Warrantless Surveillance Info to Be Used in Terrorism Case

Earlier in the year, the Supreme Court threw out a challenge to the expansion of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act's (FISA) secret programs, with the nicely tail-eating explanation that because the targets of surveillance were kept classified, nobody actually has standing to challenge the law because they didn't know they were being targeted.

Times have certainly changed since then, and now we know, thanks to Edward Snowden, that the targets include just about everybody.

Now, the Justice Department has announced it will be using information from warrantless surveillance as evidence in a case against Jamshid Muhtorov, accused of providing support to an Islamic terrorist group that was active in Uzbekistan. He had been living in Aurora, Colo., and was arrested in Chicago in 2012. The case will now likely give an opportunity for an actual legal challenge to the federal surveillance programs that will likely go to the Supreme Court yet again.

From The Guardian:

In the Muhtorov case, the FBI obtained email communications from two accounts that Muhtorov used, according to the court papers. The FBI also obtained communications originating from Muhtorov's phone lines. In one call, Muhtorov told an associate that the Islamic Jihad Union said it needed support, an FBI agent said in an affidavit filed in the case. The associate warned Muhtorov to be careful about talking about a founder of group, the affidavit stated.

The FBI also said Muhtorov communicated with a contact with the group by email using code words, telling a contact that he was "ready for any task, even with the risk of dying".

Muhtorov and another man, Bakhtiyor Jumaev, are suspected of plotting a terrorist attack planned by the Islamic Jihad Union, an FBI agent said in an affidavit. The group first conducted attacks in 2004, targeting a bazaar and police, and killing 47 people. The organisation subsequently carried out suicide bombings of the US and Israeli embassies and the Uzbekistani prosecutor general's office in Tashkent, Uzbekistan.

Read the whole story here.

Follow this story and more at Reason 24/7.

Spice up your blog or Website with Reason 24/7 news and Reason articles. You can get the widgets here. If you have a story that would be of interest to Reason's readers please let us know by emailing the 24/7 crew at 24_7@reason.com, or tweet us stories at @reason247.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Irish||

    Has anyone read Matt Taibbi's ridiculous article about how Wall Street is 'stealing' money meant for pensioners? It's idiotic, but it's here if you want to delve into the heart of darkness.

    He seems to seriously think that the people managing union pensions are evil right wingers colluding with Wall Street, when in fact the unions are going into high risk hedge funds because the only way they can hope to make the funds solvent is to take a big gamble.

    Meghan McCardle has a pretty good take down of this stupidity.

    The difference between me and Taibbi is that I see public pension officials making bad decisions not because they’re deluded right-wing ideologues, but because they and their predecessors, and the legislators who made the pension laws, made a bunch of awful decisions that have left them with few good options. Plunging pension assets into hedge funds and similarly risky investments was a Hail Mary pass to save a failing system.

    That's pretty much it exactly.

  • Irish||

    And the comments seem to be completely reasonable and take Taibbi to task for his hack journalism:

    The real difference between you and Taibbi is that you're not interested in blaming bogeymen for the problem. I was going to say that if he could pin it on the Koch brothers he would, and oh! there it is - a smear by no-association.
    All of this is true except that most journalist pretend this is a bipartisan issue when in fact it's almost entirely the result of the Democratic vote buying machine. This was not an accident and was done quite precisely on purpose to win elections year after year. At the time they just hoped it would work out with high returns but winning the election took priority. All one need to do is look at the states/cities with the biggest debts and they have all been run as single party fiefdoms for a generation or longer(Chicago,Detroit,LA). So please all you so called journalist please begin the story by pointing out that this pension debacle is the direct result of progressive policies that have failed everywhere and it was only a matter of time until disaster arrived.

    This is refreshing.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Taibbi was one of those Hunter Thompson wannabes from the Exile, right?

    -jcr

  • Sunken Idaho||

    http://www.latimes.com/nation/.....z2iwQJyOMj

    "Libertarians have joined environmental groups in lobbying to allow government to use the little boxes to keep track of the miles you drive, and possibly where you drive them — then use the information to draw up a tax bill."

    Bullshit. I want names of said Libertarians.

  • Mike M.||

    Hate to break the news to you, but Reason supports this travesty. They even name a guy in there.

    Pretty sad indeed whenever an allegedly libertarian enterprise supports higher taxes, but I can't say I'm the least bit surprised.

  • Sunken Idaho||

    That's disappointing to hear. Here in Illinois we pay a high gas tax per gallon as well as the tollways that were supposed to "pay for themselves" after twenty years. Am I to believe that this corrupt state will do away with both of these burdens in lieu of the magical black box that Reason thinks will not be abused by anyone? I guess it's time for all-out Mad Max anarchism. I'm growing my mohawk now.

  • Irish||

    Am I to believe that this corrupt state will do away with both of these burdens in lieu of the magical black box that Reason thinks will not be abused by anyone?

    This is exactly it. In addition to privacy concerns with something like this, the idea that the state will 'switch' the gasoline tax for this kind of tax is ludicrous. They'll just use it in addition to the gas tax.

    How many taxes ever get flat out eliminated?

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    While I don't disagree, I'd be willing to bet Moore's statement was contingent upon the gas tax going away and eliminating privacy concerns.

    I would need to know the context before I'd believe that Reason is supporting this. A single quote out of context is hardly support. And since when did we start believing anything the media prints?

    Was there a Reason article supporting this or just that statement?

  • General Butt Naked||

    I found an article by Robert Poole for reasondotorg that advocates for a MBUF (mileage based user fees) that does not use intrusive blackbox technology.

    I can't find anything by Reasondotmag or Reasondotorg that pushes for the intrusive blackboxes. Granted, I didn't look too hard, so maybe Mike could provide a link.

    As for MBUFs, I don't know if it would be better than gas taxes. Sure, you're paying for usage, but depending on vehicle you may be paying an oversized fee proportiona to the wear and tear you place on the road. Should a 500lb motorbike pay the same as a 5000lb truck? The truck uses a proportional amount more fuel and therefore would pay its share for road wear.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    That's true, I suppose. A fuel efficient car now pays significantly less per mile with the gas tax. Going to a per/mile tax would disincentivize fuel efficiency so it's surprising the greens are for it.

    Of course that's assuming progs understand the concept...a stretch.

  • Ted S.||

    so it's surprising the greens are for it.

    They're addicted to government money.

    As a hypothetical, supposed everybody switched to electric cars (assuming there were enough of an electricity supply) and gas taxes dried up. What do you think the government class would do?

  • General Butt Naked||

    What do you think the government class would do?

    If you drive a car, I'll tax the street,
    If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat.
    If you get too cold I'll tax the heat,
    If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet.

    'Bout sums it up.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Leaving the privacy issues aside for the moment, how would it be a higher tax?

    People who use the roads the most would pay the most. It is more equitable than a gas tax, no?

  • John||

    It would. But the problem is that the privacy issues way out weigh the benefits of having a more perfect tax structure.

    This is a case of Libertarians committing the same fallacy security advocates commit when defending NSA spying. Sometimes the method is so loathsome and prone to abuse, it isn't worth doing even if it does give you your pony.

  • Jquip||

    So yeh, pedestrians being the only one that use crossing signals, we've installed a shoe tax to pay for them. And are discussing mandatory pedometer taxes for your use of crossing signals, walks, sidewalks, and anything else that's the State's soil.

    If it's important enough for the state to pay for and keep. Then a use tax cannot be justified.

  • ||

    Depends quite a bit on your driving situation. If you put 15k miles on your car in a year, but you commute between states or municipalities, who gets your "per mile" tax payments? Does your home state/municipality collect it all? What if the different jurisdictions have different rates? If I live in Connecticut and commute to New York which tax do I pay? Both, perhaps? How do they split it? How can they possibly know which state in which I drove which miles without severely invading my privacy?

    But maybe we're talking about only a federal tax? What if you live in an area where you literally never drive on the interstate? Why should I be paying taxes to maintain a highway system that I don't actually use? (inb4 "federal grants pay for all your local roads!"). Or maybe my federal mileage tax gets allocated among the states. We're back to the previous interstate commuting problem: who decides how to split up the loot? Based on what? If I live in Connecticut but do most of my driving in New York, does DC cut Connecticut or New York a check for my portion of the mileage tax? Do they split it? If so, again, how do they determine where I drove without violating my privacy?

    The best way to pay for ROADZ! is either a per-use tax (toll) or to fund them out of general revenue or through a special levy. There's no good way to implement a mileage tax at either the local, state, or federal level that doesn't involve a full-rectal-exam level of privacy invasion.

  • Ted S.||

    They want to be invited to the cocktail parties.

    [/sarcasm]

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Pretty much.

  • ||

    "They even name a guy in there."

    What guy?

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    "This is not just a tax going into a black hole," said Adrian Moore, vice president of policy at Reason. "People are paying more directly into what they are getting."
  • Contrarian P||

    Seems like this could be a quotation taken out of context. You could get something like this if you asked someone to describe what proposed legislation does. It certainly doesn't read like a statement of support.

  • Brett L||

    No, it just says: "The free marketeers at the Reason Foundation are also fond of having drivers pay per mile."

    Note also that the device featured (1)does not have GPS and (2)does not send data in real time. So I could see reason being in favor of a use-fee for privatized roads in place of a blanket gas tax that funds general revenue.

  • ||

    I see the reasoning behind it.

    Of course I can also see them going to the doc to get one of these black boxes removed from their colon.

  • John||

    But even by the mile is not perfect. The weight of your vehicle matters too. And who says actual wear and tear is the only way to judge how high your tax should be? Maybe people who derive the most revenue should pay more? There are a lot of ways to do it. Gas taxes are as good as any, unless electric cars become something anyone who had any brains would want to own.

  • PapayaSF||

    I have thought of taxing cars by their size. That way those annoying SUVs that you can't see over or past in traffic, and that take up more space in unmarked parking spaces, would pay more than I do.

  • playa manhattan||

    Does this mean that CA will repeal its $.39 per gallon gas tax?

  • AlmightyJB||

    Ha ha ha ha

  • Mike M.||

    I think that's what the cosmo dipshits expect us to believe would happen.

    Of course anyone who's stupid enough to believe something like that would believe absolutely anything.

  • Sevo||

    And the government would never track our travels with this technology.
    No, no, never!

  • AlmightyJB||

    Glenn Beck probably.

  • AlmightyJB||

    They're not listening to our conversations or reading our emails. They're just looking at metadata. So this article is obviously not true.

  • Mokers||

    OT: From Prostrel's twitter: http://www.mercurynews.com/nat.....fiery-test

    That great California exchange that certain people are saying is a great example of how the exchanges are done right? It turns out they haven't listed what hospitals or doctors you are eligible under the plan. And the guy overseeing the CA exchange is a true TOP MAN. Grandaddy started Palo Alto medical clinic and Uncle helped roll out medicare. Five weeks is not going to fix this mess.

  • Almanian!||

    So, what you're saying is that things were a lot better at Reason when Postrel was here, right?

  • Mokers||

    I'm hungover from a Halloween party, so still too early to DRINK! this morning.

  • General Butt Naked||

    For a drinking game called (t)Reason, you guys don't do a lot of drinking.

    That being said, does anyone have a link to the Reason drinking game rules? I used to have it bookmarked but it's not there anymore.

  • PapayaSF||

    Postrel should come back the Reason the way Jobs came back to Apple. Lead it to new heights, dominating the category of political websites and magazines.

  • Almanian!||

    ...and then die of some disease?

    Epic. I like it.

  • Ted S.||

    You mean California didn't pass a law saying that every hospital and doctor was subjected to this shit?

  • JidaKida||

    SOunds like some serious business to me dude.

    www.AnonBliss.tk

  • The Late P Brooks||

    He seems to seriously think that the people managing union pensions are evil right wingers colluding with Wall Street, when in fact the unions are going into high risk hedge funds because the only way they can hope to make the funds solvent is to take a big gamble.

    Did Taibbi happen to mention the abysmal rate of return on "safe" investments, like Treasuries?

  • John||

    That would require Taibbi having the IQ to think beyond the immediate effects of something. It would never occur to a nitwit like Taibbi to understand that the Fed printing money and holding interest rates effectively at zero would have any effects beyond stimulating the economy and making life great. Zero interest rates only help borrowers right?

  • John||

  • Almanian!||

    Sweet Jane baby Jesus. RIP, you rocker.

  • Brett L||

    I think this did it.

    Lou in his glory days.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Well... Shit.

  • Brett L||

    I don't know about y'all, but I think I'm going to do a memorial shot of heroin, 'til I'm searching for my mainline and I couldn't hit sideways.

  • Ted S.||

    Gah, Rolling Stone is just as bad about freezing up the browser as H&R. :-(

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Also, speaking of pensions...

    Up here, people talk a lot about the Montana Power buyout. I could research the relevant facts, but there is no point. It has taken on the stature of a Brothers Grimm Tale, complete with ogres, witches, children baked into pies, and poor old grannies devoured in their beds by ravenous wolves venture capitalists. A main feature of this sorrowful tale is the loss of pensions by teh Noble Working Man.

    For all I know, there may have been a completely straightforward buyout of pension obligations at net present value; or those pensions may have completely vanished into thin air. But everyone agrees, those poor bastards don't get a check from the Montana Power Employee Pension Fund each month, and that's bad.

    What I can also tell you is this: never once has anybody suggested those employees would have been better off if they had received their full compensation up front in cash, and invested it themselves for their retirement, thereby reserving ultimate ownership and control to themselves.

  • John||

    The other thing that never gets mentioned is the total irresponsibility of the Union. The unions are supposed to work is that they look out for the long term interests of the workers. That means that when they negotiate they don't just loot the employer. They figure out what is sustainable. Getting your members a pension that is going to bankrupt their employer is not looking out for their best interests. But the unions didn't give a shit. They just wanted to claim to be heroes right then. If the pensions were never paid, that would be after they were long retired.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    So Scott, is Jamshid Muhtorov a US citizen?

    Does the Constitution apply to non-citizens? Does the Constitution apply to non US citizens living in the US? Is this settled law? I honestly have no idea.

  • Kid Xenocles||

    The way I read the Constitution, it applies to all people within the jurisdiction of the United States.

    One applicable policy, EO 12333 makes reference to "US persons," which includes resident aliens and some others, as opposed to US citizens, which obviously does not.

  • Kid Xenocles||

    Re my reading of the Constitution: this is because the document applies to the government, not the people.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    Article I of the Constitution explicitly authorizes Congress to issue letters of marque.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    Eh, that was a reply to you below

  • Kid Xenocles||

    It also, as you noted, prohibits bills of attainder. I guess the question is where do they overlap?

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    Letters of marque were historically issued during times of war.

    In effect, they simply deputized private vessels to become auxiliary ships of the Navy, authorized to attack enemy ships.

    They were suppose to follow all the rules of war and bring all prizes back to port for processing.

  • Kid Xenocles||

    Yeah, see below.

  • John||

    It applies to everyone within US territory. So a noncitizen who is arrested for crimes in US territory gets the same rights as a US citizen.

    US citizens get the protection, from US government actions at least, no matter where they are. Non citizens only get it when they are within US territory.

  • Contrarian P||

    Unless of course, one is an "enemy combatant", which means the gloves are off.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    To answer my own question...

    Pages 6-8.

    Constitution applies to all subject to US legal obligations.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    Transphobia: Roald Dahl's 'Matilda'

    With a spoonful of sugar comes a transphobic message about the dangers of straying from traditional gender roles, a conservative parable about the “right” and the “wrong” kinds of women.
    [...]
    This athleticism is a further expression of Trunchbull’s gender identity. We know her by last name only, like a boy on a sports team. Her sport, too, is gender “inappropriate.” Carvel told reporters that hammer-throwing is called “the ballet of the big man.

    Her name in itself evokes masculine rage. “Trunch” (meaning small post) is a phallic reference and “bull” an emblem of unrestrained male aggression.

    Dahl arranges the perfect foil for Trunchbull in Miss Honey. Honey is a paragon of femininity: demure, motherly, gentle, but most importantly, slender and beautiful “like a porcelain figure.” Throughout the book, her calm subordination and womanly weakness stand in stark contrast to the Trunchbull’s hot-headed masculine dominance: “Miss Honey stood there helpless before this great red-necked giant.” Honey not only exemplifies proper humility but also proper impotence; she is a damsel in distress. Trunchbull takes charge and charges forward; Honey appropriately waits for others to solve her problems.

    Marvel at how much gender study's major contribute to society.

  • PapayaSF||

    No doubt there are already politically-correct, trans-friendly children's stories being forced on children across the country.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I would need to know the context before I'd believe that Reason is supporting this. A single quote out of context is hardly support.

    COSMOTARIUNZ

    Duh.

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    Stupid.

    Sebastian Vettel reprimanded by Indian GP stewards for title-celebrating 'doughnuts'

  • Almanian!||

    F1 is the biggest puss fest since...F1.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Does the Constitution apply to non-citizens?

    I thought the Constitution applied to the United States Government.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    The Fourth Amendment refers to the rights of the "People" while the Fifth states that no "Person" shall be deprived of life, liberty, and property without due process of law.

    Neither of those phrases imply that they only apply to US citizens.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    So war is illegal then?

  • Kid Xenocles||

    War is an enumerated power of the Congress, so you could make the case that its exercise constitutes due process - though the details certainly matter.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    I've made this argument before. Declaration of war constitutes due process for those the war is declared against.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    Indeed. Congress can declare war and even back then there were widely recognized rules of war that civilized nations would adhere to.

    What Congress cannot do is pass Bills of Attainder declaring a person or group of persons guilty of a crime and authorizing their summary execution. So due process does apply to everyone.

  • Kid Xenocles||

    That's an interesting point. How does Ron Paul's proposal to issue letters of marque against al-Qaeda members square with that prohibition?

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    Article I explicitly authorizes Congress with the power to issue letters of marque.

    In any case, letters of marque were very specific in who the holder was authorized to attack and in what waters therein, as well as in some cases giving a time limit. There are examples in English history of privateers being tried for piracy for exceeding their legal authority to attack ships.

  • Kid Xenocles||

    (Occasionally those pirates were railroaded, too - I recall reading that Captain Kidd's prosecutor had a copy of his letters of marque in his desk as he was prosecuting him for operating without license.)

    I could see it working legally, like if we just hired people to hunt al-Qaeda guys and fed them intelligence. I could also see issuing a bounty for the head of bin Laden being an illegal bill of attainder, though I could also see an order to kill him being a legitimate act of war. In the end I guess you're bound to wind up with the expedient answer in these grey areas.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Thanks for correcting me Brooksie, I worded that poorly.

    Do the limitations on government in the Constitution extend to other than US citizens?

  • Kid Xenocles||

    I think what we're closing on is that some do, some don't, and the difference is that some powers naturally apply only to non-citizens (like war).

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Sebastian Vettel reprimanded by Indian GP stewards for title-celebrating 'doughnuts'

    Thanks for the spoiler, asshole.

    Were they pissed about the tire smoke? I watched part of Friday practice, and it was so fucking smoggy you could barely see the length of the front straight. A little tyre smoke won't make much diff.

  • John||

    Doesn't Vettel and Red Bull pretty much win every race?

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    I thought it was a given.

    There was no mention of smoke on the BBC feed.
    I always thought a curry-scented haze was the norm in India.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Neither of those phrases imply that they only apply to US citizens.

    I don't think the Founders suffered from the sort of fetishization of citizenship now in vogue.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Weird- I just saw the Playstation (I think) ad using "Perfect Day" by Lou Reed this morning.

  • ||

    R.I.P. Lou. You earned it.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hu6z4h2VYb4

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -Earlier in the year, the Supreme Court threw out a challenge to the expansion of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act's (FISA) secret programs, with the nicely tail-eating explanation that because the targets of surveillance were kept classified, nobody actually has standing to challenge the law because they didn't know they were being targeted.

    We focused on that case in my Con Law course. The opinion, written by Alito and joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas was slavishly deferential to and trusting of the government. The dissent, written by Breyer and joined by Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Kagan was quite good, with a healthy a priori distrust of government action that was quite warming to my libertarian heart. It goes to show that, contrary to what some folks here say, even strong 'progressives' (if Breyer is not a progressive then I do not know who is) can, on certain occasions, be allies for libertarians (and against conservatives at times).

  • PapayaSF||

    on certain occasions

    The cynical side of me says: "Sure, progressives are all for limiting government when it comes to its traditional powers of national defense, just not in any other area."

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Monitoring the calls of our own citizens is a 'traditional power of national defense?'

  • PapayaSF||

    Protecting the country from attack certainly is.

  • ||

    Hmmm. Finally, the mask is fully off. No more pretending.

    http://theconversation.com/lea.....sity-19484

    "The impacts of fossil fuel extraction fall into three main categories: the direct impact of extraction activity, indirect impacts of infrastructure development and expanded human activity, and the consequences of extraction disasters. "

    In a nutshell, human happiness and success is evil so it must be thwarted.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Suthen, can you tease out how you got 'human happiness and success is evil so it must be thwarted' from that quote? I do not see it.

  • ||

    *Sigh*

    Bo, it is right there in black and white, no teasing required. Expanded human activity enabled by fossil fuel consumption. They also include road construction as a particularly heinous act.

    Driving your child to a hospital in the middle of the night would be expanded human activity.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    As I said, they are not talking about all human activity, just human activity tied to (that is why the 'and' is there) an infrastructure based on fossil fuel consumption.

    What that passage is saying is 'fossil fuel extraction has three impacts: the impact of extracting it (things like 'cutting down the rain forest'), the indirect impact of enabling or fostering an infrastructure and the human activity it fosters, and extraction disasters (things like the BP spill).

    I am no fan of coercive environmentalists, but I am not willing to stretch to a misreading to cast their words in the worst light possible.

  • ||

    Try again.

    Consider what human activity we would be engaging in, and the state of our development if we had no fossil fuel, never had any. They are advocating abandoning fossil fuel altogether.

    I did not misread anything. Fuck those evil bastards.

  • Metazoan||

    Yeah, sorry Bo. I understand that you are correct in a very literal reading devoid of context: they just don't like the expanded fossil-fuel infrastructure. But as Suthenboy explains, in the context of reality, that means they don't like the infrastructure that allows most of humanity to survive and prosper. They would gladly suppress human happiness to protect the environment.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    They would gladly suppress human happiness to protect the environment.

    FIFY

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    If you are going to note context at least note the context of what the anti-fossil fuel crowd says generally. They do not think that fossil fuel infrastructure is necessary to human happiness. They think it has expanded to the extent it has because of government subsidy and other artificial reasons. They think people should live in more dense cities using more mass transit and such. They think people could be quite happy in those circumstances.

    Maybe they are wrong. They are certainly wrong to use coercion to force their utopia on us. But it is silly demonization to say they hate humans and human activity per se.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Yeah, they just hate human activity that doesn't meat there narrow definition of acceptable.

    That's so much better.

  • ||

    "But it is silly demonization to say they hate humans and human activity per se."

    If by silly demonization you mean an accurate description then I suppose I will have to agree with you.

    David Attenborough's recent description of humanity should tell you all you need to know about these fuckers. There is a plethora of these greenie fuckers slipping up and admitting they hate humanity, want it gone etc.

    Are you the new turd polisher around here Bo? I think you are. Why dont you just shitcan that.

  • John||

    Notice how human activities is just assumed to be an evil to be prevented. It is not happiness they hate. It is human beings in general.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    - indirect impacts of infrastructure development and expanded human activity

    Certainly that 'and' could have some linking properties, meaning they are only referring to the type of human activities connected to (enabled by? fostered by?) the development of infrastructure tied to fossil fuel use, right?

  • John||

    No. The two are linked because infrastructure development causes expanded human activity and that is a bad thing.

    You no doubt will want to start a five hundred post thread splitting hairs and arguing semantics here. But regardless of how hard you reach for a different meaning here, the context and the general anti-human attitude of the Green movement makes those interpretations just that, a reach.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    It is not splitting hairs. Most anti-fossil fuel types talk about 'urban sprawl' connected to our fossil fuel influenced infrastructure. Especially in that context the most natural reading of that is mine. I realize you want to read it in a way that demonizes those you disagree with as humanity-hating Stalinists, but I am not willing to torture the language and context to get that good feeling with you.

  • General Butt Naked||

    You no doubt will want to start a five hundred post thread splitting hairs and arguing semantics here.

    I think your being unfair here, John. Bo told me that he doesn't have any time for anything outside of his studies; therefore he obviously wouldn't want to argue minutia on Reason all day.

    He wants to grow up to be a lawyer like you. You should be mentoring him instead of hectoring him.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Never has a joke been taken so seriously, and so far, as that comment of mine has been taken by you General. Obsess much?

  • ||

    How long have you been hanging around here Bo? You will find that any stupid you exude will follow you around for a long time. We still make jokes about trolls that evaporated years ago.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    It was not stupid. General asked me why I did not learn some computer program and I made a self-depredating joke about how I was too busy to learn something useful because I had to attend to my law school studies. Not only did he not get it, but seemed to be obsessed about it. It is bizarre, frankly.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Geeze bo, you've made more posts about your "joke" than I.

    Did you guys ever notice that the "just asking questions" and then argue over semantics/minutia for hours types share the unfortunate character trait of an inflated sense of self-importance?

    Sorry bo, but the extent that I obsess over your comments is merely confined to the minor annoyance I feel when I have to scroll past your innumerable nitpicking posts to an interesting comment.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I have never brought it up other than in instances where you have first, and not even every time you have done so, so stop trying to paper over your embarrassment at being called out on it.

  • ||

    I have never brought it up other than in instances where you have first

    So you are defensive as well as paranoid. Great combo.

  • sarcasmic||

    In a nutshell, human happiness and success is evil so it must be thwarted.

    Puritans come in all shapes and sizes.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Dead cop's family ambushes Rand Paul.

    Wants to know what he's gonna do to help them.

    On one hand, it's a tragedy for kids to lose their father, and on the other why should a police officer's kids get any special treatment? If the dad had been a cab driver (a pretty dangerous occupation that serves the public) would his family grilling Paul over their hardship make the news? Also, the guy was supposedly a drug task force member, so in a just world he wouldn't have had his job anyways.

  • Ted S.||

    Don't read the comments. :-(

  • General Butt Naked||

    Jesus.

    Couldn't help it. Goddamn.

    Fucking people think that every person in america should have the names of fallen heroes memorized and on our lips at all times. Shame on all of us.

  • Calidissident||

    I feel bad for the family, but what exactly is Rand Paul supposed to do in this situation?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Dead cop's family ambushes Rand Paul.

    Wants to know what he's gonna do to help them.

    WTF? It's not like cops have shitty pension and death benefits.

    Fuck them.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Don't read the comments. :-(

    I hardly ever read comments except here. More often than not, I get a "Your browser is not supported" message.

    [insert sad face]

  • General Butt Naked||

    Basically, all the comments are saying that the full clip shows Paul not knowing who this officer was and that as a "something to an officer" they find this shameful. Remember, there's no double standard, P.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Touching pregnant ladies' tummies now illegal in Pennsylvania

    They'll definitely need to hire more cops now.

  • Kid Xenocles||

    It certainly shouldn't need the involvement of the state, but I do have to say that I never understood the idea that some people have that it's okay to touch strangers.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    If I were a pregnant chick and someone touched my belly I'd grab their balls or squeeze their tit and ask em it they thought that was okay.

  • Kid Xenocles||

    It's apparently a thing with black people's hair, too. I don't get it. Keep your hands to yourself or suffer some wrath.

  • ||

    Black people's hair? Never heard about that one.

  • Kid Xenocles||

    I have not experience with this either way, so this is submitted without comment.

  • Brett L||

    In China, maybe.

  • ||

    I would pay money to see that. However, dont chide them, just play along.

    "Awwww! When are you due?" *rubs pregnant belly*

    *grabs guys nuts and squeezes/ big smile* "Early january. A new years baby!"

  • Metazoan||

    Isn't it already illegal to harass someone? I'm confused...

  • The Late P Brooks||

    F1 is the biggest puss fest since...F1.

    I believe you're forgetting that other "open wheel" series, the IndyClownCar World series.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement