In other words, the ACLU does not believe in the right to keep and bear arms. What was your point?

Learning is an essential part of reading. Failing to comprehend, or worse, guessing at a meaning and guessing wrong, does yourself a disservice. Story? Who even said we're reading fiction?

Not Eliza -- more like PARRY:

The Feds' insistence on sweeping up all the innocent-communication "noise" is drowning out the signals. (e.g. "Hey, you might want to keep an eye on those Tsarnaev brothers -- see attached description of the stuff they were doing while they were still here in Russia.")

Indeed. This proves beyond any sane doubt that the targets are not foreigners (who for obvious reasons would ignore any "legal framework" and avoid using defective-by-design NSA-approved encryption). The targets are domestic.

And yet that is precisely what the government is pissing and moaning and setting its hair on fire about. Showing that sort of contempt for citizens' private prerogatives is what caused them to forfeit our trust in the first place.

Actually, "both of the above" (foolish and malicious) fits the available evidence best. For instance, Rogers' answers at Monday's cybersecurity forum were both pathetically lame (foolish) and contemptuous of American values (malicious).

And their fruits are rotten and infested with vermin.

You act as if the Geneva conventions are a black and white issue, but the people fighting our troops are not soldiers of any UN recognized state-- or recognized by any individual state, for that matter. Also, the rules apply to any signatory nation, even when in conflict with a non-signatory, but only if the latter agrees to accept and apply the conventions. I'd say hacking off the heads of nearly every civilian and POW that comes into their hands as an implicit non-acceptance, and definite non-application. Thus, it's difficult to apply all the rules. I also need to point out if they indeed are soldiers, then the act of putting them in Gitmo itself is, as a POW camp, perfectly legal. Alleged torture is, of course, not.

Stern Electronics' Berkerk comes to mind.

CHICKEN FIGHT LIKE A ROBOT

Are we completely ignoring the fact that the Pakistan government has encouraged Islamism in its territory since Prime Minister Bhutto in the 1970s? It's America's fault now?

What does the word 'Pakistan' mean?

Oh, oh, I've seen this one before!

At this point, as US citizen, I'm much more concerned about what the US government does both abroad and at home (including stuff like supporting a repressive Saudi Arabia, other actions abroad that make terrorist blowback more likely, domestic cage-like "free speech zones", domestic rulings saying border patrols can operate in a constitution-ignoring way up to 100 miles inland, etc.)

You right-wing fuckbags are always calling for less government. Guess what? Nobody fucking cares about your precious constitution. Your opposition to Obama is just racism. America is going to change and you're not going to like it one bit. Get used to it.

Buddhist converts. Like Steve Jobs. Did you marry an Asian woman? So typical.

That's not true at all, I have read on these very pages how all religion is utterly and irredeemably evil and must be destroyed. Now we're making exceptions?

PS if you think Buddhists are innocent of bombing, you really need to pick up a history book. Beheading, too.