Reason Magazine

Site Search

Only Terrorists Need to Worry. You're Not a Terrorist, Are You?

Judging from the response to my column from Townhall readers (a skewed sample, I admit), Americans are not just ready to let the government read their international email and listen to their international phone calls at will; they're happy to ditch the Fourth Amendment altogether, at least as it applies to wiretaps. A sampling:

1) Well, just don't discuss your evil plans when you call your mother. Save that for talking to your Democrat and Muslim friends.

2) What in the world do you talk about with your Mother that could possibly interest the US government?...You are sort of full of yourself aren't you.

3) Why would anyone want to listen to you? [A good question, in any context.] There has to be a valid reason to wiretap. How many people does this involve? Millions use the phones, a few need to be monitored. The resources are not going to be used to pry on folks like you. To think that, unless you have something to hide, someone would want to take their time to listen to you is, to be generous, taking yourself way too seriously (and maybe a little paranoid).

4) Unless you are...plotting death to Israel or death to the United States, you need not fear.

5) Maybe it's time for you to think less of "ME" and more of "US."

Some readers seem to have interpreted "a reasonable expectation of privacy" as referring to one's judgment about the likelihood that the government is listening in at any given moment, as opposed to one's assumptions about a particular kind of communication's protection from warrantless eavesdropping. For the record, I'm pretty sure my mother and I are not very high on the NSA's list of targets. My point was that most Americans probably do (or did) take for granted that their private telephone conversations cannot be tapped by their government without a court's approval.

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Send this article to:

« Hangin' With Cheney and Premature… | Main | Ron on the Air »

Comments to "Only Terrorists Need to Worry. You're Not a Terrorist, Are You?":

Marcvs | August 8, 2007, 2:05pm | #

There was a time when, "if you aren't breaking the law, you have nothing to worry about" was only used sarcastically. Sadly, that time appears to have long since past.

damaged justice | August 8, 2007, 2:05pm | #

If you love police states so much, go live in one. Go live in Russia or China or North Korea, but get the fuck out of America.

Kwix | August 8, 2007, 2:13pm | #

If you love police states so much, go live in one. Go live in Russia or China or North Korea, but get the fuck out of America.
QFT

Lamar | August 8, 2007, 2:14pm | #

What's with all the phony US vs. ME rhetoric? What about a CEO discussing sensitive trade secrets that, if disclosed, could result in thousands losing a paycheck? Or how about a known anti-tax advocate having a conversation with his attorney or supporters? I can think of 1000 reasons to value privacy more than just my own vanity.

Taktix® | August 8, 2007, 2:16pm | #

Maybe it's time for you to think less of "ME" and more of "US."

Aww, Sullum's got a boyfriend!

Jake Boone | August 8, 2007, 2:16pm | #

To think that, unless you have something to hide, someone would want to take their time to listen to you is, to be generous, taking yourself way too seriously (and maybe a little paranoid).
Or unless you are working on the incumbent's rival's campaign. Or unless you're working to legalize something. Or unless you've got unorthodox political views. Or unless someone in the government takes a dislike to you. Or unless someone with political connections wants something you own. Or unless...

Jozef | August 8, 2007, 2:17pm | #

This is the same thing like copy protection on DVDs and CDs: only the dumb ones will get inconvenienced. People who have anything to hide or at least a little bit of brain already use PGP for e-mails, Tor for anonymous Web browsing and encrypted VoIP for calling.

Shelby | August 8, 2007, 2:20pm | #

Next, for your own ceonvenience and safety, envelopes will be banned. If you don't have anything criminal in mind, postcards should suffice. (The government pinkie-swears that it will not abuse its ability to scan, store, and analyze all the mail.)

Marcvs | August 8, 2007, 2:21pm | #

4) Unless you are...plotting death to Israel or death to the United States, you need not fear.

What if I'm plotting death to Luxembourg? Do I need to fear then?

On a more serious note, Jacob: Town Hall? Really?

Taktix® | August 8, 2007, 2:21pm | #

Seriously though, this just goes to show you how little people understand about liberty and rights.

This is especially bad since it's coming from Townhall.com, which purports to be of the party of small government; the conservatives. Of course, no one believes that tripe anymore, at least on H&R.

D. Greene | August 8, 2007, 2:23pm | #

More proof that democracy doesn't work. Movie at 11.

rm2muv | August 8, 2007, 2:23pm | #

I was shocked, shocked!, to hear that this administration would be listening to the telephone conversations of American citizens without a warrent.

That said, I don't think we should perpetuate it by making it legal.

rm2muv | August 8, 2007, 2:25pm | #

Doh! Preview, preview, preview! That should be warrant, I believe.

javier | August 8, 2007, 2:25pm | #

5) Maybe it's time for you to think less of "ME" and more of "US."

damn that is creepy.

Shannon Chamberlain | August 8, 2007, 2:26pm | #

Maybe it's time for you to think less of "ME" and more of "US."

I bet it took some flag-waving grandma in Tennessee the better part of the morning to come up with this. That kind of banality is sort of its own reward to read.

Chris S. | August 8, 2007, 2:27pm | #

The U.S. government has never spied on political enemies or dissidents. No harm no foul, people! They won't abuse their authority here, particularly given all of the safeguards imposed by this bill.

joe | August 8, 2007, 2:29pm | #

The commenters' complete lack of awareness of how unfavored groups can be harmed by even well-intentioned security procedures drives home just how nonsensical it is when Town Hall types pretend to be a persecuted minority.

Jeff | August 8, 2007, 2:29pm | #

The Townhall comments are absolutely correct. Not only do you not realize that the nation is at war, you don't care. Do you think that there was no wiretapping during WWII? It is absolutely in your personal interest that individuals planning to kill Americans be found and caught before they succeed.

Jeff | August 8, 2007, 2:30pm | #

"Maybe it's time for you to think less of "ME" and more of "US." -- posters here think that is "creepy" -- I think that says it all when it comes to who you attract.

kohlrabi | August 8, 2007, 2:33pm | #

Joe,

You ain't kidding! I try to explain this to my dad all the time, to no avail. "Dad, do you still want the fed to have this ability if Hillary wins?? Then don't support it now!"

5) Maybe it's time for you to think less of "ME" and more of "the Volk."

crimethink | August 8, 2007, 2:34pm | #

Notice, there's no "me" or "I" in Bush -- but there is an "us".

There's also a "bus", but I'm not sure what that means.

thoreau | August 8, 2007, 2:35pm | #

Jeff-

I think your post would be more compelling in the original Russian. In English it's kind of boring.

Cesar | August 8, 2007, 2:37pm | #

How about a President like Richard Nixon (or if you prefer, Hillary Clinton) using such powers to listen in on their political opponents?

Timothy | August 8, 2007, 2:37pm | #

We have always been at war with Eurasia. Freedom is slavery, dudes.

Jeff | August 8, 2007, 2:38pm | #

thoreau - I am sure that you are fluent in Russian due to your experience with your fellow "Comrades" who have spent 40+ years trying to destroy USA, and when they failed with Communism, now try to undermine USA from within when totalitarian Islamism attacks USA.

Jeff | August 8, 2007, 2:40pm | #

Cesar - if President Hillary Clinton's political opponents are planning terrorist attacks against the USA, then you bet, I want to know about, and have the FBI arrest them before they succeed.

What is complicated about this simple question?

Are you an American or a political partisan?

I, for one, am an American.

ChrisO | August 8, 2007, 2:42pm | #

We, as a people, deserve the government we get.

Shannon Chamberlain | August 8, 2007, 2:43pm | #

Jeff--the real question now, of course, is что делать?

Rich Ard | August 8, 2007, 2:44pm | #

Not a particularly well-read one, would be my guess (though this is certainly speculation as I haven't had the opportunity to listen to you talk on the phone about your reading material).

I'm confused about the belief that those with power to listen in will only do so for good. Even Captain America had dark days.

joe | August 8, 2007, 2:45pm | #

5) Maybe it's time for you to think less of "ME" and more of "the Volk."

Oh, DAMN! Put that one in the Cheap Shot Hall of Fame! LoL, snarkmeister!

thoreau, thanks for flushing Jeff out. I was about to write a reasonable response about the 72 hour free-listening period before a warrant is sought, but now I won't bother.

Jeff, does it make you uncomfortable to know that your rubber sheets are made in China?

workedmyway througcollege | August 8, 2007, 2:45pm | #

most Americans probably do (or did) take for granted that their private telephone conversations cannot be tapped by their government without a court's approval.

I always assumed they could be tapped without court approval just that it would not be admissable in a court.That is why we didn't explicitly mention drug sales on the phone.

ChicagoTom | August 8, 2007, 2:46pm | #

I, for one, am an American.

No sir, you are a jackass.

If being "American" depends upon adopting the policies/actions of the Soviet Union then count me out.

javier | August 8, 2007, 2:47pm | #

Is jeff arguing that since thoreau and we are probably viamently anti-collectivist(i can't speak for everybody), that we are or were communists?? I see some logic problems.

thoreau | August 8, 2007, 2:47pm | #

Jeff-

You're an American?

I didn't think that they granted citizenship to KGB agents.

JasonC | August 8, 2007, 2:47pm | #

I want to hear more from Jeff about how we should flush our bill of rights down the toilet to protect us from big, bad Osama.

iowan | August 8, 2007, 2:48pm | #

I, for one, am an American.

By accident of birth, maybe. But not by any meaningful intepretation of the values of the founding fathers.

thoreau | August 8, 2007, 2:50pm | #

Here's the question we need to ask: Are we feeding a troll, or are we having fun with a pinata?

Given how easy it is to pummel Jeff, I lean toward "pinata."

Pro Libertate | August 8, 2007, 2:50pm | #

I'm sorry, but I grew up during the Cold War, and I find the idea that we are threatened in any real way by Islamic "Fascists" entirely laughable. Sure, they could kill some of us, and I'm all for responding to such attacks (or threats of attacks), but I don't fear them. What I do fear are incursions against my liberty. We didn't give it up when faced down by the Russians; why do so when we're faced down by some cave dwellers?

Incidentally, there is no "US" in the "United States of America." But there is a "ME."

joe | August 8, 2007, 2:50pm | #

Oh, come on, since when has accusing someone of not thinking of himself as an American been an insult to his patriotism?

Timothy | August 8, 2007, 2:50pm | #

Man, Jeff is even less interesting than our usual trolls. Been reading LGF this morning, Jeff? Drinking the Kool-Aid, pissing yourself in fear of a bunch of illiterate cave-dwellers?

Look dude, I'm sure you're nice enough for being virginal and living with your mom, but don't you have some anime porn to look up or something? A RealDoll to bone? Because, and I hope you can comprehend this will your obvious cognitive...gifts... it makes a lot more sense to worry about ceding fundamental rights of due process and privacy to the government of your country than it does to worry about a bunch of bearded camel herders living in caves and failing to start a jihad.

I know they're scary and brown, not comforting and pasty like the expensive simulacrum you're hiding under the bed, but it's not like their beards give them mystical powers to enrich uranium by swinging buckets over their heads or anything. So, run along and play now, the grown ups are trying to have a conversation.

D-FENS | August 8, 2007, 2:51pm | #

No, we are NOT the same. I am an American. You are a sick freak.

Jeff | August 8, 2007, 2:53pm | #

FDR did not adopt the policies of the Soviet Union when during WWII he authorized wiretaps and other actions to protect the USA from Nazis and Communists. The nation survived then, and the nation will survive now. However, just as during WWII, there will remain a group of 5th columnists whose primary objective is to undermine the American nation during war, by any means possible. With FDR as president, such individuals wound up in prison and internment camps. With Bush as president, such individuals get talk shows and write columns for the media.

Shannon Chamberlain | August 8, 2007, 2:57pm | #

With FDR as president, such individuals wound up in prison and internment camps.

Some other people wound up in internment camps, didn't they? Like second- and third-generation Japanese-American citizens who had nothing to do with the war effort? Because our government can always be trusted To Do the Right Thing, always.

Alice Bowie | August 8, 2007, 2:57pm | #

Yea Jeff,

Perhaps ur right, there should be absolutely NO problem installing a web cam in your house...since you wouldn't be doing anything wrong...right?

As long as u go by the rules (irregardless of what they are...or if you are aware of them or not) you should have nothing to worry about.


I just wanna remind u Jeff...It was once illegal for black people to sit in the front of the bus. It took breaking that law and many appeals to overturn that law.

I'm not saying discrimination does or doesn't exists. But there are definitely LAWs out there that are wrong.

The LAW itself is a living body...which changes with time. The government has too too too much vested interest in prying into our lives...that's why we have the 'bill of rights', 'the criminal procedure', and the 'due process of law'.

Jeff, if u were picked up off the street one day and accused of something that u didn't do... wouldn't u atleast like a HEARING so that u can simply say that 'U didn't do it' ???

Jeff | August 8, 2007, 2:58pm | #

Pro Libertate: "We didn't give it up when faced down by the Russians; why do so when we're faced down by some cave dwellers?"

The Islamist transnational terrorists are hardly cave dwellers, and unlike both the Communists and Germany's Nazis -- they succeeded in a massive attack on the USA homeland.

During the Cold War, COINTELPRO did significant intelligence work and monitoring of suspected terrorists. And by the way, their ability to do so was based on original authorization that FDR gave in performing such wiretaps and intelligence work.

Deal with the facts.

ChicagoTom | August 8, 2007, 2:58pm | #

Like second- and third-generation Japanese-American citizens who had nothing to do with the war effort

That's a small price for other people to pay to make little Jeffy feel safer!

iowan | August 8, 2007, 2:59pm | #

Jeff, let us not forget that the founding fathers committed acts of high treason against the legitimate government of Great Britain.

They specifically rebelled against the idea that the government had both a right and a responsilibity to intercept and examine all forms of correspondence that were possible given the available technology.

I assume in your world, we would have better off if the British government has discovered the radicals and executed them before they could have launched their armed rebellion.

Alice Bowie | August 8, 2007, 2:59pm | #

Jeff,

That simple HEARING is now a thing of the PAST with this administration...They want to deny

- Hearings
- Right to attorney
- Trials
- The concept of the Warrent
- Reasonable suspicion and Probable Cause audits

Why shit...if u deny all of that...u can never appeal.

Jeff | August 8, 2007, 3:00pm | #

The law may be a living body, but so are the people that the law is intended to protect. And since the point of the law is to protect American citizens, and the point of the surveillance is to protect American citizens during wartime, there really is no conflict. Except in the mind of the extremists and 5th columnists.

By the way, the Sedition Law is still valid as well.

thoreau | August 8, 2007, 3:01pm | #

Jeff-

Quick, I hear there's a sale on adult diapers at the local WalMart. Now get away from the computer and go get something to cope with your bedwetting, while we grown-ups talk.

Jeff | August 8, 2007, 3:03pm | #

Iowan - you comparison of USA fighting for independence with foreign Islamist terrorists attacking the USA homeland and killing thousands of innocent people is gross. I saw with my own eyes the destruction and fires raging in the Pentagon after 9/11. I saw with my own eyes the horrible pit in NYC that remained of the WTC. Either you have spent too much time in Iowa... or you have no compassion for your innocent fellow countrymen during war. Which is it?

joe | August 8, 2007, 3:03pm | #

However, just as during WWII, there will remain a group of 5th columnists whose primary objective is to undermine the American nation during war, by any means possible. With FDR as president, such individuals wound up in prison and internment camps. With Bush as president, such individuals get talk shows and write columns for the media.

Oh, OK. Now that you've described Bush's domestic political opponents as a "fifth column" (how else should we interpret the "talk shows and write colums" comment?), I feel so much better that the administration would never use its power to spy on domestic political opponents.

During the Cold War, COINTELPRO did significant intelligence work and monitoring of suspected terrorists.

Nice. COINTELPRO. The program that was used to spy on innocent Americans who did nothing worse than hold unpopular political opinions.

I think we owe it to Jeff to take him at his word.

Jeff | August 8, 2007, 3:05pm | #

Alice - what type of rights do you think those who went to USA Internment Camps during WWII had? And why should enemy combatants have any more rights? However, the topic here is the issue of surveillance and wiretapping.

Pro Libertate | August 8, 2007, 3:07pm | #

I am dealing with the facts, which I understand far better than you do, apparently. We did things during the Cold War that we shouldn't have, but the demands that we surrender liberties for "security" today are far more intrusive and far more dangerous than they were back then. Again, where's the threat? Point to the industrial base of the opposition. Point to their wealth if we launched a general war against the region. Point to their education. Point to their allies in the global sphere.

The guys who aren't in caves or hiding in towns in Iraq are, for the most part, not actively fighting against us. I'm not denying that there is money in the hands of the terrorists; what I'm denying is that the United States is truly threatened. It isn't, and our continuing to muck about in the Middle East is pointless. Our oil supply isn't based there any more, and we can always wipe out any group or country that decides to attack us again.

Timothy | August 8, 2007, 3:08pm | #

You know what's awesome? Massive Attack. Seriously, Jeff, give them a listen the next time you're watching some tentacles, you'll totally dig it.

Jeff | August 8, 2007, 3:09pm | #

joe says: "you've described Bush's domestic political opponents as a "fifth column"".

No I didn't. You did.
I happen to be a Democrat, and I don't agree with many of President Bush's views.

What you fail to understand is there is a difference between disagreeing with any individual president and seeking destruction and terrorism against the USA.

As I stated in a previous email, I would also support President Hillary Clinton investigating and wiretapping her political opponents if they were seeking destruction and terrorism against the USA. It is a no-brainer.

Alice Bowie | August 8, 2007, 3:09pm | #

I worked on the 38th floor...I ran for life that day...and went to many funerals.

The the GET TOUGH on TERRORIST thing is NOT WORKING !!!

Israel has NOT had a DAY of Peace since the 1947 take over of a land where these people lived in...

And the US has not seen a DAY of PEACE since we've gotten INVOLVED.

These "TERRORISTs" that u call ... do have a legitimate GRIP...

And as we (US/EU/ISRAEL) have adopted the act of NAME-cALLING...THESE terrorists have GROWN...ALL OVER THE WORLD....TO PLACES that they DIDn't Exist Before.

When the DICK CHENEYS and RONALD REAGANs get tough...it's in effective.

It's REAL EASY TO GET TOUGH on TERRORISTs...when u don't have to ride the NYC SUBAYS. It's real EAST to say NO NEGOTIATIONS with TERRORISTs...when It's NOT UR DAUGHTER being held hostage

Bush and CHeney are FAGGOTS that hide behind the Secret Service.

windy_city_atty | August 8, 2007, 3:11pm | #

So i guess we can just forget the entire Church commission and the whole reason behind FISA in the first instance??? The modern republican party is a farce. The neo-cons have taken it over, pillaging and burning all their sacred principles along the way. State's rights? Axed. See recent vote on medical marijuana raids where some 85% of repubs pissed on state's rights. Limited government? HA hahhaahahaha. This republican party wants more gov.t in your business than anyother i can think of. Whats funniest is half the republican base are either a)uninformed or b) informed, but too stupid or too proud to admit they have been had. The corporatist's have won. America lost.

Im sick of these appeasers claiming because we dont have anything to hide, not to worry. The FBI is infiltrating anti-war groups and anti RNC convention protestors. If the NSA had any relevant intel on any of these protest people gained through data-mining,eavesdropping, or both, how hard would it be to share that with the FBI or the local police? Isnt that what the "homeland" stormtroopers were designed to do? Share intel? What the hell is going on here where a gov agency solely designed to gather foreign intelligence is turning its big ear inward?? This is precisely what the FISA bill originally enacted was supposed to prevent!! We, through our congressional miscreants, have essentially repealed FISA, not enhanced it. Protect America Act?? Thats the name chosen for this farce? We need a "protect america from itself" act, because we are committing bi-partisan self inflicted homicide!

Jeff | August 8, 2007, 3:12pm | #

Pro Libertate - they are not hiding in Iraq. The Islamist terrorists are throughout the UK, Europe, Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, India, and of course, in the USA. They are transnational organizational hydra without the requirement of a centralized organization or leader. This is the challenge that the USA faces in the 21st century; it is totally different than previous enemies. And yes they declared war on us repeatedly, and as early as 1996 and 1998.

Alice Bowie | August 8, 2007, 3:12pm | #

We will SEE a new BREAD of TERRORISTS...

I believe that the IRAQis that we've displaced (a small amound) will rebel against us as well.

And we are un-equipt to fight a clandestine war...regardless of how much wiretapping, profiling, wall building, missle creating, blah blah blah we do

Trooper Jones | August 8, 2007, 3:12pm | #

I, and my fellow soldiers, took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Not the government or the people but the Constitution.

Right wing bedwetters can kiss my ass.

Cesar | August 8, 2007, 3:13pm | #

What is complicated about this simple question?

Are you an American or a political partisan?

I, for one, am an American.


How about spying on her political opponents (as Richard Nixon did) to advance her own political gain? Or how about using information gathered to political destroy her opponents?

And the fact that you think I'm partisan is a riot.

Alice Bowie | August 8, 2007, 3:13pm | #

Tropper Jone...it will b u that comes back with no feet...for no good reason

Alice Bowie | August 8, 2007, 3:14pm | #

We need every soldier we have. For legitimate reasons.

Alice Bowie | August 8, 2007, 3:16pm | #

We should NOT waste NOT ONE...b-cause 1 is 2-many. and if u wanna call me a bed wetter 4 that...i feel sorry 4 u...

u will c that we will not be able to fight clandestine enemies...regardless of what we do

Jeff | August 8, 2007, 3:16pm | #

Alice Bowie - where do you think Islamists have "grown" now where they weren't before? That is really a joke. The truth is that they were always there. Bin Laden simply provided focus on an existing movement that was already all throughout Europe and UK in the 1980s and 1990s, and which has been active in India for over 60 years. Do you realize that Islamists are responsible for terror attacks killing 65,000 Hindus in India alone? The only thing new is that, after declaring war in 1996 and 1998, Bin Laden actually did something to the USA homeland in 2001.

Jeff | August 8, 2007, 3:18pm | #

Cesar - since you want to talk about history, do you have any evidence that FDR used his extensive wiretapping and surveillance during WWII to destroy any of his political enemies? After all that was 60 years ago, if it happened, you should know by now!

Alice Bowie | August 8, 2007, 3:19pm | #

If u just leave them (islamists) alone...I think that they will go away...I may b wrong about that ... or being a small thinker ... But killing their families, destroying their schools and businesses over the last 60 years ... or so ... has made their resolve MUCH MUCH stronger ... the the GET TOUGH GUY (Adolf Guiliani) was running for his life right next to me on 9/11.

Alice Bowie | August 8, 2007, 3:20pm | #

He wasn't that tough that day...Nobody can be.

Humans are very creative...and when angered...can b very dangerous...not just muslims...but anybody

Jeff | August 8, 2007, 3:20pm | #

Trooper Jones - don't you think USA soldiers did the same thing during WWII? Did USA soldiers attack President FDR because they decided that his surveillance and his internment camps were illegal? Or did USA soldiers go out and kill the enemy during war-time?

SugarFree | August 8, 2007, 3:23pm | #

It's like a kookball parade.

The best part is not being able to tell the real Bushies and anti-Bushies from the people who are just parodying them. When your arguments are this easy to parrot, maybe it's time to think about getting some new arguments.

rm2muv | August 8, 2007, 3:23pm | #

Please stop hitting the jeff/pinata. There's no candy falling out - just mare crap.

Jeff | August 8, 2007, 3:23pm | #

Alice Bowie: "If u just leave them (islamists) alone...I think that they will go away."

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

UK Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain
September 30, 1938
Mr Chamberlain declared the accord with the Germans signaled "peace for our time"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/30/newsid_3115000/3115476.stm

Alice Bowie | August 8, 2007, 3:24pm | #

Perhaps we ALL do live with a FALSE sense of PRIVACY. Perhaps this is something that can never really exists in America

Ayn_Randian | August 8, 2007, 3:25pm | #

Yikes, it looks like Alice and Jeff deserve each other. You kids don't have too much angry sex now!

Rick H. | August 8, 2007, 3:26pm | #

Um, Alice...

No offense, but if you're on my side, please shut up. You're muddying the water with all that garbled txt msg free-association and incomprehensible ranting.

Please learn how to type in clear English before attempting to argue with someone. Or at least get us a translator.

Cesar | August 8, 2007, 3:26pm | #

Cesar - since you want to talk about history, do you have any evidence that FDR used his extensive wiretapping and surveillance during WWII to destroy any of his political enemies? After all that was 60 years ago, if it happened, you should know by now!


Yes Jeff, lets talk about history. Why don't you start by reading about the Alien and Sedition Acts, then move on to the Espionage Act, and since your such an FDR lover why don't you read about the Japanese American Internment. Oh, and read some about McCarthyism, too.

But I'm sure you would have been for all of those, and supported HUAC too!

Nothing makes the government go out of control like being at war and the fear that comes with it, and nothing makes it violate our civil liberties with such disastrous results, either.

Andrew | August 8, 2007, 3:26pm | #

Jeff - If you're going to bring up India, how many Muslims have been killed by Hindus over the years?

Marcvs | August 8, 2007, 3:27pm | #

Wow, Jeff. You are really terrified of the world, aren't you! Don't worry, all of those brown people don't want to kill you... well, maybe you, but not the rest of us.

Jeff | August 8, 2007, 3:29pm | #

Rick H. says "please shut up"

So lets see - yours is the side defending the right of terrorists not to be spied on?
Based on your belief in the terrorists' Constitutional rights of free speech?
But you want to shut other people up, right?

Cesar | August 8, 2007, 3:29pm | #

Oh and Jeff, it would be better for you and your neocon friends to stop looking at 1938 and start looking at 1914, a situation that could have been avoided by smart, cautious diplomacy.

Jeff | August 8, 2007, 3:29pm | #

Cesar - the Sedition Act is still law today.
That's a fact.

Alice Bowie | August 8, 2007, 3:30pm | #

OK ... I'll shut up

Jeff | August 8, 2007, 3:30pm | #

Cesar calls for "smart, cautious diplomacy" - against Jihadists that call for "Death to America"....

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

UK Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain
September 30, 1938
Mr Chamberlain declared the accord with the Germans signaled "peace for our time"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/30/newsid_3115000/3115476.stm

Ayn_Randian | August 8, 2007, 3:31pm | #

Jeff - whee! you're such a gas! Do you do parties? I mean, you're adorable!

So lets see - yours is the side defending the right of terrorists not to be spied on?
Based on your belief in the terrorists' Constitutional rights of free speech?


All those who said any of this speak out now...

*crickets*

Cesar | August 8, 2007, 3:32pm | #

Jeff--one part of it is, and you just proved my point about not letting the government get out of control. When it takes a "temporary" measure, it hardly ever ends up being temporary.

That law was designed to deal with the threat of Revolutionary France, which I think has long passed. But the law remains. Such is government.

joe | August 8, 2007, 3:32pm | #

Jeff,

First, bullshit about your party. Save that line for letters to the editor you cut and paste from the RNC blast faxes. You aren't fooling anyone.

Second, What you fail to understand is there is a difference between disagreeing with any individual president and seeking destruction and terrorism against the USA.,/i> No, you fail to understand that. That distinction is the central point of my argument. The people who ended up in internment camps under FDR didn't do anything wrong, and didn't aid the enemy, but you endorsed lockkng them up. The Bush-bashers who "go on talk shows and write columns" are Democrats, libertarians, and paleoconservatives, not al Qaedists, and you endorsed locking them up.

As I stated in a previous email, I would also support President Hillary Clinton investigating and wiretapping her political opponents if they were seeking destruction and terrorism against the USA.

So would I. Where we differ is that you support wiretapping on her political opponents when there isn't any reason to believe that they are seeking terrorism against the US, while I would only support it is probable cause to believe that they are (ie, getting warrants).

For you, the fact that they were her political opponents is enough for you to agree that they need to be spied on to prevent terrorism. That's just police-state tyranny, dude.

Jeff | August 8, 2007, 3:32pm | #

Marcvs says "all of those brown people don't want to kill you"

What makes you think that Islamists supporting terrorism are any specific race?

GILMORE | August 8, 2007, 3:32pm | #

I wonder what their reaction would be to things like, me being on the TSA no-fly list, because someone with my name sued the government.

i.e. no terrorist, yet still fucked.

They'd probably be like, "well, you probably did SOMETHING wrong for them to suspect you...."

Hello 1950s again.

Cesar | August 8, 2007, 3:32pm | #

Jeff go do your homework and read The Guns of August before you start using WWII historical analogies, ok?

If diplomacy had worked in 1914 there would have been no Hitler.

Andrew | August 8, 2007, 3:33pm | #

1. Anyone who uses LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL in an argument.... rather than putting forth... I dunno, a real argument... pretty much loses that argument by default, wouldn't you think?

2. The Sedition Act may be still in place today, but (i) I don't think it'd be upheld if it went before a court, and (ii) We're not at war (show me a declaration of war if you think we are), so it wouldn't apply anyways.

joe | August 8, 2007, 3:33pm | #

Whoops!

What you fail to understand is there is a difference between disagreeing with any individual president and seeking destruction and terrorism against the USA. No, you fail to understand that. That distinction is the central point of my argument. The people who ended up in internment camps under FDR didn't do anything wrong, and didn't aid the enemy, but you endorsed lockng them up. The Bush-bashers who "go on talk shows and write columns" are Democrats, libertarians, and paleoconservatives, not al Qaedists, and you endorsed locking them up.

As I stated in a previous email, I would also support President Hillary Clinton investigating and wiretapping her political opponents if they were seeking destruction and terrorism against the USA.

So would I. Where we differ is that you support wiretapping on her political opponents when there isn't any reason to believe that they are seeking terrorism against the US, while I would only support it is probable cause to believe that they are (ie, getting warrants).

For you, the fact that they were her political opponents is enough for you to agree that they need to be spied on to prevent terrorism. That's just police-state tyranny, dude.

Alice Bowie | August 8, 2007, 3:35pm | #

The jihadists would have said "Death to ANYONE" that would attack them, destroy their homes, kill their families, destroy their infrastructure, and deny their children a future.

I know that the US and ISRAEL would like those pesty Palestinians to SHUT UP and live in a TENT with no citizenship, right to vote, or hope for the future...BUT they DON't seem 2 be doing that...and they are getting a lot of sympathizers (i.e. Bin Laden, Iran, etc.,etc.)

And we are having a difficult time fighting these characters...and not b-cause we're a bunch of bed-wetters.

crimethink | August 8, 2007, 3:35pm | #

Excuse me, conservative trolls, we need your help on the abortion thread down below. Thank you!

Pro Libertate | August 8, 2007, 3:35pm | #

Jeff,

Like the mob? Look, they are a threat. They just aren't World War III, IV, V or whatever alarmists are calling it these days. Maybe we need a real big war again to remember just what Super Scary means.

Comparing the Islamic terrorists to the Nazis is insanely disproportionate. Germany had the population, the industrial base, the military, the economy, the national unity, and the education base necessary to be a tremendous and obvious threat. Not only all those things, but they also were overtly pursuing new territories. We're talking about a 1,000-to-1 difference in threat level at the very least.

My advice to the U.S.? Tell Europe to militarize and prepare to deal with the Middle East itself, leave Iraq, possibly partitioning it first, and continue being the greatest and freest society in the history of the planet. If our departure is treated as showing a vulnerability, and terrorists hit us again, then we can blow up some stuff and maybe even invade a responsible nation or two. Otherwise, why are we involved over there? Reacting to 9/11 was fine, but we have no other compelling interest! Why bother?

thoreau | August 8, 2007, 3:36pm | #

Alice Bowie is just plain nuts.

Jeff is at least funny.

Cesar | August 8, 2007, 3:37pm | #

Alice-

We shouldn't favor either side, in the Eternal Israeli-Palestinian War, period. We should wish them both well, and tell them good luck on finding peace. Then butt out.

Alice Bowie | August 8, 2007, 3:38pm | #

i agree Pro Libertate

iowan | August 8, 2007, 3:38pm | #

Last post from me Jeff, because you don't deserve more. I was responding to this comment:

Cesar - if President Hillary Clinton's political opponents are planning terrorist attacks against the USA, then you bet, I want to know about, and have the FBI arrest them before they succeed.

Now, on to your response:

Iowan - you comparison of USA fighting for independence with foreign Islamist terrorists attacking the USA homeland and killing thousands of innocent people is gross. I saw with my own eyes the destruction and fires raging in the Pentagon after 9/11. I saw with my own eyes the horrible pit in NYC that remained of the WTC. Either you have spent too much time in Iowa... or you have no compassion for your innocent fellow countrymen during war. Which is it?

So much bullshit, so little time.

First, we are not at war. The people that plotted to destroy the towers and suceeded in doing so are criminals, not soldiers. The appropriate measures to be taken now are to beef up the "crime fighting" abilities of the government, not the war-making abilities.

Second, it is not necessary to dispose of the Bill of Rights to beef up our crime fighting capability. I believe, in fact, that the latest actions by the executive and legislative branches reduces our ability to fight criminals over the long term.

Finally, I believe that you, and others like you, are far more dangerous to America than the criminals that brought the towers down. You scare me far more than Bin Laden.


Jeff | August 8, 2007, 3:38pm | #

joe says "Save that line for letters to the editor you cut and paste from the RNC blast faxes. You aren't fooling anyone."

So apparently you have personally decided who does and does not has the right to be a Democrat? Thanks for pointing out that as part of your views on Constitutional freedoms that you personally are the only one who can decide someone's political party.

Democratic President FDR would not have treated Islamist terrorists with a kid-glove, and neither would have Democratic President JFK.

And regarding our founding fathers, I suggest you look up Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, John Adams and James Madison's views on the war against Islamist pirates in Barbary...

Alice Bowie | August 8, 2007, 3:38pm | #

I so agree with u Cesar....

joe | August 8, 2007, 3:39pm | #

Jeff, do you support giving people the government suspects of committing murder the right to an attorney, the right to a trial, and the right to face their accusers?

If so, is this because you side with murderers, because you don't understand that murderers are a threat, or because you believe these things necessary to keep the government from using its force against the wrong people?

Cesar | August 8, 2007, 3:40pm | #

And regarding our founding fathers, I suggest you look up Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, John Adams and James Madison's views on the war against Islamist pirates in Barbary...

Islamist piracy? Come again?

The Barbary pirates just wanted money, asshat. Which we eventually gave them anyway. They didn't have a political ideology.

Jeff | August 8, 2007, 3:40pm | #

iowan says: "First, we are not at war."

Al Qaeda declared war on the USA:

Febuary 23, 1998
Osama Bin Laden's Fatwah Urging Jihad Against Americans
(declaring war and plans to attack the United States)
Published in Al-Quds al-'Arabi
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm

August 23, 1996
Osama Bin Laden Declaration of War Against the United States of America
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html

Ayn_Randian | August 8, 2007, 3:40pm | #

I know that the US and ISRAEL would like those pesty Palestinians to SHUT UP and live in a TENT with no citizenship, right to vote, or hope for the future...BUT they DON't seem 2 be doing that...and they are getting a lot of sympathizers

OK, I tried to let it go, but enough's enough. So Israel builds a wall, giving Palestinians a de facto country with borders and what happens? Hamas and Fatah get bored and start fighting each other because they can't fight Israel anymore.

Also, let's dispense with the myth that there was ever some Palestinian homeland (although I agree that we should also dispense with the "Jewish Homeland" myth, but I digress...) The British, like it or not, owned that land and gave it to the Jews, with the UN, the US and the USSR recognizing the nation. It's settled fucking law, but like the 2000 Presidential election, some folks just want to keep hawking lies about it. Get over it.

Cesar | August 8, 2007, 3:40pm | #

Oh, and Ben Franklin died long before the Barbary Pirates were an issue.

TrickyVic | August 8, 2007, 3:41pm | #

“””Seriously though, this just goes to show you how little people understand about liberty and rights.””””

I think you can replace the word understand with care.


“””During the Cold War, COINTELPRO did significant intelligence work and monitoring of suspected terrorists. And by the way, their ability to do so was based on original authorization that FDR gave in performing such wiretaps and intelligence work.

Deal with the facts.””””

Since you like facts, you should deal with all of them. CONINTELPRO was shutdown due to abuse. The moral of the CONINTELPRO story was you can’t trust government to obey it’s own rules. It’s obvious that Bush can’t play by the laws of the land. THAT is what he has in common with the tyrants of the world. They think they are above the rule of law.

Jeff do you support the rule of law? That’s a simple question, yet if you do, you simply cannot support Bush’s tactics on spying. If you do not like citizens demand their rights to stand as written, Canada’s to the North, Mexico’s to the South take your pick. Also, we formally apologized about FDR’s interment camps, because we recognize it as wrong despite the sense of need at the time. Nonetheless, two wrongs don’t make it right, and just because someone else did it in the past doesn’t make it right either.

The question of “is someone an American”, at least in spirit, I would say depends on how much you believe in the Constitution which our country was founded.


""""Comparing the Islamic terrorists to the Nazis is insanely disproportionate.""""

Indeed, and it should take more than jr. high school to know better.

John | August 8, 2007, 3:41pm | #

What is the phrase about consistency being the hobgoblin of little minds? I think that applies to Reason and its stance on wiretapping. The Fourth Amendment doesn't ban all searches and seizures, just unreasonable ones. Of course what is reasonable is in the end up to the society at large and the circumstances. One can imagine lots of extreme circumstances where listening would be not only warrented but required for the government to protect its people. There are of course many more examples of the government abusing wire tapping. The issue is under what circumstances is it okay and what circumstances is it not. My guess is that the people responding here think that the terrorist threat is large enough that it is okay for the government to listen in on conversations to stop that threat. Thinking that does not mean that these people believe that the government should listen for any purpose. It doesn't mean that they are even right about the terrorist threat. Maybe the threat as it currently is does not justify warrentless wiretaping, but that doesn't mean that it never could. To say that the government should never under any concievable circumstances engage in warrentless wiretapping, as Sullum seems to be saying here, is just stupid and an example of why Reason is not a serious publication when it comes to this kind of stuff.

joe | August 8, 2007, 3:42pm | #

So apparently you have personally decided who does and does not has the right to be a Democrat?

Oh, heavens no! You have every right to be a Democrat. By all means, throw off your mental chains, lose the Chekist streak, and come on over!

Jeff | August 8, 2007, 3:43pm | #

joe: "Jeff, do you support giving people the government suspects of committing murder the right to an attorney, the right to a trial, and the right to face their accusers?"

Joe you deliberately blur the difference between peace-time criminal law and war-time actions against the enemy. But then, you don't believe the USA is at war, despite the written declarations of war by our enemies against us -- repeatedly.

Cesar | August 8, 2007, 3:43pm | #

I don't understand whats so hard about the government getting a warrant from a secret court. Especially since IIRC they can go ahead, listen in, and get the warrant after the fact under current law anyway.

What makes it more insane is this court has hardly ever turned down wiretapping.

thoreau | August 8, 2007, 3:44pm | #

joe, I never thought I would say this, but:

Jeff is too dumb to be a Democrat.

I'm mailing him an application to join the Communist Party. Jeff, should I send it to Stalingrad or Siberia? I'm not sure where you live.

Andrew | August 8, 2007, 3:44pm | #

Jeff-

Bin Laden is not a nation that can declare war. If you are going to claim we're at war, please show me either a declaration of war by the United States Congress as proscribed under the Constitution, or a declaration of war against the United States by any other nation. I'll be waiting.

Alice Bowie | August 8, 2007, 3:46pm | #

I understand Ayn_Randian

But we (american citizens) should not be involved with this. I worked in WTC. More AMERICANS got KILLED in that attack then innocent ISRAELIS during the ENTIRE 1990s antifada.

The US and Austrailia where nice enough to their respective natives....the Israelis should do the same. If Israel included these people...and treated them nicely...Like the US did 100s of years after killing many Indians...things would be better.

Jeff | August 8, 2007, 3:47pm | #

TrickyVic: "we formally apologized about FDR’s interment camps, because we recognize it as wrong despite the sense of need at the time."

FDR didn't apologize. He did what was necessary for the country during war-time. It is easy for people decades later to second guess. You weren't there having to make the decision or protect the nation.

TrickyVic: "Jeff do you support the rule of law? "

Yes and I realize that during war-time civilian law needs to be changed to accommodate war-time circumstances, like right now in this case.

thoreau | August 8, 2007, 3:49pm | #

Hurry, Jeff, the diaper sale ends soon!

Jeff | August 8, 2007, 3:49pm | #

Andrew: "Bin Laden is not a nation that can declare war."

Obviously, his transnational organization could, did, and continues to do, despite whether you like it or not.

Andrew | August 8, 2007, 3:50pm | #

Jeff-

Yes or no answer. Do you believe, under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, that resident aliens who are Muslim of Middle Eastern descent should be apprehended by the federal government and placed into internment camps for the duration of this "war"?

Alice Bowie | August 8, 2007, 3:50pm | #

"Obviously, his transnational organization could, did, and continues to do, despite whether you like it or not."

Yes...because we've made it a transnational issue

Timothy | August 8, 2007, 3:51pm | #

Putting people in camps has never gone wrong, not once. Ever.

Timothy | August 8, 2007, 3:52pm | #

I also think Jeff has been attempting to read Michelle Malkin recently.

Alice Bowie | August 8, 2007, 3:52pm | #

Yes or no answer. Do you believe, under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, that resident aliens who are Muslim of Middle Eastern descent should be apprehended by the federal government and placed into internment camps for the duration of this "war"?

In Jeff's defense (not that he needs it) ... I don't believe he would answer yes 2 that question

Jeff | August 8, 2007, 3:52pm | #

Alice: "If Israel included these people...and treated them nicely...Like the US did 100s of years after killing many Indians...things would be better."

Do you realize that the majority of the British Jihadists are Pakistanis that draw their inspiration from their grievance with India? And it was British Jihadists that plotted to kill Americans with 6 to 9 jetliners a year ago.

Alice Bowie | August 8, 2007, 3:52pm | #

Putting people in camps has never gone wrong, not once. Ever.

?? Including Nazi Camps ??

thoreau | August 8, 2007, 3:53pm | #

I also think Jeff has been attempting to read Michelle Malkin recently.
Yes, but ever since the head injury it's been tough to sound out all those big words. Do you have any idea how many letters there are in "Islamofascists"?

Alice Bowie | August 8, 2007, 3:54pm | #

Jeff...I hear u ... but i don't think a holocaust of muslims would b a good idea

Cesar | August 8, 2007, 3:54pm | #

This thread desperately needs an appearance bye URKOBOLD™

joe | August 8, 2007, 3:54pm | #

Jeff, I know it's hard to keep track, but I haven't made the argument that we aren't at war.

My argument is different - even during wartime, the government has to respect the Bill of Rights in its treatment of people in the United States, unless those people are known to be engaged in hostilities.

You are arguing for searches of people whose alleged anti-US actions are so questionable that the government can't even meet the probable cause standard after 72 hours of listening in on their phone calls!

You and I are in agreement about what the government should do with terrorists. The question is how the government should treat you, me, and the guy down the street - not "the enemy," but people who the government doesn't even have probable cause to suspect of being the enemy.

Timothy | August 8, 2007, 3:54pm | #

Thoreau: 196^(1/2)

Chucklehead | August 8, 2007, 3:55pm | #

From this thread I've learned:

Jeff and Alice Bowie were eyewitnesses to Sept. 11.

As a result, Jeff wets the bed thinking about Islamofacists.

And Alice blames the Jews.

Alice Bowie | August 8, 2007, 3:56pm | #

Yes Joe... I agree

We all (including those pesty muslims Jeff loves) should have at least an opportunity to
- a trial
- a hearing
- an appeal

Not just lock up anyone u think is a terrorists.

Alice Bowie | August 8, 2007, 3:57pm | #

I definitely DO NOT BLAME JEWS

Alice Bowie | August 8, 2007, 3:57pm | #

I blame ourselves

Timothy | August 8, 2007, 3:58pm | #

I've learned that Jeff's spelling is better than Alice's, but that he's probably ever so slightly dumber.

Nice that both of them took in an orphan chromosome and all, but it's really making a wreck of the place, isn't it?

thoreau | August 8, 2007, 3:58pm | #

Yes, we need the URKOBOLD at once.

Jeff | August 8, 2007, 3:59pm | #

"Do you believe, under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, that resident aliens who are Muslim of Middle Eastern descent should be apprehended by the federal government and placed into internment camps for the duration of this "war"?"

No.

However, we have only had a small scale attack in terms of what the Islamists really plan for the USA. If NYC, Chicago, DC, LA, and several other cities are hit by WMDs (N/B/C/R), then that issue may have to get revisited. And at that point, USA would likely be under martial law.

The problem is that the Islamists can easily hide in an otherwise peaceful Muslim community. The problem is that that moderate Muslim community has, for the most part, been afraid of standing up to the Islamists in their midst. And as we write this, the role of CAIR in funding and supporting the Hamas terrorist group is being proven right now.

The only ones who really can stop such a catastrophe are the moderate Muslims themselves in standing up to and reporting Islamist extremists. If the USA does not have the law enforcement tools to take some of the Islamist extremists off the streets, then the moderate Muslim community will never have the courage to stand up to them.

The war that the Islamists have planned for the USA is intended to make WWII look like a cake walk by comparison. We have only seen the opening salvos in what could be a very terrible war for the USA.

Timothy | August 8, 2007, 4:03pm | #

I knew this guy who made a doomsday device out of a tesla coil and a camel once...it was pretty impressive.

Jeff | August 8, 2007, 4:03pm | #

Alice says: "i don't think a holocaust of muslims would b a good idea"

I agree. However, the only ones with the real power to prevent that are moderate Muslims standing up to Islamists.

It is their civil war for their religion.
They dragged USA into the middle of it.
They need to get USA out of it.

VM | August 8, 2007, 4:04pm | #

OMG! OMG! OMG!

we really shoulda held off on this thread until the Friday Fun Link.

This is great.

"Jeff" is such a scream! How precious!

(pssst Jeff - just between you and me - does this topic also make you BATE right there at the computer? Thank Zod for office doors and those cute little blinds you can close)

*mrow!

Patrick D | August 8, 2007, 4:04pm | #

John,

Good post about "reasonable" and "warrantless". It helped me clarify why the administration's arguement is bogus.

If there is a "reasonable" suspicion that someone is a terrorist then making the case for and getting a warrant for a wiretap should not be a problem. ... unless there the number of requests outweigh the FISA court's capacity in which case the solution is to increase the size of the FISA court, not trust that the executive branch is playing by the rules unsupervised or even performing competently.

Jeff | August 8, 2007, 4:06pm | #

joe says: "My argument is different - even during wartime, the government has to respect the Bill of Rights in its treatment of people in the United States, unless those people are known to be engaged in hostilities."

Joe -- would you rather that the USA govt NOT stop potential terrorists and once WMD attacks happen in multiple cities, then we end up with martial law? Because that is the direction the no-surveillance crowd wants to end up taking the nation -- towards martial law -- due to insufficient preventive action early.

Urkobold™ | August 8, 2007, 4:06pm | #

FOOLS! YOU EXPECT THE URKOBOLD TO ATTACK YOUNG JEFF? YOU ARE SADLY MISTAKEN.

YOU MUST ALL TREMBLE BEFORE THE MIGHT OF ISLAMIC TERRORISTS, THE GREATEST FORCE OF ALL TIME! THE ONLY SAFE PATH FOR AMERICA IS TO SURRENDER NOW AND PRAY TO ALLAH FOR GUIDANCE!

AMERICA, BOW TO YOUR NEW GOD: ☪

iowan | August 8, 2007, 4:06pm | #

I blame ourselves

Dear Alice, do you blame rape victims as well?

Alice Bowie | August 8, 2007, 4:07pm | #

There are BLACK/WHITE/CHINESE muslims...

It would be easier to work with the people we have conflicts with...and stay away from name calling...and the (BUSH/CHENEY) approach of NOT talking to them.

There's a lot of retoric goin around...and if they wanna destroy us... they might just do that. They don't need to bring nuclear bombs into america. We have nclear reactors ALL OVER The place.

We can avoid all of this with diplomacy...with offering ALL people HOPE...For a Hope of a Safe Israel...and a future in the world for Muslims. This effort will require the entire world to pitch in.

The approach we've taken for the last 50 years...has not worked.

Trust me, after that plane flew thru my window i wanted to kill all of them too. But we really need to keep a level head. and Smarter...not HARDER

thoreau | August 8, 2007, 4:07pm | #

Urkobold-

I'm confused. I thought that you wanted all the world to kneel before Zod, Oh Trollish One?

Minion of URKOBOLD | August 8, 2007, 4:08pm | #

ZOD!!!!!

AND IT'S KNEEL! NOT BOW!

OH GREAT URKOBOLD!!!! IS THIS TIME FOR A DOUBLE WHITHERING? OR HOW DO YOU WHITHER A TAINT WHEN YOU CANNOT DIFFERENTIATE WHERE THE TAINT STARTS AND WHERE JEFF'S NOSE BEGINS?????

(kids love him at parties)

TrickyVic | August 8, 2007, 4:09pm | #

“””The Fourth Amendment doesn't ban all searches and seizures, just unreasonable ones.”””

I can give you that one John, but the Fourth Amendment does say “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.” And the Bush admin wants to remove that part of the 4th amendment without repealing it through the proper process. Therefore, Bush is violating the spirit and the letter of the Constitution. If Bush wants warrantless searches, the Constitution must be amended. Sure SCOTUS has created some exceptions, which I say are also unconstitutional, (but who am I gonna call?) but those exceptions are specific, they would not apply to blanket spying.

Cesar | August 8, 2007, 4:09pm | #

I wish I could go into an alternate universe where 9/11 never happened. Not only because of the lives lost, but also because that event has completely warped this country towards an increasingly authoritarian bent the likes of which haven't been seen since the early 50s.

SugarFree | August 8, 2007, 4:10pm | #

VM,

Don't worry. I'm sure he'll be back. He seems to have an almost limitless capacity for absorbing abuse. (And I'm pretty sure Alice is actually Cindy Sheehan.)

Sadly, this show has been so good it has derailed the 9/11 Truth thread. Oh, well. If only we could have a perfect storm thread about free abortions for Islamic 9/11 Truthers.

Alice Bowie | August 8, 2007, 4:11pm | #

Yes Cesar...It's the way the Terrorists intended on Destroying America

TrickyVic | August 8, 2007, 4:12pm | #

"""Joe -- would you rather that the USA govt NOT stop potential terrorists and once WMD attacks happen in multiple cities, then we end up with martial law?"""

Fear mongering, plain and simple

That's the problem with your arguement Jeff, it's based on fear, not reason.

Cesar | August 8, 2007, 4:13pm | #

Are Alice and Jeff the same person? Anybody else wondering?

Alice Bowie | August 8, 2007, 4:13pm | #

No...I'm a 43 year old troll with a 5 o'clock shadow...slightly overweight

VM | August 8, 2007, 4:14pm | #

Good call, Sugar.

Still, I had to take a break from keyboard BATIN to Jeff (better than "BATIN to the OLDIES") to start drawing my anime version of Jeff as a candy-striper with naughty bedside manners.

Who needs a spanking.

With a hairbrush.

oooohgarglegargle.

*heads over to kick Timothy out of Stevo's bunk

Jeff | August 8, 2007, 4:14pm | #

Alice: "We can avoid all of this with diplomacy"

The proof of why this is not true can be found in the United Kingdom. The UK had an "understanding" with Islamists and Jihadists that allowed them to have safe haven in the UK, as long as UK didn't arrest them.

In 2004, British writers were laughing at USA, saying "Why terrorists love Britain".
http://www.newstatesman.com/200408090012

A year later, the first UK bombings by Jihadists started.

You can't negotiate with a group that seeks your total and complete destruction.

It is the role of moderate Muslims to own this civil war in their religion, and their job to take on and confront the Islamists among them. Still USA needs to make certain that violent Islamists don't get another chance to attack American homeland.

Jeff | August 8, 2007, 4:15pm | #

"Joe -- would you rather that the USA govt NOT stop potential terrorists and once WMD attacks happen in multiple cities, then we end up with martial law?"

Do you have an answer, TrickyVic?

You deride the question, but you don't have the courage to face it.

TrickyVic | August 8, 2007, 4:15pm | #

""""TrickyVic: "we formally apologized about FDR’s interment camps, because we recognize it as wrong despite the sense of need at the time."

FDR didn't apologize. He did what was necessary for the country during war-time. It is easy for people decades later to second guess. You weren't there having to make the decision or protect the nation.""""

Hindsight is 20/20 not FDR's belief at the time.

""""TrickyVic: "Jeff do you support the rule of law? "

Yes and I realize that during war-time civilian law needs to be changed to accommodate war-time circumstances, like right now in this case.""""

Changed or ignored? Those are two completely different things. Bush has ignored, and only until he was facing a Democratic Congress did he decide to change.

Jeff | August 8, 2007, 4:16pm | #

No...I'm a 43 year old troll with a 5 o'clock shadow...slightly overweight
What a coincidence! So am I! Do you smell of pee like I do?

VM | August 8, 2007, 4:16pm | #

Nice, Alice! Good reference!

Jeff - nonononononono. NOnoNOnoNO!

""Why terrorists love Britain"."

wrong. wrong. wrong.

Why terrorists love BATIN. learn how to fucking spell. And hier I was, writing you into my screenplay.

("first offstage henchman in training" has a nice ring to it)

your role would be to beat the crap out of the burqa-clad easter bunny. (while reciting (backwards) Elegy in a Country Churchyard)

Jeff | August 8, 2007, 4:17pm | #

Cesar: "that event has completely warped this country towards an increasingly authoritarian bent the likes of which haven't been seen since the early 50s."

War is hell.

But the fact is that whether we like it or not, the Islamists are at written, declared, war with the USA.

Cesar | August 8, 2007, 4:17pm | #

Jeff--

This country lived with real, live, nuclear warheads aimed at all our major cities on hair trigger alert for 50 years by an enemy that wanted to destroy us. We didn't shred our Constitution then.

Yet, you want to shred the Constitution now because of some asshats in a cave think they can build a nuclear weapon and somehow smuggle it into New York Harbor?

Minion of URKOBOLD | August 8, 2007, 4:18pm | #

Jeff | August 8, 2007, 4:16pm | #

No...I'm a 43 year old troll with a 5 o'clock shadow...slightly overweight

What a coincidence! So am I! Do you smell of pee like I do?
toldja you couldn't tell where his taint ends and his nose begins...

Jeff | August 8, 2007, 4:18pm | #

Oh - OK someone twisted on here wants to "impersonate me" now?

Pathetic losers.

Jeff | August 8, 2007, 4:20pm | #

Cesar: "This country lived with real, live, nuclear warheads aimed at all our major cities on hair trigger alert for 50 years by an enemy that wanted to destroy us"

which they never planned to use due to the Mutual Assurance Destruction policy... and which Islamists don't care about - they are quite willing to die...

Cesar: "We didn't shred our Constitution then."

and we aren't now - anymore than we did during WWII

Jeff | August 8, 2007, 4:21pm | #

Minion:
So impersonating me to "shut me up" is how you defend the Constitution? Thanks for point out what side you are REALLY on.

VM | August 8, 2007, 4:22pm | #

Jeff | August 8, 2007, 4:18pm | #
Oh - OK someone twisted on here wants to "impersonate me" now?

Pathetic losers.
ohnoez.

he found us out. Crane - was it you who did that? No - it was Mona coming back to do that only to cancel the subscription again. No - it was "What A" Herr Dienstag! YEAH!!! or "Drop the"... WHICH ONE OF YOU DID THAT????

*sob*

Minion of URKOBOLD | August 8, 2007, 4:24pm | #

PEEK A BOO! I SEE YOU!!!

WHICH SIDE OF YOU AM I ON NOW???

SQUAWK!

(*bzzt. wrong. guess again, tho. Would you like to try for double jeopardy where the scores really add up?)

Timothy | August 8, 2007, 4:24pm | #

HEY! Jeff has reached Troll-gri-la wherein he claims that the "right" to post on a privately maintained webforum is the the same as the natural and Constitutional right to free speech! Truly, he is on his way to becoming one of the greatest virgins of our time!

ChicagoTom | August 8, 2007, 4:26pm | #

But the fact is that whether we like it or not, the Islamists are at written, declared, war with the USA.

Can someone help me out here? When did Islamisists get the ability to declare war in the US? I thought only Congress can do that? Was there an executive order or something that gave Bin Laden or anyone else the ability to declare war?

I mean any fucking loony on the planet can decide he is waging a war against the US. But last I checked some loonies declaration doesn't mean we automatically wage war back does it?

Minion of URKOBOLD | August 8, 2007, 4:27pm | #

hier is a picture of "JEFF" in action (actually at Arnie's belt line for some reason)

(bats eyes at Jeff - but this Minion still didn't use his handle. He was wrong. OOH!!! LET'S PLAY A GAME: WHERE ELSE HAS HE BEEN WRONG HIER TODAY?)

Timothy | August 8, 2007, 4:27pm | #

I'm at war with mayonnaise, but you don't see me tapping Kraft's phones...although that'd be a good idea, come to think of it. Pesky mayo, always scheming to befoul otherwise delicious foods...I will destroy it, oh yes, yes I will.

thoreau | August 8, 2007, 4:28pm | #

I once declared war on Urkobold to distract everybody from my failings in another thread. It was a bad idea. I've since admitted that I need to kneel before Zod, and now all is better.

Jeff | August 8, 2007, 4:30pm | #

Alice: "It's the way the Terrorists intended on Destroying America"

Actually, the facts are that one of Al Qaeda's goal is to kill at least 4 million Americans, 2 million of whom must be children, and I quote Al-Qa'ida spokesman Suleiman Abu Gheith:
"We have not reached parity with them. We have the right to kill 4 million Americans - 2 million of them children - and to exile twice as many and wound and cripple hundreds of thousands. Furthermore, it is our right to fight them with chemical and biological weapons, so as to afflict them with the fatal maladies that have afflicted the Muslims because of the [Americans'] chemical and biological weapons."
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP38802

thoreau | August 8, 2007, 4:30pm | #

Jeff-

What do you do when your diaper becomes so full of piss that it starts running down your leg?

SugarFree | August 8, 2007, 4:32pm | #

Timothy,

My analogy for Troll-gri-la (laid on the doorstep of a young man who frequents these parts):

"If you object to me shitting on your rug, then you must be against people going to the bathroom!"

Jeff | August 8, 2007, 4:32pm | #

ChicagoTom says "loony on the planet can decide he is waging a war against the US."

The Islamists and Al Qaeda are not any "loony" (sic), but a well-organized, decentralized, determined, and persistent transnational terrorist organization who actually succeeded in a mass-casualty attack in two major USA homeland cities killing 3,000.

Minion of URKOBOLD | August 8, 2007, 4:32pm | #

JEFF SCHMEARZ MAYONNAISE ON HIS TAINT FROM HIS NOSE (assuming HE can tell where their shared border is) TO HIS NAUGHTIES AND THEN FROLICS THROUGH THE DAISIES WITH HIS WHALE'S TAIL HITCHED HIGH OVER HIS TRAMP STAMP, HIS TARANTULA FROM HIS HEAVY DUTY MERKIN OUT THE FRONT (it's his generation's version of the mullet), AND HIS MUFFIN OVER THE TOP.

VERY SEXY!!!!!! ONLY MADE MORE ATTRACTIVE BY HIS STAGGERING WIT!!!!!!!

DOKTOR T: HE WEARS RUBBER PANTS AND HE LIKES DRINKING THE DROPS AS THEY CASCADE OFF HIS CUTE LITTLE TOES (then it has a nice salty, cheese flavor)

TrickyVic | August 8, 2007, 4:32pm |