Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
timschochet's thread- Mods, please move this thread to the Politics Subforum, thank you (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
timschochet
Footballguy
Regarding all the terrible things going on France: if the NSA can put a stop to the same sort of stuff happening here, but in order to do so they need to search through billions of emails and phone records, shouldn't we give them the legal means to do so? Or must we continue to cling to an antiquated interpretation of the 4th Amendment (which we'll get to later) which would demand a separate warrant for every single email and therefore make such a search impossible?
Last edited by a moderator:
CowboysFromHell
Footballguy
msommer
Footballguy
The Green Mile book belongs on your top ten list though. As does the Mist even though it is only a novella. If you want books and disqualify the Mist on that account you can add Four Past Midnight (three good novellas out of four). Bag of Bones I liked as well. I'd drop Cujo, Firestarter and Christine from the list completely.
msommer
Footballguy
CowboysFromHell
Footballguy
I really don't think I can come up with any scenario that would justify the government being allowed to search and store all the electronic records of every citizen. But you knew that.
And, of course, you also know that giving the government permission to search and store everyone's records is the logical equivalent of simply removing the requirement for a warrant. I don't see how you can justify that. You would never agree to allow the government to search and catalog the contents of every home in the country. Why should digital records be different? It's logically inconsistent.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
Maybe this belongs in the NSA thread, but think a little harder about what you're suggesting.
Currently, the requirement goes like this: government has cause to believe that Joe Suspect is committing a crime/planning an act of terrorism, so government requests a warrant to search Joe's e-mails, tap Joe's phone, and/or search Joe's apartment.
Your proposed requirement goes like this: government has cause to believe that "someone", where "someone" could be any member of some larger group of people (for example, "the group of people who use Gmail", or "the group of people who use cell phones"), "might" be committing a crime/planning an act of terrorism, so government can request a warrant to search the records of all the people comprising the group, because "just in case".
You really can't see what's wrong with that? Further, you really can't see where that precedent might lead?
For example, let me rewrite that paragraph above just a bit... Government has cause to believe that someone, where "someone" is a member of the larger group of people comprised of "black men in New York City", may have robbed a liquor store, so government can request a warrant to search the persons, homes, and cars of all members of the stated group. Logically, this is the same as your proposal, so it would be fine, right?
Currently, the requirement goes like this: government has cause to believe that Joe Suspect is committing a crime/planning an act of terrorism, so government requests a warrant to search Joe's e-mails, tap Joe's phone, and/or search Joe's apartment.
Your proposed requirement goes like this: government has cause to believe that "someone", where "someone" could be any member of some larger group of people (for example, "the group of people who use Gmail", or "the group of people who use cell phones"), "might" be committing a crime/planning an act of terrorism, so government can request a warrant to search the records of all the people comprising the group, because "just in case".
You really can't see what's wrong with that? Further, you really can't see where that precedent might lead?
For example, let me rewrite that paragraph above just a bit... Government has cause to believe that someone, where "someone" is a member of the larger group of people comprised of "black men in New York City", may have robbed a liquor store, so government can request a warrant to search the persons, homes, and cars of all members of the stated group. Logically, this is the same as your proposal, so it would be fine, right?
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
On my cell, Rich so I'll answer you in more detail later. But no it would not be the same.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Tim, the 1st Amendment that Hebdo represents and the 4th Amendment and the other Bill of Rights are a package, they are tied together. We don't destroy our rights and our way of life for them.timschochet said:
Logically, it's exactly the same. Now, obviously, we'd need a better name for such a policy. "Searching" and "seizing" are pretty ominous sounding, so we'll need better marketing. Hmm... let me think a bit... I bet I can come up with something. Maybe we could use words like "stop" or "frisk". Perfect! We'll call this policy "Stop and Frisk", and let police officers randomly search anyone they see on the street, because "just in case".
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
Terminology matters. Terroism is not a crime as it is defined in our criminal justice system. That is the problem with this debate in many respects. The act of enforcing criminal statutes has a specific system in place and constitutional protections for same. Citizens enjoy certain protections in that system. The war powers on the other hand govern how we deal with terrorism. Let's not forget that there is a declaration of war. Congress has supported and codified the power of the executive to execute that war. With that we are dealing with a different sphere of power and circumstance and the terrorist that we are at war with, however defined by the Executive through the authorization.
And then you add in the EIC portion of the system and they don't get the protections that the 4th 5th and 8th amendments protect. But also we have to deal with how the new war enemy is very much different than the historical war enemy and that results int he confusion and problems we have now.
We need to be careful when using words like never in these situations. It's just a new paradigm we are dealing with and we haven't done a great job of working within it and defining it yet. We are trying though. And we are doing as best we can I think given the circumstances. But let's play hypothetical right now. We know what Australia is doing with immigration right now. We know that Germany is leaning more and more towards that kind of country as well. And we have to assume that the events of France are going to lead to similar ideas getting more and more powerful in that country. What happens when western europe starts taking a massive hard line on islamic and arab immigration and the people within their own borders? It's certainly possible it will happen. We can get dystopian with it fairly quick. If western europe starts getting more hard line and more hard line and starts actually restricting arabs from certain movements in a manner that shakes global political system we are going to take notice here.
My fear is that they do it and it works. And when it works and more and more of western europe does it what happens when it works well and western europe becomes more "safe" though certainly a lot less free? You know there will be a movement here to do the same. It's the nature of the beast. What happens when the far right takes this to the extreme (moreso then they are now) and actually gains a true footbhold in the policies that dictate how we deal with arabs and illegal immigration? They will militarize the border. We will see domestic actions against anyone that can possibly have a connection to terrorism. We will see a basic destruction of the 4th and 5th Amendments moreso then we already have. And we will likely go along with it. Because we've done it before. That's what people seem to forget when they talk about our grand notion of freedom and liberty. We built internment camps and stuck japanese people in them "just in case." We aren't immune to the fear and security that creates those systems.
I could be overreacting. And I'm certianly not the only person to think this is possible. But it scares the hell out of me. My problem at the moment though is that I really don't know what specific thing we can do to ensure that doesn't happen - because I really just don't believe that a guarantee like that is possible.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
Ok, because it's Friday and as a very small aside..... the lady reporter from Sky News on the street in Paris........... thoughts? I'm liking, but it's very much supported by the accent for sure.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
yeah, I just closed the window and stopped watching. She isn't a natural beauty for sure but there is something there....... I never caught her name.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I know what you mean, she looks like that actress on The Office... quirkily attractive, nice hair, smart.
This is the report I saw when I first went to Sky, something must have been flummoxed because of all the traffic.... so... koala mittens!
http://news.sky.com/story/1404977/mitten-appeal-for-koalas-burnt-in-bushfires
Last edited by a moderator:
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
Kay Burley? If so, she definately has some bad face shots out there. Still. I'm pondering.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
Yup, it's her. http://dannews.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/kayburley.jpeg
I'm interested. In my old age more mature women are taking the place of the candy like visual that younger women now seem to be.
I'm interested. In my old age more mature women are taking the place of the candy like visual that younger women now seem to be.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
OK, I'm finally at a laptop so I can respond to Rich Conway and everyone else who disagreed with my question about the NSA. I meant to discuss this issue in more detail here when we got around to the 4th Amendment, but the events in France caused me to raise it earlier. That's fine; there's plenty of other issues when we get to the 4th that we can discuss. Let's discuss this one now. Rich and others and I had this argument previously in the longer NSA thread; I stopped because my argument was theoretical rather than based on what the NSA might actually be doing (and we're still very unclear on that). If some of the reports were true, I didn't want to defend that; I only wanted to defend the theory of mass warrants. That's what I want to do here. So let me start by offering a scenario which I believe is very possible:
Let's suppose the CIA has an operative working in Pakistan, pretending to be part of a radical Islamic terrorist organization. Our informant learns that there is an imminent attack on the USA in one of our our major cities, but we don't know which one. He learns that currently there are 20 terrorists currently in that city, getting ready for the attack, but he doesn't know their names. Some of the terrorists are Arabic visitors, some are naturalized citizens, at least 3 are white Americans who have secretly converted to Islam, though nobody knows. The CIA informant can't learn the names of the 20 because they are unknown except to the top leaders of the terrorist group, and they are divided into cells unknown to each other. All communication with these 20 is through coded email. However, our informant has learned that the first part of the email for one of the cells begins with a quote from the 38th Surah of the Koran, translated into English.
20 people out of 300 million. Billions of emails to search through. How can the CIA and NSA learn enough to prevent the attack? There is really only one way: create a computer algorithm that will search through billions of emails, looking for that 39th Surah. But how to get ahold of those emails? According to Rich Conway and others here, it can't be done. The NSA would have to file a separate warrant and have a judge review it for every single email. Obviously, that's impossible. Oh well, says Rich and Saints and most of the rest of you guys; we can't do anything else. And when the attack happens and the Brooklyn Bridge is blown up, we just have to suffer through the consequences. Some of those consequences, BTW, will be a clampdown on civil liberties well beyond any current concerns about the NSA. I also share Yankee's fears about a drastic crackdown on illegal immigrants. Theres are things which is I really don't want to see.
So instead, I offer an alternative: the NSA goes to a judge (FISA) and says: "We really need these emails. We're not going to look through each one; Hell, how can we? There's billions of them. But we need them in order to run this algorithm search, Whichever emails come up with the 38th Surah, we'll come back and get separate, individual warrants for each one and for all emails sent by whoever the authors are. But for now, what we need is a mass, collective warrant for ALL of the emails."
Now according to Rich, this is no different from cops simply stopping people without cause and searching them- in other words, a violation of the 4th Amendment. If the judge signs off on this mass warrant, what's to keep him from signing off on a mass search of all Arab Americans living in Detroit, etc.? But I say there's a difference and that the courts should recognize the difference. To me, a better analogy is a policeman on the lookout for a car that was involved in a hit and run; a silver 2005 Chevy truck with the first three letters of license plate "ABD". The police who drive around town searching every silver Chevy truck to see if it matches the description serve the same purpose as the computer algorithm does; those police are not violating anyone's rights by searching for that truck, and the algorithm is not violating anyone's rights by searching for that Surah. Once the truck is spotted, the police then get a new warrant to search it. Once the email is spotted, the NSA gets a new warrant to search it. Again, nobody's 4th Amendment rights have been violated.
Now I want to repeat that what I have argued is the theory behind my defense of a mass, collective warrant for emails. In practice, there have been reports of the NSA not only collecting emails but holding on to those records indefinitely; of NSA employees possibly looking through individual emails for purposes that have nothing to do with algorithms or for fighting terror, of screwups and shenanigans and bad behavior. I have NO idea if any or all of these reports are accurate, and I'm certainly not going to defend them. I'm only defending the principle. I think the principle of a mass warrant in today's age for emails is a good one, and we may very well need it. Let's face it, the ultimate fear of our society should be a terrorist in a large city with some kind of nuclear bomb. If we can prevent that through good intelligence, then we should.
Let's suppose the CIA has an operative working in Pakistan, pretending to be part of a radical Islamic terrorist organization. Our informant learns that there is an imminent attack on the USA in one of our our major cities, but we don't know which one. He learns that currently there are 20 terrorists currently in that city, getting ready for the attack, but he doesn't know their names. Some of the terrorists are Arabic visitors, some are naturalized citizens, at least 3 are white Americans who have secretly converted to Islam, though nobody knows. The CIA informant can't learn the names of the 20 because they are unknown except to the top leaders of the terrorist group, and they are divided into cells unknown to each other. All communication with these 20 is through coded email. However, our informant has learned that the first part of the email for one of the cells begins with a quote from the 38th Surah of the Koran, translated into English.
20 people out of 300 million. Billions of emails to search through. How can the CIA and NSA learn enough to prevent the attack? There is really only one way: create a computer algorithm that will search through billions of emails, looking for that 39th Surah. But how to get ahold of those emails? According to Rich Conway and others here, it can't be done. The NSA would have to file a separate warrant and have a judge review it for every single email. Obviously, that's impossible. Oh well, says Rich and Saints and most of the rest of you guys; we can't do anything else. And when the attack happens and the Brooklyn Bridge is blown up, we just have to suffer through the consequences. Some of those consequences, BTW, will be a clampdown on civil liberties well beyond any current concerns about the NSA. I also share Yankee's fears about a drastic crackdown on illegal immigrants. Theres are things which is I really don't want to see.
So instead, I offer an alternative: the NSA goes to a judge (FISA) and says: "We really need these emails. We're not going to look through each one; Hell, how can we? There's billions of them. But we need them in order to run this algorithm search, Whichever emails come up with the 38th Surah, we'll come back and get separate, individual warrants for each one and for all emails sent by whoever the authors are. But for now, what we need is a mass, collective warrant for ALL of the emails."
Now according to Rich, this is no different from cops simply stopping people without cause and searching them- in other words, a violation of the 4th Amendment. If the judge signs off on this mass warrant, what's to keep him from signing off on a mass search of all Arab Americans living in Detroit, etc.? But I say there's a difference and that the courts should recognize the difference. To me, a better analogy is a policeman on the lookout for a car that was involved in a hit and run; a silver 2005 Chevy truck with the first three letters of license plate "ABD". The police who drive around town searching every silver Chevy truck to see if it matches the description serve the same purpose as the computer algorithm does; those police are not violating anyone's rights by searching for that truck, and the algorithm is not violating anyone's rights by searching for that Surah. Once the truck is spotted, the police then get a new warrant to search it. Once the email is spotted, the NSA gets a new warrant to search it. Again, nobody's 4th Amendment rights have been violated.
Now I want to repeat that what I have argued is the theory behind my defense of a mass, collective warrant for emails. In practice, there have been reports of the NSA not only collecting emails but holding on to those records indefinitely; of NSA employees possibly looking through individual emails for purposes that have nothing to do with algorithms or for fighting terror, of screwups and shenanigans and bad behavior. I have NO idea if any or all of these reports are accurate, and I'm certainly not going to defend them. I'm only defending the principle. I think the principle of a mass warrant in today's age for emails is a good one, and we may very well need it. Let's face it, the ultimate fear of our society should be a terrorist in a large city with some kind of nuclear bomb. If we can prevent that through good intelligence, then we should.
timschochet
Footballguy
Section. 10.
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
Sounds pretty much like they're not sovereign to me.
Now I have a question, and I know this is going to cause Yankee's head to explode, but I'll ask it anyhow- isn't the whole idea of states antiquated? Why do we even need them?
Let's suppose that we had county and city governments, and a large federal government, but no states. Senators were elected based on population centers. California would have 9 senators, Rhode Island would have none, North Dakota and South Dakota would have one combined, etc.) Would our society function much worse than it does now? It seems to me that the existence of states causes far more negative aspects than positive. Let me be quite frank as to what I mean: if the federal government wants evolution or global warming or gay rights or a creative way of learning math taught in each and every public school, I don't want the state of Texas able to refuse. Is that so unreasonable?
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
Sounds pretty much like they're not sovereign to me.
Now I have a question, and I know this is going to cause Yankee's head to explode, but I'll ask it anyhow- isn't the whole idea of states antiquated? Why do we even need them?
Let's suppose that we had county and city governments, and a large federal government, but no states. Senators were elected based on population centers. California would have 9 senators, Rhode Island would have none, North Dakota and South Dakota would have one combined, etc.) Would our society function much worse than it does now? It seems to me that the existence of states causes far more negative aspects than positive. Let me be quite frank as to what I mean: if the federal government wants evolution or global warming or gay rights or a creative way of learning math taught in each and every public school, I don't want the state of Texas able to refuse. Is that so unreasonable?
johnnycakes
Footballguy
I thought the whole idea of having 2 senators per state was to give some parity to population disparities. Why else would we need the senate?
timschochet
Footballguy
We need the Senate, IMO, because 6 years in office makes people more thoughtful and wise than 2 years does. At least in theory.
But as regard to population disparities, so what? Why should Hawaii have as much power in the US Senate as California or Texas does. I don't think that's fair. And no, the House shouldn't make up for it. We waste billions each year subsidizing a worthless fuel called ethanol because we have a state called Iowa and it gets to have the first caucus in each Presidential election. We have every Presidential candidate wasting their time making local promises in New Hampshire because it has the first primary. New Hampshire is a beautiful state and everyone I've met from there is super nice. But they and Iowa wield far too much influence. So does the South.
timschochet
Footballguy
In regard to Presidential elections, here is a modest proposal I would settle for: every four years, two years before each election cycle, have a national lottery with all 50 states entered equally. From that will come the order of states for the next primary season. It will be completely random. Some years California might be first. Some years Georgia. Some years North Dakota. And so on. Candidates will have plenty of time, 2 years, to plan where to spend their money and time. But enough of this Iowa and New Hampshire deciding who our nominees will be every damn time.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I think the one with the exploding head is you.
Now that you are reading the Constitution, actually reading it, do you see the federal government only exists at the behest of the People and the States?
Do you not see that? It's in ink, or I guess binary text.
timschochet
Footballguy
i understand what the law says. I'm asking here if it's such a good idea.
Or, we could have the primaries all on the same day. The logistics of that seem to work fine for the actual election.
timschochet
Footballguy
Problem with that is it would heavily favor whoever has the most money even more than now.
So many possible responses... I'll try a couple.
1. You're not understanding how your proposed search actually works in practice. In order to search through those billions of e-mails, the NSA would have had to collect them all in advance. That is, in order for your plan to work, the NSA would have to collect and store all e-mail ever, just in case it ever decided it needed to search through them. That is unreasonable search and seizure.
2. Imagine a scenario a decade in the future where the CIA informant instead says "The terrorists are building a dirty bomb and planning to set it off in the next two weeks. We know the attack is planned in or around Houston, and we know the terrorists are building it in a house with a basement, but we're not sure exactly where." The NSA comes up with a plan to send thousands of drones into every house within a hundred miles of Houston, looking for the basement and the dirty bomb. You'd be OK with that? I see it as identical.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
I was fully on board with the no states plan until my state decriminalized marijuana. Now I'm all about states rights.
timschochet
Footballguy
Rich, as to your first point, I agree. The NSA has to collect all the emails beforehand. So let them correct them. There's no way they can read them all.
As to your second point, really? Reading emails is the same as sending drones into every house? I'm not sure how you can make such an analogy; it seems absurd to me.
As to your second point, really? Reading emails is the same as sending drones into every house? I'm not sure how you can make such an analogy; it seems absurd to me.
Right, the NSA would have to collect all the data in advance. Obviously, this is a clear violation of the 4th. It's really not even debatable. The NSA would be seizing that data. And, as we already know, government cannot be trusted with this sort of data.
What makes collecting e-mail different than drones or stopping strangers randomly on the street? The fact that it's more technically feasible today? From a standpoint of citizens' right, there's no difference at all.
What makes collecting e-mail different than drones or stopping strangers randomly on the street? The fact that it's more technically feasible today? From a standpoint of citizens' right, there's no difference at all.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
You're really arguing with the success of our country vs. other models? The proof of how good the idea is has lasted for 2+ centuries now.
Personally I want nothing to do with Mississippi or Nevada politically for most things, I have enough trouble accepting North and Central Louisiana.
Last edited by a moderator:
As much as people hate the slippery slope arguement, it has to be brought up in this case. In the extreme case where NSA probing into emails could save thousands of lives, it seems rationale to justify an exception. But once the levy is breeched it will extend into investigation of mass murderers.....then into cop killers...then into other killers....then eventually into child support payments or other such stuff. There is no legally rationale place to draw the line that will stand the test of time.
timschochet
Footballguy
OK. We'll agree to disagree on the subject of mass collective warrants. It's an interesting debate though. I wish the Supreme Court would have it, but they seem reluctant to take it on.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Tim did you see this about the killings at the Paris kosher market?
The four victims were picked out and killed at the start because they were Jewish. And Jewish Parisians have a real growing concern about antisemitism from the growing muslim community.
I sense the news cycle is already moving on but I think this is every bit as scarey or important as what happened at Charlie Hebdo.
The four victims were picked out and killed at the start because they were Jewish. And Jewish Parisians have a real growing concern about antisemitism from the growing muslim community.
I sense the news cycle is already moving on but I think this is every bit as scarey or important as what happened at Charlie Hebdo.
Last edited by a moderator:
You keep classifying this in terms of "mass collective warrants", which misses the point entirely. You are arguing that the NSA should be able to collect all the e-mails, texts, etc. BEFORE they ever obtain this "mass warrant".
timschochet
Footballguy
im OK with retroactive warrants. I'm also OK with a mass warrant to collect emails ahead of a specific crisis. I don't regard emails in the same manner as private property. They're just not the same thing.
timschochet
Footballguy
Yes. I've read all about it. As terrible as everything that's bern happening in France has been, it pales next to what's been going on in Nigeria, where Muslim terrorists killed thousands the other day. But France got 99% of all the TV coverage.
Retroactive warrant again misses the point. You can't go back and collect and search something that no longer exists.
And a mass warrant allowing government to seize property before it has cause is ridiculous.
By far, though, the most ridiculous item in your post above is the bolded. It's beyond stupid. By that rationale, all digital data is public domain.
timschochet
Footballguy
This analysis is already wrong and out of date if Mitt Romney enters the race.
timschochet
Footballguy
in terms of the NSA trying to combat terrorism it effectively is. But I don't want to have this argument any more with you. I have great respect for your views on this which are the same as the ACLU and most libertarians I know, civil or otherwise. I know you don't respect my views, but that's not important. I disagree with you but I may yet be persuaded to your side over time. We'll see.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Tim, can you find a full text of Al-Sisi's speech?
http://www.barenakedislam.com/2015/01/02/the-lion-of-egypt-president-abdel-fattah-al-sisi-doubles-down-on-his-call-for-a-total-reformation-of-islam/
http://www.thecairopost.com/news/132144/news/al-azhar-responds-to-sisis-call-for-religious-revolution
All I can find are excerpts...
http://www.barenakedislam.com/2015/01/02/the-lion-of-egypt-president-abdel-fattah-al-sisi-doubles-down-on-his-call-for-a-total-reformation-of-islam/
http://www.thecairopost.com/news/132144/news/al-azhar-responds-to-sisis-call-for-religious-revolution
All I can find are excerpts...
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Thats all I could find too. The "Death to Israel!" And "America is the Great Satan" parts were edited out.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Are you kidding or serious about that last part? He studied and wrote a paper at a US army school.
Similar threads
