If there's one thing I'm not, it's a coward. I'm not running from anything.

I just can't, in good conscience, support mass murder and mass torture. If there was a real anti-war movement, I'd be on the front lines. But it seems my countrymen are so enamored with their IPods, and their IPhones, and their SUVs, that they've become complacent and apathetic.

Over 70% of people are fed up with this war. Why isn't anyone taking to the streets, and marching on Washington? What happened to, "1, 2, 3, 4, we don't want your fucking war?"

No, it's my country that has abandoned me, not I who has abandoned my country.

I have hope that Obama will win, and that he will be a good president. I will campaign for him. I will fight to stay. I don't want to leave. I feel very strongly, that if McCain wins, I have no other choice. If there's anything I feel cowardly about, it's that I didn't stick to my promise to leave if George Bush won the first time. I got out of that one by pointing out that Bush didn't win.

Besides, back then, it was a tongue-in-cheek joke. Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine he could be as terrible as he's turned out to be. If there's any justice left in the world, he'll be frog marched to the Hague, in irons, as the common war criminal that he is, and summarily executed, after a fair and speedy trial. Even a war criminal who denies POWs habeus deserves a trial.

Yes, this is what I love about my fellow "liberals." Let's shoot ourselves in the foot once again. Let's attack Obama for not taking a principled stand on a measure that has NO CHANCE of being defeated in the midst of the most important Presidential election of our lifetimes, so that the GOP fear machine has another ground on which to attack him. I don't like this bill, but we don't need to be attacking our own candidate for failing to lead on this one when the ensconced Democratic "leaders," along with the majority of the Democrats in the Congress, won't take the first step. He didn't make this mess, but we are asking him to try to fix it before he even gets elected. What do we expect of this man? He's trying to be smart about this FOR US, people. I don't believe in blind allegiance, but a tiny bit of faith in Obama's savvy and good intentions would be nice.

I live in the Irish Republic which has been independent of British rule for about 80 years. There are 32 counties in the entire island and only six (Northern Ireland) are still under British rule. The last census in the Republic showed that the highest percentage of immigrants comes from Britain but now theres no problem because they come in peace and to contribute. "Old, unhappy far-off things and battles long ago" are best left with dusty souvenirs.

Before you decide to go to Canada, a word of warning. Vancouver is in British Columbia and quite a lot of what was British Canada was settled by the Scots-Irish, the people from whom John McCain claims descent. That should put the frighteners on you. The Scots, the Irish, the Welsh are part of what the English sometimes refer to as "the Celtic fringe" of the British Isles. Now you might think that "lunatic fringe" is more appropriate because the Scots and the Irish share the same music, make whiskey (the Scots copied it from us!) but they fell out with each other over territory and religion. In the main, the Scots went for a very severe form of Protestantism (a sort of Puritanism) while the Irish, in general, stayed with Rome. What made that quite handy was that the Pope lived thousands of miles away and couldn't do too much interfering in our still-surviving pagan debauchery.

Out of the goodness of my heart, I've put you on alert for all the Scots-Irish in British Columbia because you could come across some who'd remind you of John McCain. Maybe you'd consider moving south? Hugo Chavez is a fine fella indeed but he wouldn.t be too fussed with all this palaver about elections and the rest of it. He's fond of giving speeches too, although the King of Spain rudely interrupted him last year when old Hugo was getting very excited about the "European oppressor", which is always good for a few cheers. Hugo has the oil and the King of Spain only has a yacht as well as some palaces. It's a cruel world. I'm not sure whether Hugo is a fascist or a socialist. It all gets sort of blurred from time to time, as one -ist tells the other -ist that his is better than the other's.

I don't believe in blind allegiance, but a tiny bit of faith in Obama's savvy and good intentions would be nice.

He's a witch! Burn him! A witch, a witch, a witch, a witch, we've found a witch!

Good intentions? The only way you could get that impression is if you consider his words, his platform, and his record as a legislator. You Obamabots are all alike. You shouldn't talk with your mouth full of Kool-aid. I forget, was he born in a manger in Bethlehem? Only by letting Mr. Murderous Psychopath McCain win can we get any real change, everyone knows that. That's change you can believe in!

[/snark]

Just for the record: I enjoy your posts here. You keep everyone on their toes.

Here's the 4th, in all its glory:

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.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentiv

Over the years, the courts have interpreted this language to mean that wherever you have a reasonable expectation of privacy, you have a 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

And, most importantly, a government agent must obtain a "warrant" before invading this expectation of privacy.

In other words, the government must articulate to a neutral fact finder (also known as a judge, sometimes a lesser creature known as a "magistrate") a reasonable suspicion of criminal wrongdoing--supported by facts--in order to violate that expectation of privacy, wherever it exists. And it exists in your home, your car, and in your online and telephonic communications.

The U.S. criminal justice system has been able to function spectacularly well under this requirement for years. Facts giving rise to "probable cause" can be gathered by diligent investigation that does not violate anyone's civil liberties. Once those facts are in hand and properly presented to a judge by a D.A., a warrant can issue, and wiretapping can begin. The FISA law provided for emergency and expedited warrants and was extremely law enforcement-friendly.

You actually benefited from this provision. What if, just speaking hypothetically, you wanted to have phone sex with your boy- or girlfriend who was in Spain on business? Let's assume you're a law-abiding taxpaying citizen. But the government has erroneously matched your last name with someone on its "terror watch list" and decides to tap your phone without going through all that 4th Amendment nonsense. They've got a country to protect goddamnit!

In some NSA database, there might then be a recording of that phone call, but we really don't know, because it's all so secret. Maybe there's a transcript, or a soundwave analysis of your speech, or a report by an analyst about what you said and what your boyfriend or girlfriend said and how long you talked. How do you feel about that?

That's what the new FISA "compromise" bill makes room for, because that bill makes no provision for a meaningful review by a judge of the facts that support such a wiretap. Does that sound okay to you?

P.S. A reply that contains any form of "I would never have phone sex with my boy- or girlfriend in Spain" is not acceptable.

P.P.S. A reply that contains any form of "If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about" is similarly not acceptable.