“A couple of things that are very important for you to understand about the Patriot Act. First of all, any action that takes place by law enforcement requires a court order. In other words, the government can't move on wiretaps or roving wiretaps without getting a court order.”

July 14, 2004

President's Remarks at Ask President Bush Event

Mid-States Aluminum Corporation

Fond Du Lac, Wisconsin

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/07/20040714-11.html

“For years, law enforcement used so-called roving wire taps to investigate organized crime. You see, what that meant is if you got a wire tap by court order -- and, by the way, everything you hear about requires court order, requires there to be permission from a FISA court, for example.”

“See, with court approval, we have long used roving wire taps to lock up monsters -- mobsters. Now we have a chance to lock up monsters, terrorist monsters.”

“The Patriot Act authorizes what are called delayed notification search warrants…. These allow law enforcement personnel, with court approval, to carry out a lawful search without tipping off suspects and giving them a chance to flee or destroy evidence. It is an important part of conducting operations against organized groups. “

“Before September the 11th, the standards for these kind of warrants were different around the country. It made it hard to have kind of a national strategy to chase down what might be a terrorist group. The Patriot Act provided a clear national standard and now allows these warrants to be used in terrorism cases. “

April 19, 2004

President Bush Calls for Renewing the USA PATRIOT Act

Remarks by the President on the USA PATRIOT Act

Hershey Lodge and Convention Center

Hershey, Pennsylvania

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040419-4.html

“So with court order, law enforcement officials can now use what's called roving wiretaps, which will prevent a terrorist from switching cell phones in order to get a message out to one of his buddies.”

“…there's something called delayed notification warrants. Those are very important. I see some people, first responders nodding their heads about what they mean. These are a common tool used to catch mobsters. In other words, it allows people to collect data before everybody is aware of what's going on. It requires a court order. It requires protection under the law. We couldn't use these against terrorists, but we could use against gangs.”

April 20, 2004

President Bush: Information Sharing, Patriot Act Vital to Homeland Security

Remarks by the President in a Conversation on the USA Patriot Act

Kleinshans Music Hall

Buffalo, New York

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html

“Another problem that law enforcement faced before 9/11 involved what is called a delayed-notification search warrant. These allow law enforcement personnel, with court approval, to carry out a lawful search without tipping off suspects and giving them a chance to flee or to destroy evidence. Before September 11th, the standards for these kinds of warrants were different around the country. The Patriot Act provided a clear national standard and allows these warrants to be used effectively in terrorism cases. The legal theory here is very simple: If these warrants cannot be used -- if these, excuse me, if these warrants can be used against drug dealers, then it is absolutely essential for law enforcement to be able to use them effectively against terrorists.”

“The Patriot Act was carefully written to protect the civil liberties that have long defined American democracy. All of the investigative tools I have described require the approval of a judge before they can be carried out. And similar statutes have been on the book for years, and tested in the courts, and found to be constitutional. “

June 1, 2004

Vice President's Remarks at the KCI Expo Center

Kansas City, Missouri

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040601-11.html

Has anyone else read, or seen a production of, Ibsen's "The Wild Duck?" I saw a production at the Guthrie Theater in Minneapolis when I was in highschool and remember there being heated discussion afterwards regarding the value of truth vs. the "necessary lie."

Should a twelve year old infidelity matter in the greater scheme of an otherwise happy marriage? No. Will it? Possibly. Is the "truth," the merrits of which are being debated, the aknoledgement of the infidelity itself, or the ongoing cover-up of that infidelity? - And which of these will be more disturbing to the aggrieved husband - and which should he be more disturbed about? Hard to say.

I also find it interesting that the "truth" of the letter itself is in question. Certainly this is a "true" situation in the same sense that a fable or parable is true in that it asks us to examine issues that are far more universal and greater in scope than the particular situation at hand. Does it realy matter if any of what Fallen has written has actually transpired? I think the ongoing debate the letter has produced is enough to justify its publication, regardless of the letter-writer's veracity.

The LW is obviously uncomfortable about aiding in the lie, and seems to be looking to avoid conflict with the coworker. Why not address the coworker as follows in an attempt to extract one's self from the situation gracfully and without casting any judgement:

"If you are going to say you are the manager of our division, you probably shouldn't use me as a reference. It might seem suspect that you are using subordinates as references, rather than peers or other superior ranking individuals."

Whatever the coworker's original plan, deceiving himself or others, he should correct the error by either removing the LW's name as a reference or changing the description of his position. If, at this point, the coworker still wants to play obtuse and argue his position or more directly attempt to bring the LW in on the lie, then you have the perfect opportunity to be properly affronted and say so. "I am not comfortable with that." Period. The LW needn't police the coworker beyond his own involvment in the matter and hopefully this would suffice.