... from the self-important, but not particularly bright, Anonymous' comments that this is the first time that Steyn has pulled this particular gambit when it certainly is not:

But I felt gradually exhausted since September 11th, 2001, that it's very dispiriting trying to keep going in this phase of what is a very long conflict. And the reason I do it is because I want us to win. I don't particularly like journalism. I don't particularly like writing newspaper columns. I'm sick of having to make what I think should be an obvious case again and again and again. And I'd much rather pack it in and sit on my porch in New Hampshire and enjoy the view of the mountains. But I do it because I want us to win.
— Mark Steyn, interview with Hugh Hewitt (2006)
<http://discerningtexan.blogspot.com/2006/03/steyn-on-immigration-mccain-media.html>

Here we have the same whine: how exhausting it is to be the only one willing to stand up (metaphorically) to the Islamic hordes bent on the destruction of Western Civilization when he'd rather be doing something else. Well maybe he would and he is sacrificing himself in the name of the American Empire much like Horatio saying "ego pontem defendam", but somehow I just don't get that impression from his repeated protestations.

I would imagine there are state laws that have been violated too.
— thelastnamechosen

Telecommunications and telecommunication companies are not regulated by the states. They are regulated by the FCC.

... I thought you were serious. But then you said:

I am not sure if the FCC can preempt state laws against spying, fraud, murder, rape or other state crimes just because they happen to be committed by an individual that works for a "telecommunication company."
— thelastnamechosen

There is a considerable difference between a crime committed by someone who works for a telecommunications company and a crime committed by a telecommunications. And while a corporation may be a person before the law, I'm not sure how one would go about charging one with rape.

But the point is that no one is going to prosecute the telecoms (at least not in the present DOJ); their problem is liability in civil suits.

Anyway, I went through this once before. See
<http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/10/14/rule_of_law/permalink/feff11226b1c3ea1e4a8c1e63a7dc8fd.html>

Forget about Hillary. If Obama has any class he'll offer the VP slot to Bill. Republican hatred not withstanding, the Big Dog still draws a crowd. The only problem — how much charisma can you stand on one ticket?

Which brings me to another point. After all the years of drought when there was no such thing as a viable Democratic candidate for President, suddenly the Democrats are faced with having to choose between two highly qualified and viable candidates. It hardly seems fair. The campaign for the Democratic nomination this year is something like the NFL playoffs. The best game of the season is usually one of the conference championships and the Super Bowl itself ends up as a disappointing anticlimax.

From black fade to: "AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint are at Risk ..."

Fade to "... and because they are at risk, the President of the United States is at risk."

Cut to George W. Bush taking the oath of office: "... do solemly swear that I will ... to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Cut to text of the Fourth Amendment:

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

perhaps read by a fifth-grader.

Cut to Bush admitting to authorizing warrantless surveillance on American citizens.

Cut to McConnell "However, that's not the real issue. The issue is liability protection for the private sector."

Cut to Bush "I will veto any surveillance bill that doesn't include immunity"

Narrator: "Why is telecom immunity more important to the president than protecting Americans from attack? Because the president has committed felonies and broken his oath of office and only through civil suits against the telecoms can this be submitted to judicial review. If the extent of the warrantless surveillance authorized by the president and enabled by the telecoms is exposed the president is liable to impeachment. It's not about national security, it's about job security for the president."

I agree with kovie, if you don't stand up and do something to meaningfully oppose the drug war then you are a willing enabler.
— Aycharaych

... known as a false dichotomy. I have never seen you take a stand against the genocide in Darfur. By your logic, this makes you a willing enabler of genocide in Darfur.

The reason a false dichotomy (also known as the fallacy of the excluded middle) is a fallacy is that it presents two alternatives as the only possible solutions when there are in fact many more than two possible solutions.

Your rationalization is no different than (and no better than) "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists." That's another false dichotomy, one that you presumably don't subscribe to.

You can replace "drug war" in your statement with any cause you want ("abuse of women", "drunk driving", "teen-age pregnancy", "killing baby seals", et cetera, et cetera ad infinitum ad nauseam) and it's still a logical fallacy.