wfd40
11-15-2007, 02:23 PM
The following is an email chain started by my uncle, which was then responded to by me, followed by another fellow.
To all in response to wfd:
Brilliant analysis...I have considered your attachments carefully. Obviously we should have just called September 11th a nuisance and moved on (because according to Ron Paul we deserved it based on US actions in 1953) and then when the next attack occurred... call that one a nuisance too and then ...etc.. etc.. etc..).
Stick with Ron Paul and in 20 years we'll all be praying 5 times daily to Mecca and our women will be wearing burkas.
(For those who have to deal with reality... peace is not the absence of war - peace is the absence of tyranny)
------------------------
Written by me:
To Uncle Phil et all,
With all do respect, Zuckerman's position is absurd. Please consider the following quite carefully:
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety , deserve neither Liberty nor Safety and so lose both ."
-Benjamin Franklin
"The American people become less secure when we risk major conflict driven by commercial interests. Victory under these circumstances is always elusive, and unintended consequences are inevitable."
-Congressman Ron Paul
March 1st, 2002
"Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing."
-Dwight D. Eisenhower
-----------------------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG2PUZoukfA - Ron Paul: A New Hope
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFfdB5OzlyQ - Ron Paul: When in the course of human events.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG_HuFtP8w8 - Ron Paul: Don't Tread on Me
http://youtube.com/watch?v=6kYxlEfUSdY - Ron Paul takes on Ben Bernanke
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZsZ0_OLer4 - Ron Paul on Kudlow talking Monetary Policy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWfIhFhelm8 - RonPaul: Stop Dreaming
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvrrPCkHKLw - Ron Paul on 'Blowback'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DqY8iIxe2c - Our Power, our Responsibility
----------------
and for the upcoming December 16th Boston Tea Party fundraiser:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKZmIzEMUN8 - Ron Paul: Tea Party07
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsDlO2Lr_cg - Ron Paul: Land of the Free
Regards,
wfd
On Nov 15, 2007 10:42 AM, Phil wrote:
The Case for Surveillance
By Mortimer B. Zuckerman
How does any civilized nation cope with fanatical barbarism? What kind
of people will plot to murder thousands--so crazed with hate they will
kill their own families for the cause? Even after 9/11 we have been slow
to recognize the nature of the beast we face. It is hard for us to
comprehend the mentality of, say, the group of 21 homegrown suicidal
jihadists apprehended last year in Britain. We now know not only that
they were prepared to blow up 10 civilian airliners flying from London
to the United States--which might have killed as many as 3,500 innocent
people--but also that they planned to avoid airport scrutiny by
traveling with their wives and children and were thus prepared to
execute their nearest and dearest.
As a free society, we are remarkably vulnerable. Our open borders permit
second-generation terrorists from Europe to infiltrate under the legal
visa waiver program. We admit many imams from Egypt and Pakistan trained
in Saudi Arabia under the extremist perversion of Islam known as
Wahhabism. The consequences of our tolerance are spelled out in a recent
report by the New York City Police Counterterrorism Department. It
focuses on how difficult it is to follow the "trajectory of
radicalization"--the behavior and whereabouts of homegrown radical
Islamists. That New York report has to be read with the most recent
National Intelligence Estimate that the external threat from al Qaeda
has not waned despite expanded worldwide counterterrorism efforts.
This is the context in which to consider the protests about tightening
electronic surveillance, led by the liberal New York Times and the
ultraliberal New Yorker and espoused by Democrats who watered down the
recent reform legislation--including an insistence that it be reviewed
in six months. How far should security concerns impinge on privacy? The
administration says the balance has to be recalibrated. The trouble is
that the administration has lost much of its moral authority. As USA
Today put it, the White House "has all the credibility of a teenager who
has squandered his allowance and is demanding more money."
True--but on this issue, it has a real case.
Until the law was changed, bin Laden himself could have made a telephone
call from Waziristan to Singapore and, if it were carried on a fiber
optic cable that passes through the United States (as are the vast
majority of long-distance calls), we would not have been able to listen
without prior permission from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
court. FISA had to approve all interceptions of foreign-to-foreign
communications coming through American wires, fiber optic cables, and
switching stations. With warrants to the FISA court backed up, as much
as two thirds of potential intelligence from U.S. eavesdropping
capabilities was being lost. The director of national intelligence, Adm.
Mike McConnell, gave Congress specific examples, such as one involving
the capture of three American soldiers in Iraq.
Broader reach. Congress was right to eliminate the restrictions.
Warrantless wiretaps will no longer be limited to "known foreign
terrorists" but will include surveillance of the larger universe of
"foreign targets," including America's enemies who are state actors and
others not linked directly to al Qaeda, on the theory that if you can't
find the needle, you have to examine the haystack.
Many of the Democrats supported the warrantless listening because they
feared the political consequences of a terrorist attack occurring while
they were on summer vacation--and because they had not taken the lead to
plug the electronic intelligence gap. The Democrats have been
politically vulnerable on national security and counterterrorism going
back to the days of Jimmy Carter, who was so naive about the intentions
of the Soviet Union when it invaded Afghanistan. (And Carter is still
willing to accommodate some of the most hostile enemies of the United
States.)
Even now, Democrats are focusing on the scariest possible interpretation
of the new law, ignoring its well-crafted rules to protect Americans. In
addition to putting in the six-month expiration, they have failed to
provide liability protection to U.S. telecommunication companies. Some
of these have stopped cooperating with the National Security Agency
since the program was exposed.
The Democrats should think again. Their concerns for American liberty
are commendable, but if there is a serious terrorist attack, the outcry
from the American public will force any government to enforce security
measures that transform our way of life. We must have a bipartisan
policy. The president would do well to work with leaders of Congress to
agree jointly on an independent body to monitor the procedures. We have
distinguished retired leaders who could do this. To allow essential
security to become just a point of contention will only damage the
country and the American people.
This story appears in the September 3, 2007 print edition of U.S. News &
World Report.
There's a lot of people on this email chain (100+)... how to tactfully respond??
(I ask you all because the tiger in me wants to rip this guy a new one).
To all in response to wfd:
Brilliant analysis...I have considered your attachments carefully. Obviously we should have just called September 11th a nuisance and moved on (because according to Ron Paul we deserved it based on US actions in 1953) and then when the next attack occurred... call that one a nuisance too and then ...etc.. etc.. etc..).
Stick with Ron Paul and in 20 years we'll all be praying 5 times daily to Mecca and our women will be wearing burkas.
(For those who have to deal with reality... peace is not the absence of war - peace is the absence of tyranny)
------------------------
Written by me:
To Uncle Phil et all,
With all do respect, Zuckerman's position is absurd. Please consider the following quite carefully:
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety , deserve neither Liberty nor Safety and so lose both ."
-Benjamin Franklin
"The American people become less secure when we risk major conflict driven by commercial interests. Victory under these circumstances is always elusive, and unintended consequences are inevitable."
-Congressman Ron Paul
March 1st, 2002
"Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing."
-Dwight D. Eisenhower
-----------------------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG2PUZoukfA - Ron Paul: A New Hope
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFfdB5OzlyQ - Ron Paul: When in the course of human events.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG_HuFtP8w8 - Ron Paul: Don't Tread on Me
http://youtube.com/watch?v=6kYxlEfUSdY - Ron Paul takes on Ben Bernanke
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZsZ0_OLer4 - Ron Paul on Kudlow talking Monetary Policy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWfIhFhelm8 - RonPaul: Stop Dreaming
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvrrPCkHKLw - Ron Paul on 'Blowback'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DqY8iIxe2c - Our Power, our Responsibility
----------------
and for the upcoming December 16th Boston Tea Party fundraiser:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKZmIzEMUN8 - Ron Paul: Tea Party07
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsDlO2Lr_cg - Ron Paul: Land of the Free
Regards,
wfd
On Nov 15, 2007 10:42 AM, Phil wrote:
The Case for Surveillance
By Mortimer B. Zuckerman
How does any civilized nation cope with fanatical barbarism? What kind
of people will plot to murder thousands--so crazed with hate they will
kill their own families for the cause? Even after 9/11 we have been slow
to recognize the nature of the beast we face. It is hard for us to
comprehend the mentality of, say, the group of 21 homegrown suicidal
jihadists apprehended last year in Britain. We now know not only that
they were prepared to blow up 10 civilian airliners flying from London
to the United States--which might have killed as many as 3,500 innocent
people--but also that they planned to avoid airport scrutiny by
traveling with their wives and children and were thus prepared to
execute their nearest and dearest.
As a free society, we are remarkably vulnerable. Our open borders permit
second-generation terrorists from Europe to infiltrate under the legal
visa waiver program. We admit many imams from Egypt and Pakistan trained
in Saudi Arabia under the extremist perversion of Islam known as
Wahhabism. The consequences of our tolerance are spelled out in a recent
report by the New York City Police Counterterrorism Department. It
focuses on how difficult it is to follow the "trajectory of
radicalization"--the behavior and whereabouts of homegrown radical
Islamists. That New York report has to be read with the most recent
National Intelligence Estimate that the external threat from al Qaeda
has not waned despite expanded worldwide counterterrorism efforts.
This is the context in which to consider the protests about tightening
electronic surveillance, led by the liberal New York Times and the
ultraliberal New Yorker and espoused by Democrats who watered down the
recent reform legislation--including an insistence that it be reviewed
in six months. How far should security concerns impinge on privacy? The
administration says the balance has to be recalibrated. The trouble is
that the administration has lost much of its moral authority. As USA
Today put it, the White House "has all the credibility of a teenager who
has squandered his allowance and is demanding more money."
True--but on this issue, it has a real case.
Until the law was changed, bin Laden himself could have made a telephone
call from Waziristan to Singapore and, if it were carried on a fiber
optic cable that passes through the United States (as are the vast
majority of long-distance calls), we would not have been able to listen
without prior permission from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
court. FISA had to approve all interceptions of foreign-to-foreign
communications coming through American wires, fiber optic cables, and
switching stations. With warrants to the FISA court backed up, as much
as two thirds of potential intelligence from U.S. eavesdropping
capabilities was being lost. The director of national intelligence, Adm.
Mike McConnell, gave Congress specific examples, such as one involving
the capture of three American soldiers in Iraq.
Broader reach. Congress was right to eliminate the restrictions.
Warrantless wiretaps will no longer be limited to "known foreign
terrorists" but will include surveillance of the larger universe of
"foreign targets," including America's enemies who are state actors and
others not linked directly to al Qaeda, on the theory that if you can't
find the needle, you have to examine the haystack.
Many of the Democrats supported the warrantless listening because they
feared the political consequences of a terrorist attack occurring while
they were on summer vacation--and because they had not taken the lead to
plug the electronic intelligence gap. The Democrats have been
politically vulnerable on national security and counterterrorism going
back to the days of Jimmy Carter, who was so naive about the intentions
of the Soviet Union when it invaded Afghanistan. (And Carter is still
willing to accommodate some of the most hostile enemies of the United
States.)
Even now, Democrats are focusing on the scariest possible interpretation
of the new law, ignoring its well-crafted rules to protect Americans. In
addition to putting in the six-month expiration, they have failed to
provide liability protection to U.S. telecommunication companies. Some
of these have stopped cooperating with the National Security Agency
since the program was exposed.
The Democrats should think again. Their concerns for American liberty
are commendable, but if there is a serious terrorist attack, the outcry
from the American public will force any government to enforce security
measures that transform our way of life. We must have a bipartisan
policy. The president would do well to work with leaders of Congress to
agree jointly on an independent body to monitor the procedures. We have
distinguished retired leaders who could do this. To allow essential
security to become just a point of contention will only damage the
country and the American people.
This story appears in the September 3, 2007 print edition of U.S. News &
World Report.
There's a lot of people on this email chain (100+)... how to tactfully respond??
(I ask you all because the tiger in me wants to rip this guy a new one).