"St. Andrew has two modes of expression: over-the-top hyperemotional shrillness and silly, nothing little farts of bromides that even David Broder would consider to be too bland and empty."

Dude, that's harsh. I mean, Broder-duh is *really* bad, but *worse* than Broder-duh? That's catastrophic.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

In other words, Andrianna Sullington is a hack.

Andrew the Incontinent still hasn't figured out that he doesn't get to choose how much secrecy is 'too much'... and thank God for small favors.

And, Andrew... we ARE following the law.

Andrew Sullivan has become a parody of himself.

He seems to think this war is akin to figure skating, that some how style points are involved. Sadly, war is a more objective undertaking...you either win and live or loose and die. How you reach either of those ends is not of much importance, unless you fancy yourself as the supreme moral arbiter as Andrew does.

Quick question -

Does Hitchens and/or Sullivan acknowledge that the people either are talking with might be of interest for terror-related reasons.

Or do they believe that they communicate only with the good guys?

Uhh, your "sum-up" is longer than the original post.

scarshapedstar:

Uhh, your "sum-up" is longer than the original post.

...and your little snark only extends it without illuminating it any further. Think of it as meta-criticism: you indicate that Ace is overly prolix, and I indicate that you are a sanctimonious blow-hole.

In this way, we not only illuminate the issue at hand, but also extend the discussion.

Uhh, your "sum-up" is longer than the original post.

Posted by scarshapedstar at January 19, 2006 02:57 PM

Ace's sum-up is called 'value-added', a term which to my certain knowledge has never been used to descibe snot-faced twerps like yourself.

That "chocolate" remark is completely racist - after all, we all now know what "chocolate" really means after Mayor Nagin clarified that for us on Monday.

Your comment that, "chocolate is good, but not too much of it," disgusts me. Some of my best friends are "chocolate"! I have been to very "chocolate" parties and had a great time so I don't think too much "chocolate" is bad at all....

Oh, wait, I am pulling a Sullie and over reacting aren't I?

I think I'll go in the other room, calm down and get me a couple of Hershey Chocolate Kisses right now -- or is that still allowed in this new "chocolate" sensitive world?

(Strange to say but I do prefer "chocolate" to the divisive term African American)
DKK

Quick answer to Anxious Andy: We can do both -- follow the law and follow al Qaeda. Civil law limitations DO NOT apply to military intelligence. Enemy combatants -- even illegal combatants do not enjoy the same civil rights as non-combatatants.

You can kill an armed enemy combatant without warning. You do not need a court order or a warrant. You do not need to worry about using disproportionate force (if you are not using disproportionate force, and you have it, you should be court martialed.)

Similarly, you do not need a warrant or a court order to monitor military communications -- including communications of spies. Never have.

You need a court order to wire-tap . . . oh John Murtha, because you think he has accepted bribes. That is a criminal activity, and he has the rights afforded to residents of the United States.

You do not need a court order to listen to Nasti Ibn Abomba taking orders on how to launch a terrorist strike against the United States -- whether the orders originate or end in this country. That is military intelligence.

And if John Murtha knowingly communicates with Ibn Abomba's superior, to coordinate Murtha's political statements to take advantage of al Qaeda's military actions?

Guess what? As long as Murtha spouts off on his own hook he is a non-combatant, and afforded the protections of American law, when it comes to monitoring his communications -- cannot do it without a court order based on probable caues that that he has violated the law. However, the MOMENT it becomes apparent that he is coordinating with America's military enemies -- he can be monitored 24-hours, 7 days a week. If military intelligence entered evidence demonstrating that Murtha was voluntarily coordinating with military enemies any action against the government for doing so without a warrant would be dismissed -- because it would then shift to the rules for military intelligence.

Note that at some point the government would have to demonstrate -- to a preponderance of the evidence standard -- that they had a reasonable expectation that the monitored conversations had some relation to military intelligence, but if it could be shown, the government would be in the clear.

Uhh, your "sum-up" is longer than the original post.
Posted by scarshapedstar at January 19, 2006 02:57 PM

Looks like middle school got out early yesterday, making pearshapedtwit available to add deep insights to the thread with his left hand.