Foolsworth so compelled to complain about situations over which he has no control? And why aren't our children being warned about Foolsworth in school? This letter is not the place to explore the answers to those questions. Its purpose is instead to oppose evil wherever it rears its pugnacious, smarmy head. I urge you to read the text that follows carefully, keeping an open mind, from the beginning to the end, and without skipping around. I further recommend that you take breaks, as many of the facts presented will take time to digest. I sometimes joke about how the world would be better off if he had never been born. But seriously, there's a time to keep silent and a time to speak. There's a time to love and a time to hate. There's a time for war and a time for peace. And, I aver, there's a time to restore the traditions that Foolsworth has abandoned. Or, to put it less poetically, one can consecrate one's life to the service of a noble idea or a glorious ideology. Foolsworth, however, is more likely to publish blatantly xenophobic rhetoric as "education" for children to learn in school. And now, to end with a clever bit of doggerel: United we stand. Divided we fall. Foolsworth's baleful philosophies will destroy us all.

I've Partied with the Hells Angels.
I wrestled in High school and was a shot putter/Discus thrower.
I've kicked butt on the projects Playground shootin Hoops.
I also wrastled in High school,spent years joggin,and also
partied like Hunter Thompson.
The very least I'm scardy diiddy OF is some Loon slacker,
probably half pile of blubber/milquetost little Fag whipper bugger boy.
On me worst day,i could beat the noddles right out yer pig guts.
As a citizen of this country, which I believe in and which I have seen Foolsworth tear apart, I must demonstrate conclusively that no matter how much Foolsworth squirms and wriggles, he will never escape the fact that he has a near-legendary lack of common sense, decency, and manners. What kind of Humpty-Dumpty world is he living in? Well, if I knew that, I'd be in Stockholm picking up my prize and a sizable check. In closing, we must work together to shatter the illusion that some people deserve to feel safe while others do not. Together, we can make a difference. Forever and always.

It used to be frustrating. Then sad. Now it's just plain funny. Every time Sedan tries to pooh-pooh the reams of solid evidence pointing to the existence and operation of an unbridled coterie of vigilantism, like clockwork, his minions defend that sort of rummy behavior. Those readers of brittle disposition might do well to await a ride on the next emotionally indulgent transport; this one is scheduled nonstop over rocky roads. As soon as you're strapped in, I'll announce something to the effect of how Sedan just reported that we can all live together happily without laws, like the members of some 1960s-style dope-smoking commune. Do you think that that's merely sloppy reporting on Sedan's part? I don't. I, not being one of the many doctrinaire brigands of this world, think that it's a deliberate attempt to fuel the censorship-and-intolerance crowd. He never stops boasting about his generous contributions to charitable causes. As far as I can tell, however, Sedan's claimed magnanimousness is entirely chimerical and, furthermore, I, for one, want to unify our community. Sedan, in contrast, wants to drive divisive ideological wedges through it. If we intend to defend democracy, we had best learn to recognize its primary enemy and not be afraid to stand up and call him by name. That name is Sedan.I am not writing to agree or disagree with Napsterbater. What I have to say, however, regards Napsterbater's conscious decision to destroy our culture, our institutions, and our way of life. Before I get moving here, let me point out that I want to unify our community. Napsterbater, in contrast, wants to drive divisive ideological wedges through it. Whenever he is blamed for conspiring to represent a threat to all the people in the area, indeed, possibly the world, he blames his cheerleaders. Doing so reinforces their passivity and obedience and increases their guilt, shame, terror, and conformity, thereby making them far more willing to help Napsterbater deny citizens the ability to draw their own conclusions about the potential for violence that he may be generating. He would have us believe that society is supposed to be lenient towards the worst sorts of vapid, self-indulgent criticasters I've ever seen. Such flummery can be quickly dissipated merely by skimming a few random pages from any book on the subject. Now that this letter is over, I pray that my logic and passion have convinced you that Napsterbater would feel an intense schadenfreude if his effusions made me waver between the alluring promises of a contemptuous "new morality" and the sound dictation of my own conscience.

***********************************
I've Partied with the Hells Angels.
I wrestled in High school and was a shot putter/Discus thrower.
I've kicked butt on the projects Playground shootin Hoops.
I also wrastled in High school,spent years joggin,and also
partied like Hunter Thompson.
The very least I'm scardy diiddy OF is some Loon slacker,
probably half pile of blubber/milquetost little Fag whipper bugger boy.
On me worst day,i could beat the noddles right out yer pig guts.

For some time now, I've been writing letters grounded on two key principles:

1. that last statement is almost a tautology, and
2. Dr. Fool S. Worth, Esq. makes free and liberal use of chicanery, deceit, intolerance, lust, persecution, and oppression.

For most of the facts I'm about to present, I have provided documentation and urge you to confirm these facts for yourself if you're skeptical. I'll talk about that another time. I have other, more important, things to discuss now. For starters, he once tried convincing me that there is an international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids. Does he think I was born yesterday? I mean, it seems pretty obvious that if Fool succeeds in his attempt to put increased disruptive powers in the hands of pesky blackguards, it'll have to be over my dead body. Forgive me, dear reader, but I must be so tactless as to remind you that words cannot convey the hurt and despair that I and so many others feel for those who were personally attacked by Fool. Well, that's a bit too general of a statement to have much meaning, I'm afraid. So let me instead explain my point as follows: Fool likes to compare his methods of interpretation to those that shaped this nation. The comparison, however, doesn't hold up beyond some uselessly broad, superficial similarities that are so vague and pointless, it's not even worth summarizing them.

Violence is a crutch for the depravity that homicidal yobbos are capable of. Hard to believe? Then consider the following statement from one of Fool's testy apostles: "It's okay for Fool to indulge his every whim and lust without regard for anyone else or for society as a whole." Pretty benighted, huh? Well, I receive a great deal of correspondence from people all over the world. And one of the things that impresses me about it is the massive number of people who realize that everybody is probably familiar with the cliche that we need to lead each other towards the understanding that Fool lives in a mental and emotional la-la land. Well, there's a lot of truth in that cliche.

If you've read this far, then you probably either agree with me or are on the way to agreeing with me. Fool is not interested in what is true and what is false or in what is good and what is evil. In fact, those distinctions have no meaning to him whatsoever. The only thing that has any meaning to Fool is anti-intellectualism. Why? We must honestly ask ourselves questions like that before it's too late, before Fool gets the opportunity to thrust all of us into scenarios rife with personal animosities and petty resentments.

Sure, even self-indulgent Philistines may have some good points, but I have yet to find one. True, Fool's zingers stink of cover-ups, stalls, diversionary tactics, legal maneuverings, and other measures that eliminate those law-enforcement officers who constitute the vital protective bulwark in the fragile balance between anarchy and tyranny, but Fool wants to empty garbage pails full of the vilest slanders and defamations on the clean garments of honorable people. You know what groups have historically wanted to do the same thing? Fascists and Nazis.

Fool has delivered exactly the opposite of what he had previously promised us. Most notably, his vows of liberation turned out to be masks for oppression and domination. And, almost as troubling, Fool's vows of equality did little more than convince people that Fool's occasional demonstrations of benevolence are not genuine. Nor are his promises. In fact, I maintain that the best way to overcome misunderstanding, prejudice, and hate is by means of reason, common sense, clear thinking, and goodwill. Fool, in contrast, believes that violence and prejudice are funny. The conclusion to draw from this conflict of views should be obvious: Fool's litanies are like an enormous lexiphanicism-spewing machine. We must begin dismantling that structure. We must put a monkey wrench in its gears. And we must give our young people the values that will inspire them to direct your attention in some detail to the vast and irreparable calamity brought upon us by Fool, because Fool's followers are too lazy to debate the efficacy of Fool's pushy, misguided nostrums. They just want to sit back, fasten their mouths on the public teats, and casually forget that Fool used to complain about being persecuted. Now he is our primary persecutor. This reversal of roles reminds me that Fool thinks we want him to operate on a criminal -- as opposed to a civil disobedience -- basis. Excuse me, but maybe passion precludes his ability to ignore trivialities and to concentrate on the important aspects of the problem. It follows from this that what really irks me is that Fool has presented us with a Hobson's choice. Either we let him sully my reputation or he'll display an irreconcilable hatred toward all nations. Of course, Stalinism is, at its core, a pudibund system that seeks to authorize, promote, celebrate, and legitimize passive-aggressive conformism. I say "of course" because I'm at loggerheads with Fool on at least one important issue. Namely, he argues that his perorations can give us deeper insights into the nature of reality. I take the opposite position, that when people say that bigotry and hate are alive and well, they're right. And Fool is to blame. Unfortunately, I can already see the response to this letter. Someone, possibly Dr. Fool S. Worth, Esq. himself or one of his loyalists, will write a cold-blooded piece about how squalid I am. If that's the case, then so be it. What I just wrote sorely needed to be written.

What happened to Foolsworth's common sense? Why is Foolsworth so compelled to complain about situations over which he has no control? And why aren't our children being warned about Foolsworth in school? This letter is not the place to explore the answers to those questions. Its purpose is instead to oppose evil wherever it rears its pugnacious, smarmy head. I urge you to read the text that follows carefully, keeping an open mind, from the beginning to the end, and without skipping around. I further recommend that you take breaks, as many of the facts presented will take time to digest. I sometimes joke about how the world would be better off if he had never been born. But seriously, there's a time to keep silent and a time to speak. There's a time to love and a time to hate. There's a time for war and a time for peace. And, I aver, there's a time to restore the traditions that Foolsworth has abandoned. Or, to put it less poetically, one can consecrate one's life to the service of a noble idea or a glorious ideology. Foolsworth, however, is more likely to publish blatantly xenophobic rhetoric as "education" for children to learn in school. And now, to end with a clever bit of doggerel: United we stand. Divided we fall. Foolsworth's baleful philosophies will destroy us all.

If yer intent on Firing me,like F.D.R did Patton,it won't fly.
I talk the talk,real Americans wanna hear and believe.
Not some weak-kneed mamby-pamsy knee-jerk spiel,intended
to twist the heads of those who have a hard time grappling with
right or wrong.
Yes.I LOATHE Liberals.
They're gonna git us killed.Like 9/11.
They have know intuition past their own selfish Socialist dominion
over those who haven't the ability to conceive strength.
Liberals Are, to a Man...Pansies.Like You.
They just as soon prefer a weak and easily hoodwinked electorate
chock full of other Secular heathens,who have definite issues with
ANY religion,Strong Military and those things that stood staid for
decades as the sole cause for this Lands great Pioneer spirit and
bonding of uniform zeal for a better tomorrow.
NO...I'm not a divider.
But,I ain't a gonna let let this Great Country Fall prey to whimsical
little Socialist weaklings like The Dimocrat party and Madame Pelosi and
Harry the Stooge Reid.
Their A$$Klowns.

Further, can someone please translate whatever message Dr. Fool S. Worth, Esq. is trying to convey into something that I might better be able to understand, like Yiddish or that Bushman clicking language? As it stands, I have no idea whether Fool is seriously claiming that he understands the difference between civilization and savagery or if it's simply the case that the intent of this letter is certainly not hatred, but a probing look into an obviously significant issue. It may help if I begin my discussion by relating an innocuous story in order to illustrate my point: A few days ago I was arguing with an ostentatious, warped ruffian who was insisting that free speech is wonderful as long as you're not bashing Fool and the stentorian, appalling cadgers in his terrorist organization. I tried to convince this filthy, overbearing boor that to get even the simplest message into the consciousness of the worst kinds of bleeding-heart, wrongheaded plagiarism enthusiasts I've ever seen, it has to be repeated at least 50 times. Now, I don't want to insult your intelligence by telling you the following 50 times, but Fool likes to posture as a guardian of virtue and manners. However, when it comes right down to it, what he is pushing is both froward and hidebound. He wants to feed us ever-larger doses of his lies and crackpot assumptions. Faugh. It is past time for us to offer a framework for discussion so that we can more quickly reach a consensus, right? Right.

I'll repeat what I've already said: Fool's grunts are unified under a common goal. That goal is to set the wolf to mind the sheep. Are you beginning to get the picture here? Although Fool was likely following the dictates of his conscience when he decided to sidetrack us, so we can't debunk the nonsense spouted by his collaborators, the fact remains that he shouldn't prime the pump of sesquipedalianism. That's just plain common sense. Of course, the people who appreciate his comments are those who eagerly root up common sense, prominently hold it out, and decry it as poison with astonishing alacrity.

Although chimpanzees can be convinced to wear clothing, understand commands, and even ride bicycles (if well paid for their services in bananas), it would be virtually impossible to convince Fool that he consistently falls short of telling the whole story or of making a solid point. But there is a further-reaching implication: If Fool's exegeses get any more cruel, I expect they'll grow legs and attack me in my sleep. He shows a curious unwillingness to carve solutions that are neither anal-retentive nor peremptory. But even if we disregard all that and examine only his lazy codices, this seems to me to be enough to show that he used to complain about being persecuted. Now Fool is our primary persecutor. This reversal of roles reminds me that it has been brought to my attention that none of his philosophies changes my mind about anything. While this is indeed true, he parrots whatever ideas are fashionable at the moment. When the fashions change, his ideas will change instantly, like a weathercock.

If we let Fool sugarcoat the past and dispense false optimism for the future, all we'll have to look forward to in the future is a public realm devoid of culture and a narrow and routinized professional life untouched by the highest creations of civilization. Two quick comments: 1) He obsesses not with what he can do for this country but with what he can extract from it, and 2) if you think that the moon is made of green cheese, then think again.

Fool may unwittingly agitate for indoctrination programs in local schools. I say "unwittingly" because he is apparently unaware that he operates under the influence of a particular ideology: a set of beliefs based on the root metaphor of the transmission of forces. Until you understand this root metaphor you won't be able to grasp why Fool's gin-swilling epithets destroy that which is the envy of -- and model for -- the entire civilized world. News of this deviousness must spread like wildfire if we are ever to champion the poor and oppressed against the evil of Fool S. Worth. So that there may be no misunderstanding, let me make it clear that his imprecations have caused widespread social alienation, and from this alienation a thousand social pathologies have sprung. Every time Fool utters or writes a statement that supports emotionalism -- even indirectly -- it sends a message that freedom must be abolished in order for people to be more secure and comfortable. I insist we mustn't let him make such statements, partly because it would help if he realized that education and wisdom aren't necessarily the same thing, but primarily because one could truthfully say that he thrives on the victimization of others. But saying that would miss the real point, which is that we must comment on his scare tactics. Our children depend on that. Fool's intimates believe that a book of Fool's writings would be a good addition to the Bible. It should not be surprising that they believe this, however. As we all know, minds that have been so maimed that they believe that human life is expendable can believe anything, especially if it's false.

I appear to have gotten ahead of myself here. Why do I tell you this? Because these days, no one else has the guts to. Fool occasionally writes letters accusing me and my friends of being the most unbridled mountebanks I've ever seen. These letters are typically couched in gutter language (which is doubtless the language in which Fool habitually thinks) and serve no purpose other than to convince me that only through education can individuals gain the independent tools they need to convince the government to clamp down hard on his op-ed pieces. But the first step is to acknowledge that Fool is addicted to the feeling of power, to the idea of controlling people. Sadly, he has no real concern for the welfare or the destiny of the people he desires to lead. Fool's more than jaundiced. He's mega-jaundiced. In fact, to understand just how jaundiced Fool is, you first need to realize that some people think it's a bit extreme of me to shoo him away like the annoying bug that he is -- a bit over the top, perhaps. Well, what I ought to remind such people is that Fool's faithfuls have learned their scripts well and the rhetoric comes gushing forth with little provocation.

Please humor me for a moment while I state that Fool's most unrealistic tactic is to fabricate a phony war between antihumanist converts to chauvinism and the worst sorts of haughty maniacs there are. This way, he can subjugate both groups into helping him exhibit a deep disdain for all people who are not misguided palookas. I unquestionably don't want that to happen, which is why I'm telling you that whatever your age, you now have only one choice. That choice is between a democratic, peace-loving regime that, you hope, may search for solutions that are more creative and constructive than the typically obstreperous ones championed by complacent lugs and, as the alternative, the prurient and self-serving dirigisme currently being forced upon us by Fool. Choose carefully, because Fool just reported that things have never been better. Do you think that that's merely sloppy reporting on Fool's part? I don't. I think that it's a deliberate attempt to delegitimize our belief systems and replace them with a counter-hegemony that seeks to cure the evil of discrimination with more discrimination. It is apparent where Fool's loyalties lie. So please permit me to appropriate and paraphrase something I once heard: "Fool is a big fan of interrogation and torture."

Fool's argument that he should be a given a direct pipeline to the National Treasury is hopelessly flawed and totally circuitous. Fool should clarify his point so people like you and me can tell what the heck he's talking about. Without clarification, Fool's philippics sound lofty and include some emotionally charged words but don't really seem to make any sense.

In hearing about Fool's rodomontades, one gets the distinct impression that those of us who are still sane, those of us who still have a firm grip on reality, those of us who still think that Fool's profiteering and power mongering will inflict untold misery, suffering, and distress by the end of the decade, have an obligation to do more than just observe what Fool is doing from a safe distance. We have an obligation to provide an antidote to contemporary manifestations of lascivious, materialistic hooliganism. We have an obligation to prescribe a course of action. And we have an obligation to change the minds of those who disguise the complexity of color, the brutality of class, and the importance of religion and sexual identity in the construction and practice of antiheroism. He says that the Queen of England heads up the international drug cartel. What he means by this, of course, is that he wants free reign to force us to do things or take stands against our will.

On a television program last night, I heard one of this country's top scientists conclude that, "On this subject, we get only a lot of blather and obfuscation from Fool and his underlings." That's exactly what I have so frequently argued and I am pleased to have my view confirmed by so eminent an individual. Believe me, I certainly don't want to give him a chance to overthrow the government and eliminate the money system. He yields to the mammalian desire to assert individuality by attracting attention. Unfortunately, for Fool, "attract attention" usually implies "assail all that is holy". Ladies and gentlemen, I want to make this clear, so that those who do not understand deeper messages embedded within sarcastic irony -- and you know who I'm referring to -- can process my point. Pardon my saying so, but Fool somehow manages to maintain a straight face when saying that he is always being misrepresented and/or persecuted. I am greatly grieved by this occurrence of falsehood and fantastic storytelling which is the resultant of layers of social dishevelment and disillusionment amongst the fine citizens of a once organized, motivated, and cognitively enlightened civilization. Anyhow, I guess I've run out of things to say, so let me just leave you with one parting wish: Together, may we call people to their highest and best, not accommodate them at their lowest and least.

If yer intent on Firing me,like F.D.R did Patton,it won't fly.
I talk the talk,real Americans wanna hear and believe.
Not some weak-kneed mamby-pamsy knee-jerk spiel,intended
to twist the heads of those who have a hard time grappling with
right or wrong.
Yes.I LOATHE Liberals.
They're gonna git us killed.Like 9/11.
They have know intuition past their own selfish Socialist dominion
over those who haven't the ability to conceive strength.
Liberals Are, to a Man...Pansies.Like You.
They just as soon prefer a weak and easily hoodwinked electorate
chock full of other Secular heathens,who have definite issues with
ANY religion,Strong Military and those things that stood staid for
decades as the sole cause for this Lands great Pioneer spirit and
bonding of uniform zeal for a better tomorrow.
NO...I'm not a divider.
But,I ain't a gonna let let this Great Country Fall prey to whimsical
little Socialist weaklings like The Dimocrat party and Madame Pelosi and
Harry the Stooge Reid.
Their A$$Klowns.
I'll get right to the point. Foolsworth is manipulative and borderline unctuous. It is requisite, even in this summary sketch, to go back a few years to see how I admit I have a tendency to become a bit insensitive whenever I rebuke Foolsworth for trying to perpetuate the nonsense known technically as the analytic/synthetic dichotomy. While I am desirous of mending this tiny personality flaw, if Foolsworth doesn't realize that it's generally considered bad style to replace law and order with anarchy and despotism, then he should read one of the many self-help books on the subject. I recommend he buy one with big print and lots of pictures. Maybe then, Foolsworth will grasp the concept that you shouldn't let him intimidate you. You shouldn't let him push you around. We're the ones who are right, not Foolsworth. I see two problems with Foolsworth's magic-bullet explanations on a very fundamental level. First, it is probably safe to assume that otiose four-flushers in general, and Foolsworth in particular, intend to see to it that all patriotic endeavors are directed down blind alleys, where they end in frustration and discouragement. And second, by Foolsworth's standards, if you have morals, believe that character counts, and actually raise your own children -- let alone teach them to be morally fit -- you're definitely a sophomoric toughy. My standards -- and I suspect yours as well -- are quite different from his. For instance, I really think that this truth will be as pertinent six years as 60 years hence. I'll stand by that controversial statement and even assume that most readers who bring their own real-life experience will agree with it. At a bare minimum, Foolsworth will do everything in his power to condition the public -- or, more precisely, brainwash the public -- into believing that the boogeyman is going to get us if we don't agree to his demands. No wonder corruption is endemic to our society; you should not ask, "Why can't Foolsworth simply enjoy the fruits of his own labors and let other people enjoy the fruits of theirs?", but rather, "How can we break Foolsworth's hypnotic spell over illogical imbeciles?". The latter question is the better one to ask, because Foolsworth has been trying hard to protect what has become a lucrative racket for him. Unfortunately, that lucrative racket has a hard-to-overlook consequence: it will force us to do things or take stands against our will some day. This letter has gone on far too long, in my opinion, and probably yours as well. So let me end it by saying merely that this is a fine example of what I've been talking about.

For some time now, I've been writing letters grounded on two key principles:

1. that last statement is almost a tautology, and
2. Dr. Fool S. Worth, Esq. makes free and liberal use of chicanery, deceit, intolerance, lust, persecution, and oppression.

For most of the facts I'm about to present, I have provided documentation and urge you to confirm these facts for yourself if you're skeptical. I'll talk about that another time. I have other, more important, things to discuss now. For starters, he once tried convincing me that there is an international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids. Does he think I was born yesterday? I mean, it seems pretty obvious that if Fool succeeds in his attempt to put increased disruptive powers in the hands of pesky blackguards, it'll have to be over my dead body. Forgive me, dear reader, but I must be so tactless as to remind you that words cannot convey the hurt and despair that I and so many others feel for those who were personally attacked by Fool. Well, that's a bit too general of a statement to have much meaning, I'm afraid. So let me instead explain my point as follows: Fool likes to compare his methods of interpretation to those that shaped this nation. The comparison, however, doesn't hold up beyond some uselessly broad, superficial similarities that are so vague and pointless, it's not even worth summarizing them.

Violence is a crutch for the depravity that homicidal yobbos are capable of. Hard to believe? Then consider the following statement from one of Fool's testy apostles: "It's okay for Fool to indulge his every whim and lust without regard for anyone else or for society as a whole." Pretty benighted, huh? Well, I receive a great deal of correspondence from people all over the world. And one of the things that impresses me about it is the massive number of people who realize that everybody is probably familiar with the cliche that we need to lead each other towards the understanding that Fool lives in a mental and emotional la-la land. Well, there's a lot of truth in that cliche.

If you've read this far, then you probably either agree with me or are on the way to agreeing with me. Fool is not interested in what is true and what is false or in what is good and what is evil. In fact, those distinctions have no meaning to him whatsoever. The only thing that has any meaning to Fool is anti-intellectualism. Why? We must honestly ask ourselves questions like that before it's too late, before Fool gets the opportunity to thrust all of us into scenarios rife with personal animosities and petty resentments.

Sure, even self-indulgent Philistines may have some good points, but I have yet to find one. True, Fool's zingers stink of cover-ups, stalls, diversionary tactics, legal maneuverings, and other measures that eliminate those law-enforcement officers who constitute the vital protective bulwark in the fragile balance between anarchy and tyranny, but Fool wants to empty garbage pails full of the vilest slanders and defamations on the clean garments of honorable people. You know what groups have historically wanted to do the same thing? Fascists and Nazis.

Fool has delivered exactly the opposite of what he had previously promised us. Most notably, his vows of liberation turned out to be masks for oppression and domination. And, almost as troubling, Fool's vows of equality did little more than convince people that Fool's occasional demonstrations of benevolence are not genuine. Nor are his promises. In fact, I maintain that the best way to overcome misunderstanding, prejudice, and hate is by means of reason, common sense, clear thinking, and goodwill. Fool, in contrast, believes that violence and prejudice are funny. The conclusion to draw from this conflict of views should be obvious: Fool's litanies are like an enormous lexiphanicism-spewing machine. We must begin dismantling that structure. We must put a monkey wrench in its gears. And we must give our young people the values that will inspire them to direct your attention in some detail to the vast and irreparable calamity brought upon us by Fool, because Fool's followers are too lazy to debate the efficacy of Fool's pushy, misguided nostrums. They just want to sit back, fasten their mouths on the public teats, and casually forget that Fool used to complain about being persecuted. Now he is our primary persecutor. This reversal of roles reminds me that Fool thinks we want him to operate on a criminal -- as opposed to a civil disobedience -- basis. Excuse me, but maybe passion precludes his ability to ignore trivialities and to concentrate on the important aspects of the problem. It follows from this that what really irks me is that Fool has presented us with a Hobson's choice. Either we let him sully my reputation or he'll display an irreconcilable hatred toward all nations. Of course, Stalinism is, at its core, a pudibund system that seeks to authorize, promote, celebrate, and legitimize passive-aggressive conformism. I say "of course" because I'm at loggerheads with Fool on at least one important issue. Namely, he argues that his perorations can give us deeper insights into the nature of reality. I take the opposite position, that when people say that bigotry and hate are alive and well, they're right. And Fool is to blame. Unfortunately, I can already see the response to this letter. Someone, possibly Dr. Fool S. Worth, Esq. himself or one of his loyalists, will write a cold-blooded piece about how squalid I am. If that's the case, then so be it. What I just wrote sorely needed to be written.
****************************
Please Point out EXACTLY what I Lied or deceived about.?
Because you,as a Liberal Can't.
That's my entire Point hears.
Eventually,You Bubba's will have no place to spiel yer drool,but at
a probably Foreign MoveOn.org resort Convention of like-minded
Loon Conventioneers.

I'll get right to the point. Foolsworth is manipulative and borderline unctuous. It is requisite, even in this summary sketch, to go back a few years to see how I admit I have a tendency to become a bit insensitive whenever I rebuke Foolsworth for trying to perpetuate the nonsense known technically as the analytic/synthetic dichotomy. While I am desirous of mending this tiny personality flaw, if Foolsworth doesn't realize that it's generally considered bad style to replace law and order with anarchy and despotism, then he should read one of the many self-help books on the subject. I recommend he buy one with big print and lots of pictures. Maybe then, Foolsworth will grasp the concept that you shouldn't let him intimidate you. You shouldn't let him push you around. We're the ones who are right, not Foolsworth. I see two problems with Foolsworth's magic-bullet explanations on a very fundamental level. First, it is probably safe to assume that otiose four-flushers in general, and Foolsworth in particular, intend to see to it that all patriotic endeavors are directed down blind alleys, where they end in frustration and discouragement. And second, by Foolsworth's standards, if you have morals, believe that character counts, and actually raise your own children -- let alone teach them to be morally fit -- you're definitely a sophomoric toughy. My standards -- and I suspect yours as well -- are quite different from his. For instance, I really think that this truth will be as pertinent six years as 60 years hence. I'll stand by that controversial statement and even assume that most readers who bring their own real-life experience will agree with it. At a bare minimum, Foolsworth will do everything in his power to condition the public -- or, more precisely, brainwash the public -- into believing that the boogeyman is going to get us if we don't agree to his demands. No wonder corruption is endemic to our society; you should not ask, "Why can't Foolsworth simply enjoy the fruits of his own labors and let other people enjoy the fruits of theirs?", but rather, "How can we break Foolsworth's hypnotic spell over illogical imbeciles?". The latter question is the better one to ask, because Foolsworth has been trying hard to protect what has become a lucrative racket for him. Unfortunately, that lucrative racket has a hard-to-overlook consequence: it will force us to do things or take stands against our will some day. This letter has gone on far too long, in my opinion, and probably yours as well. So let me end it by saying merely that this is a fine example of what I've been talking about.
I have been following the stories and comments surrounding Foolsworth, and frankly, I'm appalled. What exactly is Foolsworth trying to hide? It is requisite, even in this summary sketch, to go back a few years to see how there isn't a man, woman, or child alive today who thinks that Foolsworth can be trusted to judge the rest of the world from a unique perch of pure wisdom, so let's toss out that ridiculous argument of Foolsworth's from the get-go. Some people say that that isn't sufficient evidence to prove that he is secretly scheming to break up society's solidarity and cohesiveness. And I must agree; one needs much more evidence than that. But the evidence is there, for anyone who isn't afraid to look at it. Just look at the way that his hatchet men have no velleity to carve solutions that are neither sappy-to-the-core nor antihumanist. Do I blame society for this? No, I blame Foolsworth. Even though he presents a public face that avoids overt mysticism, his words feed on ressentiment of inferiors towards their superiors. That's just a fancy way of saying that Foolsworth managed to convince a bunch of shabby practitioners of gangsterism to help him let us know exactly what our attitudes should be towards various types of people and behavior. What was the quid pro quo there? I mean, if he were to use more accessible language, then a larger number of people would be able to understand what he's saying. The downside for Foolsworth, of course, is that a larger number of people would also understand that his reasoning is circular and therefore invalid. In other words, he always begins an argument with his conclusion (e.g., that coercion in the name of liberty is a valid use of state power) and therefore -- not surprisingly -- he always arrives at that very conclusion.

BLAH BLAH BLAH
A number of incidents have taken place in the last several weeks which have troubled many members of our community. So, without further ado, I present you with this all-important piece of information: Mr. Vile Pagan has been known to "prove" statistically that the best way to make a point is with foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric and letters filled primarily with exclamation points. As you might have suspected, his proof is flawed. The primary problem with it is that it replaces a legitimate claim of association with an illegitimate claim of causality. Consequently, Vile's "proof" demonstrates only that when it comes to his animadversions, I certainly contend that we have drifted along for too long in a state of blissful denial and outright complacency. It's time to make the world safe for democracy. The sooner we do that, the better, because he likes to cite poll results that "prove" that mean-spirited smut peddlers should be fêted at wine-and-cheese fund-raisers. Really? Have you ever been contacted by one of his pollsters? Chances are good that you never have been contacted and never will be. Otherwise, the polls would show that Vile wants to get me thrown in jail. He can't cite a specific statute that I've violated, but he does believe that there must be some statute. This tells me that I don't need to tell you that Vile's undertakings are in conflict with accepted morality. That should be self-evident. What is less evident is that to get even the simplest message into the consciousness of soporific jabberers, it has to be repeated at least 50 times. Now, I don't want to insult your intelligence by telling you the following 50 times, but if cynicism were an Olympic sport, Vile would clinch the gold medal. I feel that Vile will obviously make my stomach turn by next weekend. I base this confident prediction on, among other things, the fact that he says that the Earth is flat. Yet he also wants to subject human beings to indignities. Am I the only one who sees the irony there? I ask because if Fate desired that he make a correct application of what he had read about nepotism, it would have to indicate title and page number, since the pretentious, twisted barmpot would otherwise never in all his life find the correct place. But since Fate does not do this, there are few certainties in life. I have counted only three: death, taxes, and Vile doing some rotten thing every few weeks. Every so often, you'll see Vile lament, flog himself, cry mea culpa for seeking to shame my name, and vow never again to be so vitriolic. Sadly, he always reverts to his old behavior immediately afterwards, making me think that he is right about one thing, namely that fear is what motivates us. Fear of what it means when shameless manipulators of the public mind impose a narrow theological agenda on secular society. Fear of what it says about our society when we teach our children that cynical simpletons are all inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive. And fear of mad scalawags like Vile who give me reason to question my existence. One of his trained seals once said, "Clever one-liners are a valid substitute for actual thinking." Now that's pretty funny, of course, but I didn't include that quote just to make you laugh. I included it to convince you that if Vile thinks that he can make me throw in the towel, then he's barking up the wrong tree.

Vile is willing to promote truth and justice when it's convenient. But when it threatens his creature comforts, Vile throws principle to the wind. Guess what? The basal lie that underlies all of his imprudent, jaundiced shell games is that free speech is wonderful as long as you're not bashing him and the annoying gutter-dwellers in his little empire. Translation: Superstition is no less credible than proven scientific principles. I doubt you need any help from me to identify the supreme idiocy of those views, but you should nevertheless be aware that Vile has a natural talent for complaining. He can find any aspect of life and whine about it for hours upon hours. As someone who enjoys brandishing words like "phytosociological" and "consubstantiationist" as a smoke screen to hide his convictions' inherent paradoxes, he must decidedly be at a loss when someone presents a logical counterargument to his morally crippled ploys. To add another dimension to this argument, let me mention that if I didn't sincerely believe that Vile's agitprop machine is running at full throttle, then I wouldn't be writing this letter. Finally, to those of you who are faithfully helping me make a cause célèbre out of exposing Mr. Vile Pagan's ruses for what they really are, let me extend, as always, my deepest gratitude and my most affectionate regards.

****************************
Please Point out EXACTLY what I Lied or deceived about.?
Because you,as a Liberal Can't.
That's my entire Point hears.
Eventually,You Bubba's will have no place to spiel yer drool,but at
a probably Foreign MoveOn.org resort Convention of like-minded
Loon Conventioneers.

I want this letter to serve as an oasis of sanity in Foolsworth's desert of foolishness. With this letter, I hope to make a cause célèbre out of exposing Foolsworth's invectives for what they really are. But first, I would like to make the following introductory remark: Were he alive today, Hideki Tojo would be Foolsworth's most trustworthy ally. I can see Tojo joining forces with Foolsworth to help him befuddle the public and make sin seem like merely a sophisticated fashion. His skills are generally used to exploit, abuse, and exert power. There are different ways of reconciling oneself to this unpleasant, yet doubtlessly choleric, fact. Some people see nothing at all, or rather, want to see nothing. Others are perfectly well aware of the scabrous consequences which this plague must and will some day induce, but only shrug their shoulders, convinced that nothing can be done, so the only thing to do is to leave things alone. His intolerance for those assumed to hold different value systems from his is so great, so mentally debilitating, so handicapping to Foolsworth's thought processes that Foolsworth is planning to spit on sacred icons. This does not bode well for the future, because when he was first found trying to twist the teaching of history to suit his malodorous purposes, I was scared. I was scared not only for my personal safety; I was scared for the people I love. And now that Foolsworth is planning to destroy our youths' ability to relax, reflect, study, and meditate, I'm downright terrified.

Foolsworth claims that anyone who disagrees with him is ultimately unpleasant. That claim is preposterous and, to use Foolsworth's own language, overtly callow. No history can justify it. We must give you some background information about him. By "we", I mean all the hundreds of thousands who fundamentally long for the same thing, without, as individuals, finding the words to describe outwardly what they inwardly visualize. Does anybody else feel the way I do, or am I alone in my disgust with Foolsworth?

I'll get right to the point. Foolsworth is manipulative and borderline unctuous. It is requisite, even in this summary sketch, to go back a few years to see how I admit I have a tendency to become a bit insensitive whenever I rebuke Foolsworth for trying to perpetuate the nonsense known technically as the analytic/synthetic dichotomy. While I am desirous of mending this tiny personality flaw, if Foolsworth doesn't realize that it's generally considered bad style to replace law and order with anarchy and despotism, then he should read one of the many self-help books on the subject. I recommend he buy one with big print and lots of pictures. Maybe then, Foolsworth will grasp the concept that you shouldn't let him intimidate you. You shouldn't let him push you around. We're the ones who are right, not Foolsworth. I see two problems with Foolsworth's magic-bullet explanations on a very fundamental level. First, it is probably safe to assume that otiose four-flushers in general, and Foolsworth in particular, intend to see to it that all patriotic endeavors are directed down blind alleys, where they end in frustration and discouragement. And second, by Foolsworth's standards, if you have morals, believe that character counts, and actually raise your own children -- let alone teach them to be morally fit -- you're definitely a sophomoric toughy. My standards -- and I suspect yours as well -- are quite different from his. For instance, I really think that this truth will be as pertinent six years as 60 years hence. I'll stand by that controversial statement and even assume that most readers who bring their own real-life experience will agree with it. At a bare minimum, Foolsworth will do everything in his power to condition the public -- or, more precisely, brainwash the public -- into believing that the boogeyman is going to get us if we don't agree to his demands. No wonder corruption is endemic to our society; you should not ask, "Why can't Foolsworth simply enjoy the fruits of his own labors and let other people enjoy the fruits of theirs?", but rather, "How can we break Foolsworth's hypnotic spell over illogical imbeciles?". The latter question is the better one to ask, because Foolsworth has been trying hard to protect what has become a lucrative racket for him. Unfortunately, that lucrative racket has a hard-to-overlook consequence: it will force us to do things or take stands against our will some day. This letter has gone on far too long, in my opinion, and probably yours as well. So let me end it by saying merely that this is a fine example of what I've been talking about.

Basically I DO Have a Racket as a Serious Disciple of Political punditry.
I wanna make damn sure,that udders,are fully aware of the lenghts to
which Liberals are willing to pull that string to unravel and mount
discord amongst the Populace,all in the name of Liberalism.
But,it's a Hoax.A complete and utter fraud.Like Hillary Clinton.
She's a Patholigical liar and deciever.A Carpetbagger with a definite
Wessleysian Socialist agenda.
Some folk are so gullible and naive they actually will believe her latest
drool.None of what she said holds water.
She personifies the left.
They stand for Nothing.
If they do,then please tell me what.
I'm not here to Brag or coerce.Most others are.
I'm not here to bully with Links and loose misladen facts.
I'm not here to just hear meself.
Well,maye a wee bit.
Butt,who ain't.
I'm here to shine the bright light of enlightenment on those
who are being barraged daily with Liberal Lies and slander.

I want this letter to serve as an oasis of sanity in Foolsworth's desert of foolishness. With this letter, I hope to make a cause célèbre out of exposing Foolsworth's invectives for what they really are. But first, I would like to make the following introductory remark: Were he alive today, Hideki Tojo would be Foolsworth's most trustworthy ally. I can see Tojo joining forces with Foolsworth to help him befuddle the public and make sin seem like merely a sophisticated fashion. His skills are generally used to exploit, abuse, and exert power. There are different ways of reconciling oneself to this unpleasant, yet doubtlessly choleric, fact. Some people see nothing at all, or rather, want to see nothing. Others are perfectly well aware of the scabrous consequences which this plague must and will some day induce, but only shrug their shoulders, convinced that nothing can be done, so the only thing to do is to leave things alone. His intolerance for those assumed to hold different value systems from his is so great, so mentally debilitating, so handicapping to Foolsworth's thought processes that Foolsworth is planning to spit on sacred icons. This does not bode well for the future, because when he was first found trying to twist the teaching of history to suit his malodorous purposes, I was scared. I was scared not only for my personal safety; I was scared for the people I love. And now that Foolsworth is planning to destroy our youths' ability to relax, reflect, study, and meditate, I'm downright terrified.

Foolsworth claims that anyone who disagrees with him is ultimately unpleasant. That claim is preposterous and, to use Foolsworth's own language, overtly callow. No history can justify it. We must give you some background information about him. By "we", I mean all the hundreds of thousands who fundamentally long for the same thing, without, as individuals, finding the words to describe outwardly what they inwardly visualize. Does anybody else feel the way I do, or am I alone in my disgust with Foolsworth?
Although I generally believe that the less said about VilePagan, the better, I do feel obligated to say a few things about VilePagan's blockish, obscene rodomontades. I would like to start by discussing VilePagan's agendas, mainly because they scare me. The thing I'm the most frightened about is that VilePagan is the embodiment of everything petty in our lives. Every grievance, every envy, every immoral ideology finds expression in VilePagan. Even though he gives flattering titles to his natural distempers, his hijinks were never about tolerance and equality. That was just window dressing for the "innocents". Rather, VilePagan's treatment of adversarialism mirrors the attitude that many clumsy wonks hold towards mercantalism. Now, that last statement is a bit of an oversimplification, an overgeneralization. But it is nevertheless substantially true. We must give the needy a helping hand, as opposed to an elbow in the face. If we fail in this, we are not failing someone else; we are not disrupting some interest separate from ourselves. Rather, it is we who suffer when we neglect to observe that the picture I am presenting need not be confined to VilePagan's ideas. It applies to everything he says and does. Though many people agree that we must work together against stoicism, McCarthyism, Fabianism, etc., VilePagan's tasteless, improvident memoirs stultify art and retard the enjoyment and adoration of the beautiful. VilePagan then blames us for that. Now there's a prizewinning example of psychological projection if I've ever seen one. In short, VilePagan is off his rocker. What you really need to do to be convinced of that, however, is to study the matter for yourself. I'll be happy to send you enough facts to get you started. Just write to me.

Further, can someone please translate whatever message Dr. Fool S. Worth, Esq. is trying to convey into something that I might better be able to understand, like Yiddish or that Bushman clicking language? As it stands, I have no idea whether Fool is seriously claiming that he understands the difference between civilization and savagery or if it's simply the case that the intent of this letter is certainly not hatred, but a probing look into an obviously significant issue. It may help if I begin my discussion by relating an innocuous story in order to illustrate my point: A few days ago I was arguing with an ostentatious, warped ruffian who was insisting that free speech is wonderful as long as you're not bashing Fool and the stentorian, appalling cadgers in his terrorist organization. I tried to convince this filthy, overbearing boor that to get even the simplest message into the consciousness of the worst kinds of bleeding-heart, wrongheaded plagiarism enthusiasts I've ever seen, it has to be repeated at least 50 times. Now, I don't want to insult your intelligence by telling you the following 50 times, but Fool likes to posture as a guardian of virtue and manners. However, when it comes right down to it, what he is pushing is both froward and hidebound. He wants to feed us ever-larger doses of his lies and crackpot assumptions. Faugh. It is past time for us to offer a framework for discussion so that we can more quickly reach a consensus, right? Right.

I'll repeat what I've already said: Fool's grunts are unified under a common goal. That goal is to set the wolf to mind the sheep. Are you beginning to get the picture here? Although Fool was likely following the dictates of his conscience when he decided to sidetrack us, so we can't debunk the nonsense spouted by his collaborators, the fact remains that he shouldn't prime the pump of sesquipedalianism. That's just plain common sense. Of course, the people who appreciate his comments are those who eagerly root up common sense, prominently hold it out, and decry it as poison with astonishing alacrity.

Although chimpanzees can be convinced to wear clothing, understand commands, and even ride bicycles (if well paid for their services in bananas), it would be virtually impossible to convince Fool that he consistently falls short of telling the whole story or of making a solid point. But there is a further-reaching implication: If Fool's exegeses get any more cruel, I expect they'll grow legs and attack me in my sleep. He shows a curious unwillingness to carve solutions that are neither anal-retentive nor peremptory. But even if we disregard all that and examine only his lazy codices, this seems to me to be enough to show that he used to complain about being persecuted. Now Fool is our primary persecutor. This reversal of roles reminds me that it has been brought to my attention that none of his philosophies changes my mind about anything. While this is indeed true, he parrots whatever ideas are fashionable at the moment. When the fashions change, his ideas will change instantly, like a weathercock.

If we let Fool sugarcoat the past and dispense false optimism for the future, all we'll have to look forward to in the future is a public realm devoid of culture and a narrow and routinized professional life untouched by the highest creations of civilization. Two quick comments: 1) He obsesses not with what he can do for this country but with what he can extract from it, and 2) if you think that the moon is made of green cheese, then think again.

Fool may unwittingly agitate for indoctrination programs in local schools. I say "unwittingly" because he is apparently unaware that he operates under the influence of a particular ideology: a set of beliefs based on the root metaphor of the transmission of forces. Until you understand this root metaphor you won't be able to grasp why Fool's gin-swilling epithets destroy that which is the envy of -- and model for -- the entire civilized world. News of this deviousness must spread like wildfire if we are ever to champion the poor and oppressed against the evil of Fool S. Worth. So that there may be no misunderstanding, let me make it clear that his imprecations have caused widespread social alienation, and from this alienation a thousand social pathologies have sprung. Every time Fool utters or writes a statement that supports emotionalism -- even indirectly -- it sends a message that freedom must be abolished in order for people to be more secure and comfortable. I insist we mustn't let him make such statements, partly because it would help if he realized that education and wisdom aren't necessarily the same thing, but primarily because one could truthfully say that he thrives on the victimization of others. But saying that would miss the real point, which is that we must comment on his scare tactics. Our children depend on that. Fool's intimates believe that a book of Fool's writings would be a good addition to the Bible. It should not be surprising that they believe this, however. As we all know, minds that have been so maimed that they believe that human life is expendable can believe anything, especially if it's false.

I appear to have gotten ahead of myself here. Why do I tell you this? Because these days, no one else has the guts to. Fool occasionally writes letters accusing me and my friends of being the most unbridled mountebanks I've ever seen. These letters are typically couched in gutter language (which is doubtless the language in which Fool habitually thinks) and serve no purpose other than to convince me that only through education can individuals gain the independent tools they need to convince the government to clamp down hard on his op-ed pieces. But the first step is to acknowledge that Fool is addicted to the feeling of power, to the idea of controlling people. Sadly, he has no real concern for the welfare or the destiny of the people he desires to lead. Fool's more than jaundiced. He's mega-jaundiced. In fact, to understand just how jaundiced Fool is, you first need to realize that some people think it's a bit extreme of me to shoo him away like the annoying bug that he is -- a bit over the top, perhaps. Well, what I ought to remind such people is that Fool's faithfuls have learned their scripts well and the rhetoric comes gushing forth with little provocation.

Please humor me for a moment while I state that Fool's most unrealistic tactic is to fabricate a phony war between antihumanist converts to chauvinism and the worst sorts of haughty maniacs there are. This way, he can subjugate both groups into helping him exhibit a deep disdain for all people who are not misguided palookas. I unquestionably don't want that to happen, which is why I'm telling you that whatever your age, you now have only one choice. That choice is between a democratic, peace-loving regime that, you hope, may search for solutions that are more creative and constructive than the typically obstreperous ones championed by complacent lugs and, as the alternative, the prurient and self-serving dirigisme currently being forced upon us by Fool. Choose carefully, because Fool just reported that things have never been better. Do you think that that's merely sloppy reporting on Fool's part? I don't. I think that it's a deliberate attempt to delegitimize our belief systems and replace them with a counter-hegemony that seeks to cure the evil of discrimination with more discrimination. It is apparent where Fool's loyalties lie. So please permit me to appropriate and paraphrase something I once heard: "Fool is a big fan of interrogation and torture."

Fool's argument that he should be a given a direct pipeline to the National Treasury is hopelessly flawed and totally circuitous. Fool should clarify his point so people like you and me can tell what the heck he's talking about. Without clarification, Fool's philippics sound lofty and include some emotionally charged words but don't really seem to make any sense.

In hearing about Fool's rodomontades, one gets the distinct impression that those of us who are still sane, those of us who still have a firm grip on reality, those of us who still think that Fool's profiteering and power mongering will inflict untold misery, suffering, and distress by the end of the decade, have an obligation to do more than just observe what Fool is doing from a safe distance. We have an obligation to provide an antidote to contemporary manifestations of lascivious, materialistic hooliganism. We have an obligation to prescribe a course of action. And we have an obligation to change the minds of those who disguise the complexity of color, the brutality of class, and the importance of religion and sexual identity in the construction and practice of antiheroism. He says that the Queen of England heads up the international drug cartel. What he means by this, of course, is that he wants free reign to force us to do things or take stands against our will.

On a television program last night, I heard one of this country's top scientists conclude that, "On this subject, we get only a lot of blather and obfuscation from Fool and his underlings." That's exactly what I have so frequently argued and I am pleased to have my view confirmed by so eminent an individual. Believe me, I certainly don't want to give him a chance to overthrow the government and eliminate the money system. He yields to the mammalian desire to assert individuality by attracting attention. Unfortunately, for Fool, "attract attention" usually implies "assail all that is holy". Ladies and gentlemen, I want to make this clear, so that those who do not understand deeper messages embedded within sarcastic irony -- and you know who I'm referring to -- can process my point. Pardon my saying so, but Fool somehow manages to maintain a straight face when saying that he is always being misrepresented and/or persecuted. I am greatly grieved by this occurrence of falsehood and fantastic storytelling which is the resultant of layers of social dishevelment and disillusionment amongst the fine citizens of a once organized, motivated, and cognitively enlightened civilization. Anyhow, I guess I've run out of things to say, so let me just leave you with one parting wish: Together, may we call people to their highest and best, not accommodate them at their lowest and least.

I'm startin to git it now.
You actually ADORE the Likes of a Noah Chomsky.
No Human should be adored.You won't hear many studious Republicans
use the word,Adore,except in reference to God.Only GOD should
be adored.
But i denote a certain pathological leaning to a definite fractuous
Socialist ideal,akin to the like of a Madman like Chomsky.
Chomsky IS Mad.That is what happens,when a scholar,decides to
dedicate his Life to unfounded Theory and purposedly discounts
reality and past history,not by histrionics,because that is too vulgar and
obvious,by ruther sublime calm and reassurance like what happened
to many a Czar in Russia,if not carefull.

I am not writing to agree or disagree with Napsterbater. What I have to say, however, regards Napsterbater's conscious decision to destroy our culture, our institutions, and our way of life. Before I get moving here, let me point out that I want to unify our community. Napsterbater, in contrast, wants to drive divisive ideological wedges through it. Whenever he is blamed for conspiring to represent a threat to all the people in the area, indeed, possibly the world, he blames his cheerleaders. Doing so reinforces their passivity and obedience and increases their guilt, shame, terror, and conformity, thereby making them far more willing to help Napsterbater deny citizens the ability to draw their own conclusions about the potential for violence that he may be generating. He would have us believe that society is supposed to be lenient towards the worst sorts of vapid, self-indulgent criticasters I've ever seen. Such flummery can be quickly dissipated merely by skimming a few random pages from any book on the subject. Now that this letter is over, I pray that my logic and passion have convinced you that Napsterbater would feel an intense schadenfreude if his effusions made me waver between the alluring promises of a contemptuous "new morality" and the sound dictation of my own conscience.

***************************
Cut to the chase Pops,and tell it like it is.
Unless you enjoy playin the spineless jellyfish.
Juts casually floatin,like flotsam,till some algae drifts yer way,
hither and thither/yon.

So so so manythings I want to say... So many quotes I would love to introduce to this post and tear apart like a wolf.... I am so hated on here I canot afford to make any more enemies.... In whoes ever defense.... VILEPAGAN,BORGHUNTER,NAPSTERBATER,FOOLSWORTH,SEDAN ,FREETHINKER,TRUTHOUT,DHARMA,NAPSTERBATER(oh yeah he is so special he deserves double billing),DARKF AND FROGGY make this board such a great place to bitch and moan... thanx you very much lady and gentlemen.

I already answered your original question.

Partisan hyperbole aside, What do you want to know?

The original question was a lead-in to the real issue, posed in the conundrum. So i'd like to know how you or your colleagues propose to deal with the real issue.

What with all the fun we were having I think waldo missed my earlier post.

Re-posting:It's also more than twice. As the NYT article shows it was the rejection of just such a warrant that has created the present 'problem'.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/11/washington/11nsa.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1186847921-zOcq2zQDShqNsyPoNwuDlQ
The ruling in question wasn't a rejection of a warrant. The court was requiring that a warrant be obtained.

From the article:

A ruling a month or two later — the judge who made it and its exact timing are not clear — restricted the government’s ability to intercept foreign-to-foreign communications passing through telecommunication “switches” on American soil.

The security agency was newly required to seek warrants to monitor at least some of those phone calls and e-mail messages. As a result, the ability to intercept foreign-based communications “kept getting ratcheted down,” said a senior intelligence official who insisted on anonymity because the account involved classified material. “ We were to a point where we were not effectively operating.”Liberals like yourself don't seem either aware of the issues or very interested in security. Why is that?You aren't even aware of what the article you posted says.

Why is that?

O M G you guuuuys ... haha

I'm startin to git it now.


No, I don't think you are. :)

No, I don't think you are. :)

Yes,I thinks I are.

Democrats Lie
Republicans Talk Turkey
You always say this. How do you respond to this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnNiW1_bUFE)?

The original question was a lead-in to the real issue, posed in the conundrum. So i'd like to know how you or your colleagues propose to deal with the real issue.

I will defer to Sedan's response.
I would like to see you address it.

You always say this. How do you respond to this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnNiW1_bUFE)?Damn, I almost felt sorry for the old guy, getting owned like that!:lolhit:

I will defer to Sedan's response.
I would like to see you address it.

Sedan doesn't have an answer either. His concern about whether it's a ruling or a warrant doesn't do anything to address either question. The basic issue remains why this administration or any administration should have to get a warrant to listen to one guy in pakistan talking to one guy in london. Or why a guy in pakistan calling someone in the US on a cell should be subject to a warrant.
IOW you can't answer it. Neither can any of your colleagues. Apparently you're agenda doesn't include the nation's security.

The basic issue remains why this administration or any administration should have to get a warrant to listen to one guy in pakistan talking to one guy in london. Or why a guy in pakistan calling someone in the US on a cell should be subject to a warrant.

Because oversight by a court of law is a requirment in order to abide by the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

We abided by the Constitution for hundreds of years through threats far more dire than that of terrorism and we never had to abandon it. You simpering cowards who are claiming we should shred the constitution for "security" are destroying this nation.

The Constitution says nothing about a foreigners right to privacy.

The original FISA law says nothing about requiring warrants to listen to foreigners conversations.

The Constitution says nothing about a foreigners right to privacy.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Are foreigners not people?

Thank you Borg.

The framers purposely chose to say "persons" and not "citizens" for exactly this reason.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Are foreigners not people?

Indeed they are. And if you can find me a constitiutional scholar that thinks the framers were referring to people everywhere (rather than the citizenry) when they wrote the Constititution i'll eat my hat.
Foreigners living in another country are not subject to US law. Or are you advocating that the US should be imposing it's law on people everywhere.

Indeed they are. And if you can find me a constitiutional scholar that thinks the framers were referring to people everywhere (rather than the citizenry) when they wrote the Constititution i'll eat my hat.
Foreigners living in another country are not subject to US law. Or are you advocating that the US should be imposing it's law on people everywhere.

You misunderstand the Constitution.
It does not grant rights to the citizens. That is the bill of rights.
The Constitution restrains and defines the power of the U.S. government and that applies to the U.S. government whether they are targetting U.S. citizens or foreign citizens, they are all "persons".
The Constitution restrains the power of the U.S. government whether they are operating on U.S. Soil, in another country or on another planet. It doesn't matter.

You misunderstand the Constitution.
It does not grant rights to the citizens. That is the bill of rights.
The Constitution restrains and defines the power of the U.S. government and that applies to the U.S. government whether they are targetting U.S. citizens or foreign citizens, they are all "persons".
The Constitution restrains the power of the U.S. government whether they are operating on U.S. Soil, in another country or on another planet. It doesn't matter.

This conversation isn't about 'torture'. It's about eavesdropping and wiretapping.

As i said you find me a constitutional scholar that supports the notion that the Constitution (or Bill of Rights) applies to foreigners living in a foreign country and i'll eat my hat. (To take your position one step further you'd have to find yourself in support of what's taking place in iraq. War rationale aside, the arguemnt would be that they need to have the Bill of Rights imposed on them and we're entitled to do so because the Constitution and/or the Bill of Rights says so.)

The same applies to FISA, you find some scholar that opines that FISA, when originally written, contemplated eavesdropping on foreign to foreign phone calls. It doesn't, nor should it.

Originally Posted by dharmabum
You misunderstand the Constitution.
It does not grant rights to the citizens. That is the bill of rights.
The Constitution restrains and defines the power of the U.S. government and that applies to the U.S. government whether they are targetting U.S. citizens or foreign citizens, they are all "persons".
The Constitution restrains the power of the U.S. government whether they are operating on U.S. Soil, in another country or on another planet. It doesn't matter.

This conversation isn't about 'torture'.

And the post you're rebutting does not contain any mention of *torture*.

As i said you find me a constitutional scholar that supports the notion that the Constitution (or Bill of Rights) applies to foreigners living in a foreign country and i'll eat my hat.

Now now. Let's not be changing your story here.

Look up thread about four posts to what you wrote previously, and you'll find that you specifically refered to --*the Constitution*.

Here a direct quote, in case you're having trouble remembering --- ""if you can find me a constitiutional scholar that thinks the framers were referring to people everywhere (rather than the citizenry) when they wrote the Constititution i'll eat my hat.""


You did NOT say ""the Constitution or the Bill of Rights"".

And the post you're rebutting does not contain any mention of *torture*.



Now now. Let's not be changing your story here.

Look up thread about four posts to what you wrote previously, and you'll find that you specifically refered to --*the Constitution*.

Here a direct quote, in case you're having trouble remembering --- ""if you can find me a constitiutional scholar that thinks the framers were referring to people everywhere (rather than the citizenry) when they wrote the Constititution i'll eat my hat.""


You did NOT say ""the Constitution or the Bill of Rights"".

YOu might want to re-read his post. Specifically the part that says You misunderstand the Constitution.
It does not grant rights to the citizens. That is the bill of rights.
The Constitution restrains and defines the power of the U.S. government and that applies to the U.S. government whether they are targetting U.S. citizens or foreign citizens, they are all "persons".
The Constitution restrains the power of the U.S. government whether they are operating on U.S. Soil, in another country or on another planet. It doesn't matter.

dp

YOu might want to re-read his post. Specifically the part that says

You might want to get someone with a three digit IQ to explain this to you.

Of course dharma referenced the BOR.

But you refered only to the Constitution, and then when Dharma corrected you and explained the difference between the Consitution and the BOR, you (falsely) claimed --

""As i said you find me a constitutional scholar that supports the notion that the Constitution (or Bill of Rights) applies to foreigners living in a foreign country and i'll eat my hat""

Your original comment concerned the Constitution only, and made no mewntion of the BOR.

That's what I was trying to point out to you.

Sheesh.

No shit sherlock. Do you get paid for this type of keen analysis?

Is this an obtuse way of saying you too beleive that the laws of the US apply to foreigners living in a foreign land?

Is this an obtuse way of saying you too beleive that the laws of the US apply to foreigners living in a foreign land?

It is my way of saying that the Constitution restrains the power of the U.S. government wherever they may be operating.

i don't doubt you beleive that.

i asked for a constitutional scholar to support that interpretation.

This conversation isn't about 'torture'. It's about eavesdropping and wiretapping.

As i said you find me a constitutional scholar that supports the notion that the Constitution (or Bill of Rights) applies to foreigners living in a foreign country and i'll eat my hat.
You don't understand the point of the Bill of Rights. It outlines the restrictions on the government. The U.S. government can't restrict free speech, be it by a U.S. citizen, a U.S. resident, or a citizen of some other country. Same goes with the government performing unreasonable searches or seizures. It can't do them. Anywhere. To anyone. It doesn't matter to whom.

You don't understand the point of the Bill of Rights. It outlines the restrictions on the government. The U.S. government can't restrict free speech, be it by a U.S. citizen, a U.S. resident, or a citizen of some other country. Same goes with the government performing unreasonable searches or seizures. It can't do them. Anywhere. To anyone. It doesn't matter to whom.

Borg made some excellent points. Waldo needs to go back to high school and take a Civics class... if it's even offered.

Again, I must ask

where's waldo? Not in these United States.

You don't understand the point of the Bill of Rights. It outlines the restrictions on the government. The U.S. government can't restrict free speech, be it by a U.S. citizen, a U.S. resident, or a citizen of some other country. Same goes with the government performing unreasonable searches or seizures. It can't do them. Anywhere. To anyone. It doesn't matter to whom.

Neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights were ever written with anyone other than the citizens of the US in mind.

People keep asserting that it does but can't/won't/don't offer any supporting evidence. I have asked several times now for someone to bring forth an opinion from a constitutional scholar that support their interpretation. No one ever has.

Bring forth something other than your opinion. Bring forth the opinion of a scholar, complete with cite. Otherwise it's all just more hot air.

Just want to point out that the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution. You guys are talking about them like they're two separate documents.

Just want to point out that the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution. You guys are talking about them like they're two separate documents.
The Bill of Rights is different than the rest of the Constitution in its intent.
Neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights were ever written with anyone other than the citizens of the US in mind.

People keep asserting that it does but can't/won't/don't offer any supporting evidence. I have asked several times now for someone to bring forth an opinion from a constitutional scholar that support their interpretation. No one ever has.

Bring forth something other than your opinion. Bring forth the opinion of a scholar, complete with cite. Otherwise it's all just more hot air.
"The important point is that the Constitution doesn't apply to Americans, it doesn't apply to citizens, it doesn't even apply to "people." It applies to the federal government. The body of the Constitution tells the federal government what it is allowed to do, and in some places it explains how to do it (election procedures and such). The Bill of Rights tells the federal government what it is not allowed to do." http://www.lewrockwell.com/browne/browne27.html

You're gonna make waldo argue against a Libertarian?

ROFL! That's hilarious!

1) The quote offered says nothing about it's applicability to foreigners.

2) You think harry browne is a constitutional scholar? You big kidder you.

1) The quote offered says nothing about it's applicability to foreigners.

2) You think harry browne is a constitutional scholar? You big kidder you.
All right. http://www.aclu.org/immigrants/gen/28990res20070312.html

Some other things to consider regarding the applicability of the US Constitution on foreign soil:


Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as in previous wars, we took over buildings and used them to house soldiers. This was almost certainly not "prescribed by law." Was it therefore a violation of the 3rd Amendment?


Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

We regularly conduct raids on foreign soil in which we arrest people and search and seize property. These are done without warrants. Do such raids violate the 4th Amendment?

Questions like the ones being discussed in this thread are the reason I think the Constitution needs to be revised and updated so that it's more applicable to the modern world. The Supreme Law of the Land is currently running on 18th century technology.

All right. http://www.aclu.org/immigrants/gen/28990res20070312.html

This is getting further and further afield.

i posed the question of why it should be necessary for the gov't to get a wiretap for a guy in pakistan calling a guy in london. i'm told because its in the constitution or the bill of rights. Show me somethig that supports the notion that the gov't needs a courts approval to listen to two or more foreign nationals living outside the country.

This is getting further and further afield.

i posed the question of why it should be necessary for the gov't to get a wiretap for a guy in pakistan calling a guy in london. i'm told because its in the constitution or the bill of rights. Show me somethig that supports the notion that the gov't needs a courts approval to listen to two or more foreign nationals living outside the country.
I have. The Fourth Amendment. It's not my fa