posted September 25, 2001 11:30 AM            

Enhanced wiretapping, enhanced electronic surviellence, and my personal favorite..the use of information gathered in violation of the 4th amendment..as long as such information was gathered by foreign sources.

How lovely. And, in a fit to "do something about it" Congress will most likely pass this unconstitutional mess.

And, in this piece about it from MSNBC, I found the following really troubling:

quote:

---

COVERAGE OF HEARING RESTRICTED
After Ashcroft finished speaking, committee Democrats called civil liberties and free-speech advocates to testify, including representatives of the American Civil Liberties Union and People for the American Way, which have echoed some of Conyers’ concerns.
But while Ashcroft’s testimony was open to television cameras, the committee’s Republican staff ordered camera crews to leave, including those of C-SPAN, the public interest network available on cable television systems nationwide, NBC News’ Mike Viqueira reported.
Print reporters and members of the general public were allowed to remain, meaning the speakers’ comments could be reported, but none of them would be available for Americans to see or hear for themselves.
House rules state, “Whenever a hearing or meeting conducted by a committee or subcommittee is open to the public, those proceedings shall be open to coverage by audio and visual means,” Viqueira reported.

---

------------------
Lisa! In this house we obey the Laws of Thermodynamics!

--Homer Simpson

posted September 25, 2001 11:53 AM            

On the subject of the enhanced wiretapping and such, any such laws still have to make it all the way through both houses, and stand up to scrutiny by the Supreme Court, so I doubt that Ashcroft's brain farts will hold up.

posted September 25, 2001 11:54 AM            

This is the sort of ethical/legal/Constitutional issue that should be debated, discussed and studied well before passing any of it. Not thrown together and thrown into law out of fear, panic, blind reaction, or the urge to "do something!"

------------------
Lisa! In this house we obey the Laws of Thermodynamics!

posted September 25, 2001 11:59 AM            

Especially because they chunked out the cameras for the opposition testimony.

That, to me, seems like a subtle way of surpressing debate. Showing one side of the story. And, as mentioned, it's a violation of House procedure.

------------------
Lisa! In this house we obey the Laws of Thermodynamics!

posted September 25, 2001 02:31 PM            

------------------
Lore> I want to go to the Jehovah's Witness paradise, 'cause you get to pet baby pandas.

babybabble

posted September 25, 2001 02:43 PM            

------------------
Lisa! In this house we obey the Laws of Thermodynamics!

posted September 25, 2001 08:13 PM         

quote:

---

Enhanced wiretapping, enhanced electronic surviellence, and my personal favorite..the use of information gathered in violation of the 4th amendment..as long as such information was gathered by foreign sources.

---

Morat, if we have a few more terrorist attacks that take the lives of tens of thousands of Americans, American will gladly surrender these protections.

At this point in my life I am much more afraid of terrorist attacks than I am a "big brother" government. This is a quantum shift in my thinking from two weeks ago. If it will prevent another occurence of what happened in NY, I say have at it. Snoop around as much you want, I have nothing to fear.... only the terrorists do.

posted September 25, 2001 09:05 PM            

quote:

---

A time will come when a politician who has wilfully made war and promoted international dissension will be as sure of the dock and much surer of the noose than a private homicide.
-- H.G. Wells, The Salvaging of Civilization

---

------------------
-=> Toon

posted September 26, 2001 07:44 AM         

I would prefer a James Bond approach to a Kojak approach.

Given what we facing right now, we are going to have to sacrifice safety for freedom or vice versa. People will squeal about their rights and freedom only if they feel safe. If cities start blowing up and hordes of Americans start dying.... a lot of civil liberties are going to be swept under the rug.

posted September 26, 2001 08:31 AM            

Freedom is the notion this country was founded on. It took us 200 years to extend it to everyone, and to work out a fairly decent system.

But we have it.

Whatever reasons Bin Laden had for attacking us (our presence in Saudi, our sanctions against Iraq, Scientology) he's succeeded in making us question, possibly even revoke, the one concept we've always claimed made us great: Freedom.

There's a saying, Brad: "He who would trade freedom for security deserves neither".

As for living in fear of terrorists: Since you already manage to deal with your fear of air bags and pacifists (and atheists, I think), you should have plenty of practice controlling your fear.

Toon: The ban on assasination is one of those "tit for tat" sort of things. If we don't assasinate foreign leaders, they don't tend to assasinate ours. Admittedly, it's rather cheap to realize that it's soldiers and civilians paying the price for a leader's mistake, but that's the system we've got.

On the other hand, I think a reciprocal adjustement should be made. If it can be shown, for instance, that Hussien helped plan this little attack, and that the White House was a target (which it pretty obviously was), then I see no reason we shouldn't be able to make a few runs at him.

------------------
Lisa! In this house we obey the Laws of Thermodynamics!

posted September 26, 2001 10:09 AM         

1] The mortatlity rate for small pox is 90%.

2] No bomb is needed to spread small pox, just one person with a disease. It is highly contagious.

3] America signed a deal with the Soviets many years ago not to do weapon research on small pox. The Soviets did not honor the deal. They may have developed a vaccine proof version of the virus.

4] Radical countries like Iraq and North Korea are thought to have stores of the virus.

5] Anybody born after 1970 is not innoculated. Even with innoculation, see point 3.

6. Sending 5 to 10 infected people into America into key cities like New York, Chicago, LA, etc... could result in the deaths of 10s of millions of Americans. If you have people who are willing to suicide bombers, who can doubt that they wouldn't volunteer to be suicide virus carriers.

7. It could take up to week for health care professionals to detect a problem, in that amount of time entire population centers would have been exposed.

8. This is the threat that most troubles intelligence experts.

This is what we have to lose. Anything less than 100% containtment is disaster. What are you willing to sacrifice to avoid this?

posted September 26, 2001 10:22 AM            

And if you think even the most rigid, fascist of secure states would prevent someone from smuggling in a tiny vial, or sending in a few Thyphiod Mary's, you're living in Fantasyland.

And Brad: From a man who called airbags a result of the "Safety Nazi's" you've changed. However, fter this thread, if you dare to bitch about how the "fascist liberals" have interfered with your precious freedom, I warn you...be prepared for abject mockery.

Actually, given your previous standpoint that excessive government control is a liberal mainstay, does this mean you're now voting Democrat? *snicker*

Just a friendly warning.

------------------
Lisa! In this house we obey the Laws of Thermodynamics!

posted September 26, 2001 10:23 AM         

quote:

---

"He who would trade freedom for security deserves neither".

---

The man who wrote that lived in a quaint time and place before organized terrorism capable of world-ending destruction existed.

By the way, illegal immigrants should not have any civil rights.

quote:

---

Whetstone AZ - In a time of heightened tensions and security around the nation, two Cochise County men may soon have to pay a price for what many would consider a civic duty. Apparently stopping an illegal encroachment across a national border can get you in a lot of trouble.

On Sunday, September 23, John Petrello and his neighbor Phil Mathews saw something on Petrello's 5-acre parcel along the U.S/Mexican border, about 12 miles south of Sierra Vista. "We saw the 'coyotes' just drop about 26 Mexican nationals off in two groups, and then leave", said Petrello.

"Coyotes" is a term given to drivers who transport illegals across the border, and to their prescribed destinations in the U.S. Being on alert as many Americans are at the southern border are, they took action.

At about 8:30 am local time, Petrello detained 14 nationals directly across the road from his property. The illegals ran from his property to other side of road with Petrello and Mathews in pursuit. Then the two ordered the illegals to get on the ground which they did.

No shots were fired.

"Once they saw the gun, and heard us, they stopped. They gave us no problem and didn't try to escape", said Petrello. This is nothing new to the American border dwellers. He has been doing this for over a year - always working with the Border Patrol.

John has held illegal aliens on his own property and taken them to Border Patrol in the past. "I was in one shoot-out involving shots fired. on about 12 illegals; all men, all backpacked and advancing on me after shouting to stop." The men were on his property and running towards him, his wife and daughter. The Border Patrol gave him no problem. "They patrol our street frequently". Said Petrello. He said the neighbors help was even solicited in the past.

Then, a second car of illegals pulled up. Mathews moved to detain this group, leaving John with the first group. A total of 26 illegals were held for The United States Border Patrol. The call was made by Petrello's wife.

Like in previous times, the U.S. Border Patrol gave him no problem over his actions. All the detainees were captured on U.S. Soil "They [Petrello and Matthews] were free to leave. There was no violation of the law", according to the Border Patrol.

Tell that to the Mexicans.

At about 2:30 PM the same day , a sheriff's deputy drove out from Sierra Vista and told John Petrello that may have violated the illegal aliens civil rights. This was due to a civil rights lawsuit that has been filed by those Mexican Nationals with help from the Mexican Consulate nearby - against John Petrello and Phil Matthews.

As expected, John Petrello went ballistic.

He did state that both the Border Patrol and Sheriff Deputy were very polite about the whole affair, but he wonders what's going on with American border security. "Apparently the illegal aliens have more rights than American Citizens. Why are not our civil rights being protected?" he asked.

Petrello said he did learn from both the Border Patrol and the Chocise County Sheriff's office that last week, at least 10 foreign nationals were apprehended in the same area last week. They were described as of Middle-Eastern origin.

A public report on last Sunday's event is due out later this week.

---

posted September 26, 2001 11:01 AM            

It's a fun dance.

(1) Make a statement.
(2) Have lots of people point out how your statement is flawed, wrong, contradictory, or just laughable.
(3) Make another statement, unrelated to the first, and pretend it somehow deals with the objections raised in Step (2).

Come one everybody, this is how it's done...everyone can do the Brad Shuffle.

I'll get back to you, when you care to address the point. Hint: Immigration was not a topic of conversation, and has nothing to do with the thread.

As for the quote, I'll stick with Ben Franklin on that one. This country was founded on the notion that freedom was forth fighting for..and dying for.

It's sad to know that it's no longer true for some people.

As for your quote, it's funny. I can't find that story anywhere. I tried a google search, searched Yahoo news, tried a lot of places.

So, where exactly did you get your information? I'm curious here.

------------------
Lisa! In this house we obey the Laws of Thermodynamics!

posted September 26, 2001 12:04 PM            

The lack of verification makes me instantly suspicious. Until Brad produces his source, it's nor worth looking into further.

------------------
Lisa! In this house we obey the Laws of Thermodynamics!

posted September 26, 2001 01:05 PM            

*does the Brad Shuffle*

------------------
Lisa! In this house we obey the Laws of Thermodynamics!

posted September 26, 2001 04:14 PM            

*Dons WOBR Robes*

*Adopts pose of the sacred vase*

[voice="kenobi*redneck"]
Morat, your foolish ways to dissuade us from the real point of the argument (which is to rant and rave about how those with skin coloured differently to our own are taking all our lives/jobs/money/wives/children/dogs/plastic/elephants, and anyway they are all heathens and terrorists and we should send them back where they came from) are in vain. You underestimate the mighty intellectual power we wield. These aren't the arguments you are looking for.
[/voice]

------------------
Ack, bec's geometry homework wants to sell me a Tiny Wireless Camera! - Cropherb, via IRC

posted September 26, 2001 07:04 PM         

The events in New York have changed my perspective on a number of issues. I would be more than happy to see a few civil liberties fall by the wayside.

1] Racial profiling. I am now 100% completely behind it. If the FBI wants to investigate an Islamic Mosque to determine if there are any terrorists ties to it, I say knock yourself out. If a pilot refuses to takeoff until the six arabs in 1st class are searched for weapons, that is A frickin Ok with me. I saw something on Bill O'reilly tonite that made me sick. There was an Arab professor from a college in Florida. He recruited a teacher to the school who left later to head up a terrorist organization in Palestine. Two other professors he recruited to the school have both turned out to be terrorists. His brother-in-law has just been deported because of immigration violations. The topper was a quote made by the professor three years ago. In the quote, the professor called for the death of all Jews and the obliteration of Israel. At the end of the interview, Bill said he hoped the professor was being followed closely by the CIA. I am incensed that this man is allowed to stay here. As long as we let people like this in America, you are damn right there is going to a veil of suspicion cast on all Arabs. I support racial profiling for the reason of simple self preservation. Just about every Arab I have heard so far has always made a statement to the effect "America should consider why they are hated so much in the world". I have news for these treacherous slugs, America is only hated in backwoods, inbred countries which treat women like property; are ruled by despots and everybody wants to leave. In short, you aren't going to find any Islamic fundamentalist terrorists at your local Catholic picnic.

2] Holding illegal immigrants for indefinite periods of time. We used to hold these kind of people for 24 hours. I support expanding this time period to indefinite depending on how dangerous intelligence believes the person to be. I don't believe illegal immigrants should be afforded ANY civil rights whatsoever. They are a threat to national security and should be treated accordingly.

3] I support the right of the CIA to "SANCTION" known terrorists anywhere in the world (including in the US) at their discretion. Having terrorists like Bin Laden disappear is far better than making martyrs of them. Ice the freak and feed his remains to the pigs.

4] Expand the CIAs ability to eavesdrop. Absolutely. I support this. If the CIA finds a known terrorist, they should automatically have the right to bug all people that terrorist comes into contact with.

5] Allow the CIA to payoff ANYBODY they so choose. I don't care how dirty their informant is. It is time to take off the gloves.

6] Expand the government's right to confiscate all assets and bank accounts of known terrorists and their associates. Pretty obvious why I support this.

That more or less rounds out the civil rights I am willing to sacrifice in this war. Our government will probably take a course of action somewhere between mine and Morat's. Given that Morat is willing to sacrifice no civil rights, he is obviously stuck in a pre-September 11 mindset. That world is behind us forever Morat.

posted September 26, 2001 07:10 PM            

All praise the WOBR Offers McDuff the use of the 2-monkeys hairpiece (Hear nothin', see nothin' and speak like there is no tomorrow)It comes in red, white or blue I believe

Why don't you start a new thread Brad, you could call it...Immigration is for dolts or why WASP's are the protectors of the known world?

Morat, I agree with you about security and biological attack. No matter what the level you can't stop people who are prepared to die for their cause.

Brad,

Racial profiling is bunk, it wouldn't have worked for Okalahoma Tim and there are ways around its obviously limited focus. Some even consider it detrimental to investigations, Ie would you consider a Malaysian or Indonesian, Arabic? They’re not, but they have been burning flags in Jakarta and sworn vengeance if Afghanistan is attacked.

Race is not a hate defining parameter, hate is.

Edited to rubbish race element of Brad previous post

posted September 26, 2001 07:16 PM         

Rock,

How can you help but hate a bunch of fanatics who are willing to end the world over a piece of scorched rock in Israel. That is the most god-forsaken piece of desolation that man has ever called land. 80% of the Arab population consider the United States as their prime enemy. Are you making allowances for their universal hatred of us?

posted September 26, 2001 07:45 PM            

Firstly I think 80% is wrong. But that’s not the point.

I would never make excuses for hate. It’s just that I can't see these measures helping to reduce this hatred.

posted September 27, 2001 09:31 AM            

I want to salute that. I've often said, tongue-in-cheek, that hard-core conservatives were only a step away from fascism.

I didn't really believe it. I don't now, honestly. But you've proven it was true for you at least.

The truly ironic part is that all the things you're supporting wouldn't make you a damn bit safer. If anything, it'd make life more dangerous. Give terrorists even more reason to hate the US.

It's funny. You'll shred the Constitution and everything this country every stood for for the illusion of safety.

I have stronger words for you than this. But I'll keep them to myself, I think. Wax has always thrived on tolerance.

But I'll leave you with this: You, Brad Rules, are evidence that Osama Bin Laden and his ilk are correct. You show that some Americans, at least, aren't willing to defend what America stands for. I hope you're an aberration, a insignificant minority.

We bled and died here for freedom. For the Constitution. For a fricking noble ideal. And hell, it's been over 200 years and we still haven't lived up to the simple idea. But we're getting better.

And then this happens. We're attacked, and you're willing to throw away everything this country stands for for an illusion of safety.

Franklin was right, Brad. Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither.

I don't normally have much use for patriotism. I tend to view the world as more important than country. I think the United States brought this on itself in a lot of ways, because our leaders made plenty of mistakes in dealing with other countries. I don't view the US as infallible. I view us as arrogant, self-centered, and have a habit of telling the world "Do as we say, not as we do".

Not likeable qualities.

So what does it tell you, Brad, that I can stand here and blast your patriotism?

I may not like how America acts. I may have lots of things I want to change about the way we relate to the rest of the world. But I look at the ideas and concepts we're trying to live up to and I can say that I truly love this country. Not for what it is, but for what we're trying to be.

And with your words you have shown yourself to be an enemy of the American ideal.

But this America. And I will most certainly defend your right to be one. The price of the freedom I love so much, Brad, is having to listen to you spout things at the top of your lungs that I would spend my life opposing at the top of mine. (Love that movie.)

Just don't expect me to sit idly by, quiet and meek, while you spout mindless rhetoric contrary to all I believe in and love about this country.

------------------
Lisa! In this house we obey the Laws of Thermodynamics!

posted September 27, 2001 10:08 AM         

quote:

---

We bled and died here for freedom.

---

Pacifists have bled and died for nothing Morat. They are worse than useless to our country. Not only will they not fight to protect our country, they will undermine the morale of those who are willing to fight.

Morat, you and those of your ilk will never bleed and die for our country, pretending that you would is an insult. You are one of the intellectual elite who sit in their ivory tower casting stones at their government, thinking they are ever so much more clever than anybody else.

You are ever so swell at attacking any measure I have suggested to counter terrorism... from military strikes to stepped up security. Give your specific counter measurements or pick up your anti-american placard and go back to protesting the war on terrorism.

posted September 27, 2001 11:27 AM            

quote:

---

"I'm certainly concerned – as are a lot of other civil liberties folks – that there not be some huge sweep of Arab-Americans and Muslims into detention because of their associations and beliefs, or because they're just Arab-Americans."

---

Brad, in the wake of the Oklahoma bombing, should we have decided to reduce the rights of White people? In the wake of the Omagh bombing, should we have decided to reduce the rights of Irish people? Because, and I quote "In short, you aren't going to find any Islamic fundamentalist terrorists at your local Catholic picnic," but you might find a member of the IRA.

posted September 27, 2001 11:40 AM            

Let me start by saying that I do agree with you to some extent Brad, in that I am willing to sacrifice a few "civil liberties", as they are so nobly called, in order to tighten security against terrorists. But I believe you are incorrect in some areas, and I don't agree with the extent to which you think sacrifices should be made.

1] Racial profiling. Rockwell has already pointed out the limitations of racial profiling. If the enemy knows we're on the lookout for Arabs, he'll send in Black or White Muslims or Malaysians or Indonesians... It just doesn't seem very effective, and it persecutes a group for nothing more than the color of their skin. That's bad.

quote:

---

Just about every Arab I have heard so far has always made a statement to the effect "America should consider why they are hated so much in the world".

---

quote:

---

America is only hated in backwoods, inbred countries which treat women like property; are ruled by despots and everybody wants to leave.

---

2] Holding illegal immigrants for indefinite periods of time. I can understand extending the holding time well beyond 24 hours, but indefinite? C'mon, at some point you've got to press charges (why wouldn't you if you had strong evidence of terrorist ties?) or at the very least deport them back to their own country (which you have to admit is a strong deterrent to terrorism within our own borders...).

3]

quote:

---

Having terrorists like Bin Laden disappear is far better than making martyrs of them.

---

4] Expand the CIAs ability to eavesdrop. Bugging all the people a known terrorist comes in contact with. That doesn't sound like a very pragmatic thing to do. Bug just him at first and you'd get a lot of useful evidence to pare down the list of who else to bug. Bug everybody he comes in contact with (I presume you mean even the McDonald's drive-thru clerk who sold him his McMuffin this morning) and you've got a huge number of not-very-helpful bugs floating around. I think our wire-tapping laws should be updated (see previous post of mine), but I don't think we need to go as far as you suggest.

5] Dirty informants, CIA paying off anybody. Now, I don't know much about what goes on in a deal between the CIA and an informant, but it seems like this measure has the potential to allow the CIA to fund terrorist groups. If they start paying slippery people off willy-nilly, these people could disappear with a chunk of CIA money. I also don't know how much this differs from current CIA regulations/rules (as it seems like you'd have to pay off some pretty deeply involved, i.e. "dirty", people to get decent information anyway), so I'll just be quiet now.

6] Expand the government's right to confiscate all assets and bank accounts of known terrorists and their associates. Well, again this comes back to how you define "known terrorists", and especially their "associates". I support the government's right to do this with sufficient evidence that they're really getting terrorists.

Alright, enough of that. Basically, I don't see an increase in the CIA's/FBI's/NSA's power to track known and potential terrorists as some big and greivous violation of our civil rights, as long as we're careful about it. What I don't like is the possibility that in our haste to do something, we word the laws so vaguely as to allow the CIA/FBI/NSA to harass virtually anybody they feel like harassing. Remember, these laws are going to be in place after the immediate terrorist threat has subsided (if and when that happens), so we have to make sure the laws passed are specific enough to target terrorism and force the arresting/harassing party to back up their actions with evidence.

Oh, I should've mentioned that before passing new laws we should scrutinize our policies already in place to see how much actually needs to be changed.

I've probably already said so much and in so rambly a way as to totally obscure any point I had, but in one sentence I think that we can be prudent enough with the laws we pass so as to actually increase security against terrorism without passing any unconstitutional laws. (boldified so that you know my actual opinion, even if something I've said above would seem to contradict it) (sorry for rambly--in a little bit of a hurry)

------------------
I've been thinking for a while that the United States Empire is mirroring the history of the Roman Empire, and it seems we've been sacked by the Gauls. --SunAvatar

posted September 27, 2001 12:26 PM            

quote:

---

Pacifists have bled and died for nothing Morat. They are worse than useless to our country. Not
only will they not fight to protect our country, they will undermine the morale of those who are
willing to fight.

---

Strawman, and a stupid one at that. What does pacifism have to do with this? I'm certainly not one, unless "pacifist" is defined as "someone who sees fighting and war as the option of last resort".

If that's the case, find a new word. Pacifism has an entirely different meaning.

So we can scrap this paragraph. It adds nothing to the conversation, and is just another attempt by you to avoid facing up to your own words.

quote:

---

Morat, you and those of your ilk will never bleed and die for our country, pretending that you
would is an insult. You are one of the intellectual elite who sit in their ivory tower casting stones
at their government, thinking they are ever so much more clever than anybody else.

---

Fat chance, Brad. I tore into your actual statements. Apparantly, you can't do the same.

Poor Brad...he thinks because I'm a liberal, and a well-educated and fairly smart one, that I'm of course a pacifist.

Wrong. The Naval Academy was my initial choice of schools. Unfortunately, the 3 siezure's I had in high school put an end to that.

quote:

---

You are ever so swell at attacking any measure I have suggested to counter terrorism... from
military strikes to stepped up security. Give your specific counter measurements or pick up your
anti-american placard and go back to protesting the war on terrorism.

---

Ah, poor baby! He feels picked upon. I have attacked every measure you put forth because they are ridiculous knee-jerk reactions that either give terrorists further cause to fuel their hate, or in no way impede them.

Unlike you, I don't feel bombing the crap out of yet more innocent people in the fond hopes of hitting one or to of the guilty is a good long term strategy.

Nor, Brad, have I remained silent on what I think should be done. On the contrary, I have posted time and time again what measures I think should be taken to resolve this incident.

Nor am I anti-America. It is you, BRad, with your insistance on restricting what it means to be an American who is being anti-American.

quote:

---

Which of my suggestions is unconstitutional and why? Bear in mind that liberals have already
done away with with our rights against illegal search and seizure through the drug war, DNR
regulations and traffic laws. You can't take away something you don't have.

---

Ah, no he's really desperate. Blame the liberals because you want to outdo them?

Does the hypocrisy hurt, Brad? A month ago you were foaming at the mouth that they dare force you to have an airbag in your car, and now you're fine with violating multiple segments of the Constitution.

You have plenty of protection against unreasonable search and seizure. After all, it still requires a warrant, hmm?

As to your suggestions:

Racial Profiling: Already declared a violation of Equal Protection by SCOTUS. You'd have to amend the Constitution

Indefinite Detainment: A violation of both unreasonable search and seizure and with no evidence required there's the whole habeus corpus thing. I'm sure you're familiar with it. Darned if it isn't also right there in the Constitution.

Assasination isn't unconstitutional, just rather stupid from a political and pragmatic standpoint. And more than a little hypocritical. America is kind of against the "judge, jury, executioner" concept in general, and state sponsered assasination opens up some nasty doors.

I have no particular problems with using Green Berets to aquire particular criminals and dragging them to the Hague, but it's more polite and conducive to long term world stability to simply lean on the country until they're coughed up. Worked for the Lockerbie bombers and Milosovec, for instance.

The CIA: There's no civil liberties problem with the CIA. Their mandate only exists outside the country. I'm all for more funding. Perhaps you meant the FBI, and then there's that whole warrant/Constitution thing.

CIA payments. Not without oversight. You do remember the whole arms->money->hostage deal that was so cleverly worked out by a sitting President and the CIA, right?

I mean, funding mass murderers isn't really good policy, now is it?

My suggestion? Get ahold of your fear. I know airbags, pacifists, terrorists, liberals, atheists, evolutionists and probably clowns scare you, but for the love of Pete. See a shrink.

I frankly am saddened to see you like this. Reduced by fear and paranioa to advocating the very things you used to hate. That's sad.

------------------
Lisa! In this house we obey the Laws of Thermodynamics!

posted September 27, 2001 10:07 PM            

*dons robes*

As a strict follower of The Way of Bradley Rules, I hereby deem it necessary to enact the sacred "Skittish Acid-Crazed Blind Deaf Monkey Dance."

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUGGGGGHHHH
*runs into a wall - falls over*
*gets up - stares in abject fear at the wall*
AAAAAAAGUUGGHHAAAAAAAAUUUHHGG
*runs into another wall - falls over*
*gets up - gibbers in terror at the new wall*
EEEEEEEEEEUUUUUGGGHGHGHGHGHGGGG
*runs into another wall - staggers around for a bit - falls over*
*gets up - doesn't even bother looking at the wall, instead bangs head against first wall*
WEREALLGONNADIETHELIBERALSANDARABSAREGONNAKILLUSALLLLLLLLLL
*collapses into unconsciousness, finally free from the abject, scrotum-tightening fear*

Thank you.

------------------
Ack, bec's geometry homework wants to sell me a Tiny Wireless Camera! - Cropherb, via IRC