My favorite line apparently ascribed to Churchill: If you are going through hell, keep going.

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile - hoping it will eat him last."

"One ought never to turn one's back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half."

---Sir Winston Churchill

Well I'm glad to say that I did the correct exercise this morning, though through luck rather than by design.

WORD

Crossfit ROCKS!! Although I'm still a newbie, my energy levels are increased. This really means alot to me, my 7yr old son, and his 4yr old brother on our visitation weekends. After putting in a 75+ week, I wasn't lagging as much and got to spend more quality time with him and his brother. Thanks everyone!

I'd probably been speaking German if Churchill had not been such a pain in the neck. The right man at the right time.

Don't think Winston Churchill and Martin Luther King Jr. would of hit it off if they meet in person. Do you?

"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." --Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

dave

" The art of war is of vital importance to the State. It is a matter of life and death, a road to either safety or ruin. Hence, it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglegted."

Sun Tzu -- The Art of War

Listening to Churchill's speech and reflecting on current events and Mark Steyn's editorial in the WSJ (010406) linked in an earlier thread, it really drives home the points that (1) history repeats itself, and (2) it is really amazing - and frightening - how much things can change in one generation. Thiry years ago nobody would have seriously considered an article that contemplated the demise of Europe, yet in retrospect, an evil tyrant almost brought it about in the 30's and 40's, and now, once again, similar concerns seem more real(or at least possible) than fantasy. The question remains, do we sit and watch what happens, do we scratch our heads after things are done and wonder what happened, or do we do something, and if so, what? As Burke so aptly noted, all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. For all the "good men" in the US Armed Forces fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, my sincere thanks goes out to you because you are not doing nothing. God Speed.

MikeM, Well done!

What do we do? We stand by those who have stood by us.

1. Crossfit unites - politics divides
2. It's all about the economy, stupid.
3. Terrorism feeds on dictatorship.
4. Native american indians were terrorists once.
5. If America was a dictatorship would you join the resistance?

"Just because our good men are in Iraq, doesn't mean they're there for the right reasons"; there just following orders from politicians.

You can weed your garden, but it will grow back because there's a feeding ground for it.
Just like the "war on drugs", did we win that or are we still fighting?

A Churchill martini: pour the gin and glare across the room at a bottle of vermouth.

Right through the 1930s, Churchill warned about Hitler & Nazi Germany and the demonic effects of the Versailles betrayal on both. He was dissed as only the British can diss an unwelcome opinion.

While the rest of the world ignored him and slid toward disaster, Churchill marshalled his facts, his arguments, and his matchless eloquence, and wouldn't shut up.

There is no more epic case in the last 100 years of organizational failure to learn -- by the British and French governments -- and of one catalyst being precisely right in his predictions .. . and ready to act on his knowledge when the crisis came.

First date with Linda
BW 200
used 100lb duffle bag for cleans

38:56

august k, what's your point?

Great quote by Einstein.

august k,

Is your point that we should do absolutely nothing to protect our country and the evil will just go away? ostrich technique i see.

(Prepares popcorn for the upcoming show)

-D.

RANT ON!
IMHO:
The bottom line in today's world is as a society we want all the creature comforts that our system offers and the freedoms our country provides to pursue and enjoy these things, but are not willing to either a)see the political, military and econimical workings that are necessary make these comforts available, or b) embrace these workings as necessary. We don't live in a vaccum. Accept the system as it stands, or come up with a solution(choose your topic energy, environment, politics) and act. Churchill acted, and the rest is history.

RANT OFF!

my lower back is in shock today. that simple couplet WOD has turn my lower back to mush. it's tighter than Churchill's grip on freedom.

dave #8, Tbird #17

Einstein was a physicist – a brilliant one.

He was also a political idiot – tragically so.

The professor gave a very public and warm embrace to the Soviets, the NY Yankees of mass-murder.

After a running debate with Sidney Hook that went on for years, Dr. Einstein became convinced that he was a political naiveté and promised to never publicly discuss politics again. For an account read “My Running Debate with Einstein”, by Sidney Hook, Commentary Magazine, July ’82.

Finally, the quote you offer is dramatic evidence of Einstein’s limited capacity with politics. It is, at once, absurd, foolish, and false – however catchy and cute.

august k #12

1. When you remove everything that doesn’t matter what is left is politics.
2. Freedom is a prerequisite for Capitalism, the only one of the political “isms” that occurs naturally and spontaneously, and while man-made is designed by no man (or men) and unique among institutions in its capacity to dramatically improve the lot of man.
3. Terrorism arises from dictatorship and feeds on the free.
4. I’m not touching this one.
5. Most of us clearly recognize the process that brings a country to dictatorship and fight that process daily. That is what is going on here.

As for, “There (sic) just following orders from politicians”

The soldiers I know are less likely to follow politicians down the path to evil and ruin than the civilians in my town. The soldiers that post here, all the ones I know, are better read, better educated, and politically and economically more savvy than the civilians among us.

My mom came back today for her second CF workout, to "get some again".

1 round CFWU
6 pushups from knees, 6 body rows, 6 OHS w/ dowel, 6 decline situps, 6 good mornings w/ 24# KB

7-5-3 rounds of:
10# OHS
10# DBs Military Press

15" of legs-supported tuck sit on parallettes

English lady to Churchill: "Sir, if you were my husband, I would be tempted to poison your drink!" Churchill: Madam, if you were my wife, I would be tempted to drink it!"

Coach,

Where else could one turn for this kind of dialogue? Thanks for doing what you do. The world needs more free radicals like you folk.

A Proud Capitalist Gangster

I was taught to memorize the below passage as a child by my grandfather who had several family members serve in WW II.

"Put your confidence in us. Give us your faith and your blessing and under Providence all will be well. We shall not fail or falter; we shall not weaken or tire. Neither the sudden shock of battle nor the long-drawn trials of vigilance and exertion will wear us down. Give us the tools and we will finish the job."

- Winston Churchill (February 9, 1941)

Let us all never forget that we have dedicated men and women in the military/gov't service risking their lives everyday around the world to keep us safe in the Global War on Terrorism. I encourage you to take a moment each day to quietly say thank you for their sacrifices.

Let me add this...historians will look back and ask how did America answer the call to arms post 9/11. Our initial reaction was just and forceful and yet our mission has been diluted by political infighting. The enemy is emboldened by our internal bickering and will work to harness it for their own benefit. I'm no war monger and have lost many friends in far away lands. However, let's not have their sacrifice be in vain.

Some Americans forget we are still very much on a war footing. Just ask those serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. Our political pundits complain about the preservation of civil rights on the heals of the eavesdropping leak and some of the controversial methods we use to pursue terrorists. My view is that if you have nothing to hide it should not bother you who is listening. I also believe the framers of our Constitution would agree, especially in light of the extraordinary times in which we now live.

Lastly, ALWAYS remember terrorists and those that mean this country harm have no rules by which to govern their actions. I was once told by a good friend..."terrorists only have to get it right once to be successful...we have to be right every time to stop them."

Bottom line, stay in the fight and keep training. Train to survive, train to win.

As someone said above RANT OFF!!!

"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." --Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

While this may be true, it is naive to assume that the best course of action is to always prevent war. It is a folly to believe that Peace is the abscence of War. If you are a believer in this theory, then you believe that the many hundreds of millions of souls that perished under the iron fist of communism over the past century were living in peace. There are about 2 million dead Cambodians that would probably take issue with that point of view.

War is a horrible and nasty thing. Unfortunately, it is sometimes necessary. Any true definition of Peace must include freedom.

Coach,
Guys at the team have been using crossfit with fantastic results, I just started Jan1 and it is a true kick in the ass; especially with full gear load out. The "real world" application for this program is awesome, thanks for making us fitter warriors.
To all the positive posts about the direction our country is taking, thank you. It kills us sometimes when you have this political bulls%#! and the idiots who blindly follow; don't let the sacrifices of our families and fallen comrades be in vain...and even greater the families of the fallen Americans of 9/11.
Do not forget that we are at war, these terrorists are like roaches...we have to keep stomping them out, the minute we stop is the minute they hit us again. You can hate the war, or the politicians, but please do not hate the warrior.

To Steve, #7

I think WSC and MLK would have absolutely loved each other. They were both great speakers, great leaders, and they both thought & acted with a great sense of history, well beyond the momentary flows of opinion that direct most politicians. They also had their individual weaknesses, womanizing for King, perhaps alcohol for Churchill. King, like Churchill (whose mother was American) was very much a believer in the American Dream, restating it for our times in his classic "I Have A Dream" speech. That speech, together with the Declaration of Independence & The Gettysburg Address is one of the three great declarations of the idea which is America, the most powerful idea for freedom in history, that all men are created equal and deserve freedom. It was this idea that brought down the Berlin wall, that broke up the Soviet Union, that gathered the protestors in Tiannemen Square as they read aloud from the Declaration of Indepedence. The same ideas and thoughts that Churchill is talking about in his speech as frightening the mightiest potentates. The same ideas with which the evil forces arrayed against us now will be defeated if we only possess the will to see the struggle through to the end and recognize that we are not just in a struggle of arms, but more importantly, we are in a struggle of ideas.

To August K, #12

The "Easter Bunny" philosophy of foreign policy, as pursued by the likes of well intentioned idiots such as Neville Chamberlin and Jimmy Carter--that if we are nice to the bad guys, they will be nice to us--has been proven disasterously wrong throughout history. Yet it remains as the guiding light of foreign policy, Why?

"Arms are not sufficient by themselves. We must add to them, the power of ideas" --Winston Churchill

IMHO, the above statement is where we are currently off track. Too much importance placed on arms and not enough placed on ideas.

I'm all about ideas; however, our current enemy does not understand ideas, particularly those presented by us. They have their own views and are supremely unwilling to deviate from their mission. Terrorists and/or extremists of various flavors understand two things - force (usually armed conflict) and financial remuneration. Ideology often carries the day and even well-minded diplomats and think tanks hit a brick wall when trying to encourage terrorists to think like we do. They want an endstate that we cannot accept and the GWOT is rapidly becoming a war of attrition. I realize this is not only a bleak and albeit unpopular outlook; however, it's becoming alarmingly more likely...

Brian Mc.,

Right on..

And to all...The real issue is not the corollaries that are being debated, but the core ideologies or worldviews from which they stem. Terrorists are terrorists with a purpose, and not a geo-political one, instead it is a "religious" or war on opposing worldviews. To see history apart from this light is to blind ourselves to truth. If a man's heart is wicked, it doesn't matter if he has a gun, a fork, an airplane or his bare hands, he will bring his ideological heart convictions to bear on humanity. Much more can and should be said, but if you think legislation can solve the problem, think again, it just drives the problems underground.

Here are some of my favorite Churchill quotes:

“When you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.”

“Courage is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm.”

“Continuous effort - not strength or intelligence - is the key to unlocking our potential”

“We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle”

wilk, law, dan mcd

My point is to change the underlaying causes of terrorism, because it's a war you can't win as long as there's a feeding ground for it. Europe has had terrorism for decades (IRA,ETA,RAF)that has subsided because of changes in the underlying causes through generations, not by a defeating army.

You can squat mosquitos all you want but as long as there are swamps they'll keep coming back.
The biggest swamp is in Pakistan, but that would mean nuclear war; Iraq wasn't a swamp but is one now. So tell me, when will this war ever be won?
The same for drugs...

Coach,

Let's just say we differ on politics, but i sure dig you on Crossfit ;-)

Eric (#27)

I fear I must disagree about the framers of our Constitution not objecting to the suspension of our civil liberties to eavesdrop on 'suspected' terrorists. Though the framers of the Constitution did not have communications like the telephone or cell phones, I believe the framers recognized that the ability to speak freely is necessary for a free society to succeed. Each of us have things to say that we want only our friends or a limited audience to hear. Once the government has the power to freely listen to private conversations, it is the tiniest of steps to go from threat to the physical safety and well being of the country to quelling any dissent or dissatisfaction.

Those who would live freely must be ever vigilant that their freedoms are not taken in the name of security. The right to freely associate and discuss controversial subjects (even over the telephone) is part of the process through which free peoples reach a decision of what is in their collective best interests. While I support our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, I will defend to the death your right to disagree. But I hear politicians in Washington (and even some posts here) saying that disagreement with the policies of the politicians is tantamount to aiding and abetting the enemy. When we are subject to unmonitored eavesdropping, how great of step is it using the results of that eavesdropping to punish or even prosecute those who disagree or criticize?

"Those who trade freedom for security deserve neither" Benjamin Franklin

And history shows that those who have made that trade soon have neither. And once lost, freedoms are seldom regained except through blood and sacrifice by those who value them.

My personal opinion is that if we are selling the ideas of freedom and democracy, we have a duty to hold our practices of those ideas in the brightest light possible and to erase the blemishes as they appear. If the eavesdropping were necessary and above-board, then why was it done in secret. Terrorists and enemies of this country know that the ability exists and are probably so paranoid that the only persons caught are the 'amateurs' and wannabees who would be caught by following the law and asking for a warrant. Let us hold our government to the same standards of law as they hold us.

The appeasers I have met and read about are those who have personal peace as their number 1 priority( without any real convictions ): it hasn't worked in history, it doesn't work today, and will not work in the future.

From #27,
"My view is that if you have nothing to hide it should not bother you who is listening. I also believe the framers of our Constitution would agree, especially in light of the extraordinary times in which we now live."

I really have to take exception with this. The founders of the US expressly added Amendment 4 in the Bill of Rights because they did _not_ agree with the idea that if you have nothing to hide it shouldn't matter. This is very important to the concept of liberty, and it's in extraordinary times like these when we absolutely have to protect our civil liberties.

Let us "unlink" Iraq from the op-ed,partisan,politically-coined "WOT"(temporarily).

THIS "WOT" had been waged long before 9/11.

Calculations change with new data and the passing of time. I initially did not agree with the Iraq invasion(troop numbers and the proposed nation-building strategies seemed...lacking,imo)

Mixed-motives,AS ALWAYS,are present in matters of the state. Oil and democracy and freedom....list whatever you want.

Instead,let us re-frame the question:

Better to win or lose in Iraq?

Better to win,regardless of previously tabled motives(some right,some wrong).

jmo.

Gee, I was hoping "We Must Arm" was something on limb hypertrophy.

Coach, you're spot on. What's more, Rest days are even more fun than I had anticipated.

Ted Rup (#36): WORD.

August K. (#16)

Regarding comments

#2. It is NOT about the economy--it is about freedom and responsibility. America is about so much more than the economy, and cannot be simply reduced to its markets or a series of financial transactions. The economy IS important, but it is not the end all and be all of American life.

#4. terrorist |ˈterərist| noun a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims.

I sincerely doubt the American Indians (then) had a political agenda as we would define it.

Issues(and there are many) regarding the prosecution of the war...can't toss accountability out the window,either.

Do that,and you have lost whatever you value,imo.

Ted, ditto on going around the FISA court. Just no need - the mechanism was in place for King George already and he still went around it (the FISA court has only ever rejected a warrant request in a handful of cases).

August - Dude, do you even know what you're saying? "Like the war on drugs, like the war on drugs..." I mean, c'mon, surely you can do better than that as a form of argument?
Here's the issue you're missing, fundamentalist islam (and really islam itself) posits only one possible world order - a muslim caliphate under which all people live. Non-believers may live in peace if they (a) accept the authority of the caliph, (b) pay the necessary tithe/tax, (c) do not seek to spread their religion, and (d) allow any member of their own faith to become a muslim without interference. Under other parts of the quran, they may be sacked and slaughtered at will and there is no punishment for a muslim male as the life of a non-muslim is not equal to a muslim's (a muslim woman's is equal to one-half, thus the requirement for two witnesses against a muslim man by a muslim woman). Please, before you respond, at least read Trifkovic, if not the quran, the haddiths, and the sharia. The IRA and other western "terrorists" had a limited political goal; they didn't advocate destroying all of Great Britain, for example. Islam does. Self-loathing western intellectuals need to wake up and stop mouthing platitudes about a "peaceful religion" and co-existence. This war isn't going to end by winning the war on ideas unless some very moderate muslim states and leaders come forward to decry fundamentalist islamic leaders; the problem is that islam itself supports the fundamentalist cause. Even moderate muslims I know view UBL as a very "holy man" and wahabbism as a very pure form of islam. You can argue that our policies haven't helped our cause, but this was coming regardless and Neville Chamberlain's politics didn't work then and would be even worse now.

RANT OFF

They are afraid of words and thoughts. Words spoken abroad, thoughts stirring at home. All the more powerful because they are forbidden. These terrify them. A little mouse --- a little tiny mouse of thought appears in the room – and even the mightiest potentates are thrown into panic. They make frantic efforts to bar out thoughts and words – they’re afraid of the workings of the human mind.

-- Churchill

I fully expect in a democracy -- I expect and, frankly, welcome the voices of people saying, you know, Mr. President, you shouldn't have made that decision, or, you know, you should have done it a better way. I understand that. What I don't like is when somebody said, he lied. Or, they're in there for oil. Or they're doing it because of Israel. That's the kind of debate that basically says the mission and the sacrifice were based on false premise. It's one thing to have a philosophical difference -- and I can understand people being abhorrent about war. War is terrible. But one way people can help as we're coming down the pike in the 2006 elections, is remember the effect that rhetoric can have on our troops in harm's way, and the effect that rhetoric can have in emboldening or weakening an enemy.

-- G.W. Bush

The relevancy is obvious.

"We must add to them the power of ideas." - Freedom will come to the Gulf and beyond. They cannot stop the flow of ideas. It may not come quickly or represent itself as we in the west know our democracy, but it will surely come.

"The antagonism is here, now." - As stated in previous posts, we can't lose sight of the fact that we are still being sized up daily for attack. Each day, items (other than the usual vast quantities of illegal drugs) are smuggled into our country to support terrorist efforts against us.

"A mouse, a little tiny mouse of thought appears in the room and even the mightiest potentates are thrown into panic. They make frantic efforts to bar our thoughts and words. They're afraid of the workings of the human mind." - The mullahs and imams simply can't compete against the strength of a free human mind. Their cowardly gang-member-like methods of intimidation and hit and run can only get them one kind of "mileage", and it won't carry them far in a free society.

Then there's the added plus of Churchill being a great guy to toss a few pints down with.

To both #36 (Ted) and #38 (Mark),

Hey guys, I respect both of your points of view, but let me clarify. Please do not misunderstand, that by trying to protect America I am not endorsing that we usurp the Constitution. Moreover, to think that our lawmakers in Congress did not authorize these NSA actions would be naive. As for the eavesdropping itself, the use of it was likely focused and driven by something that indicated the callers had nefarious intent. They were not/not simply listening in on the private conversations of your average Joe/Jane in middle America, as the liberal media would make you think. Were this the case it would be considered infringement. As for it being kept secret, if we announced in advance that eavesdropping was going to take place what value do you think would have been gained?

One more thing....someone above also mentioned trying to change the underlying causes of terrorism. The "West" has been trying to do that well before 9/11 and will continue to do so. The fact remains that the enemy does not want to change, they want to create a muslim caliphate, which does not include non-believers... i.e. us. There is also little reward for them to agree to our demands. I'll agree that if we managed to find meaningful employment and improve the economic well-being of impoverished Islamic nations that would be a good start. Then, it would hopefully decrease the likelihood that a young 20-30 year old individual would turn to terrorism and violence.

To be honest, I'm tired of trying to convince naysayers that we need to continue fighting terrorism in new and dynamic ways. I don't want to imply that we should simply discard what our Framers worked so hard to create. I still come back to the fact that the terrorists have no rule book, while ours is often overly restricting. Here's a potential (and likely) snapshot of the future....when there is another 9/11, which is going to happen by the way, many will say why did this happen? What was done since 9/11/01? Well, those involved will recount their actions in long drawn out hearings to Congress and in the media and the naysayers will say that was not enough. Those who were clearly committed to achieve victory will reply that they were not given the full capabilities to win the war on terror. This line of reasoning will fall on deaf ears and the true warriors who are trying to do the right thing will be dubbed as failures. As another post above also said, history repeats itself. I worry that when the next major attack comes the people today trying to prevent it will become scapegoats to the masses that question today's tactics.

I may have strong views but there is good reason having lost over 15 friends the morning of 9/11 and another 10 since then. Our military and government entities have hardened in recent years and must to meet the challenges that lie ahead. They see the effects of radical views on the battle field.

I realize much of this thread's content has to do with perspective/knowledge of terrorism (and CT for that matter) and personal conviction. I embrace spirited debate and am glad all have posted remarks in a cordial manner.

I'll stick to CF and just be ready for the next 9/11. For the record, that's what all our fallen comrades would want us to be doing.

Coach I'm officially off the soapbox - sorry. Thank you for your contributions to elite fitness through CF.

My hamstrings are sore.

I admire Winston Churchill, but think that one of Martin Luther King, Jr's speeches would have been a more appropriate choice for today.

Coach,

I especially liked the your reply to august K...there is nothing like realizing you are about to die (and then living through it) to see what is important in life. Thanks for all the hard work you put into Crossfit, and all the times I've met Pukie trying to hold on to some things I saw.

August K,

No offense, but like you said to Coach, I think we differ a bit on politics. :)

Grace,

Dan

"My view is that if you have nothing to hide it should not bother you who is listening. I also believe the framers of our Constitution would agree, especially in light of the extraordinary times in which we now live."

Ah...the old 'if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear' argument.

So, to expound on this, if I have nothing to hide, you have nothing to look for.

The Founding Fathers added the 4th Amendment for a reason. I fail to see how folks can NOT equate our current situation to the search/seizure situation back then.

Anyone who knows me knows that I am not a dove by any stretch of the imagination. I had "Peace through superior firepower" posters in college (mid-1980's), and am of the opinion that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the other nine. So keep this in mind when you read the following:

If the FBI searches your library records under the Patriot Act, but cannot inform you or anyone else that this happened, was that a search?

If the NSA intercepts and reads your email w/o a warrant and without informing you, was that a search or a seizure?

If the feds decide to pull all your banking and medical records, and you don't know it, was that a search or a seizure?

If any of these things happened, but you didn't know about it and nobody who DID know could tell you, were your civil rights violated?

Funny, but I don't recall the 4th Amendment having a "perilous times or when convenient" exception clause.

About the only Amendment in the Bill of Rights that hasn't been trashed is the 3rd. Anyone taking wagers on that one? :)

"Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely"
--Lord Acton
"Knowledge is power"
--Unknown

I'm going to issue disclaimers for myself by pointing out that I do not have infinite understanding or even close perspective on the current situation of politics and war on this earth. But the implications of giving a limited amount of people free rein to look into other people's lives and act as they see fit--the potential for misuse and abuse--frightens me as much as terrorism.
But again, I don't know what I'm talking about from any sort of personal experience on either side of things.

We have created a society based on wealth, fortune, fame, greed, envy, winning and losing, competition, winning at all costs, etc. As the Dalai Lama says "True happiness comes from with in". We need to individually transform ourselves and help others to find true happiness and contentment in their lives as well. Evil springs from ignorance, there are no evil people just ones that dont have a clear awareness of life. That's my little role in this world.

That and getting my butt kicked in crossfit workouts!

Whenever I have trouble understanding the Grand Unified Field Theory I ask a politician.

the attack on the World Trade Center was terrorism.

the second war in Iraq was a response to a violation of a U.N. resloution related to weapons inspection.

these events are not the same or interchangeable.

The NSA surveillance debate has been miscast.

The proper framework for analysis is not one of purely domestic national security or domestic law enforcement. This is surveillance of the communications between a foreign power with whom we are at war and its agents or contacts in the homeland. These are the calls that pose the greatest threat to our security, and for which the national security justification for interception is at its zenith. In plain terms, these are the calls that tell cells here to activate and kill your wife, child or sister. This program could have prevented 9/11. It did in fact detect and prevent an attack on the Brooklyn Bridge.

Every single court that has considered the question, including the FISA supervisory court itself, has recognized that the President has inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution to conduct surveillance of foreign powers, and that (a) FISA does not purport to limit that authority and (b) if it did it would be unconstitutional.

That should be the end of the argument.

But, alas, it is not.

If resort to statutory arguments is necessary, FISA has an exception where the surveillance is otherwise authorized by law. The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against al Qaeda and affiliates is such a statute.

It authorizes the executive branch to kill al Qaeda.

While the AUMF does not expressly authorize surveillance, it is perfectly obvious that surveillance of enemy communications is an inherent aspect of making war, and is therefore implied in the AUMF.

In sum, the argument that FISA makes this program "against the law" amounts to the claim that we can kill al Qaeda, we just can't listen to their phone calls.

Comment #12
"3. Terrorism feeds on dictatorship."

so therefore, are you in favor of ridding the world of dictators? how would you propose we do this?
History would suggest that wars are required, whether hot or cold. Does that mean you support wars to rid the world of dictators, because it will eliminate the feeding grounds for terrorism?
it sounds like you and I and GWB agree on this point.
we also agree, i think, that pakistan is too big to attack, so we start with iraq and hope a groundswell of change begins. if it doesnt- well, we still got rid of one dictator, didnt we?

Dan Silver,

How is that popcorn?

I kind of agree with Comment #49. As it appears that the Rest Days are now Political Mental Fitness Expand Your Mind Days, "We Must Arm" is an interesting choice for a National Holiday dedicated to MLK, one of America's most avowed pacifists (and following so quickly on the heels of the "It's the Demography, Stupid," us versus them themed essay of last Thursday).

Did a bench routine today as follows:

205-3
210-2
210-2
210-2
215-1
220-1
225-1
230-1
230-1

closed grip super to bench dips

3 sets of 10 @ 135 and 15 bench dips

Also, I'm a poor student of history, but did Churchill also say this re the Palestinians in the 1930's:

"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place."

Comment 41- "it is about freedom and responsibility"

I urge you to research the situation in Sierra Leone and children (as young as 6 years old) being forced (aka not free) into a war over diamonds. This has been going on for a long time and has become very public. So if its all about freedom and responsibility where has the response been?

I smile at the irony of Churchill's comments, "they are afraid of words and thoughts" and the discourse of this thread.

How fortunate are we that we can have this discussion? It is quite conceivable that had we not taken up arms against our perceived enemy, we might be conversing in German about the latest required workout regimen delivered to us at our weekly Party meeting.

Craig

... and that would be double plus ungood! (Credit to Orwell)

Boston CF,

I'm not sure I understand your argument/response (#62) regarding my comment. I was posting in response to another comment, the comment that "It's all about the economy, stupid" (see comment #12). My argument was that it is NOT, and that the original comment illustrates a tendency in the U.S. to see our country primarily as nothing more than a vehicle or support for the free market, when there is so much more to American life. I believe markets are important, but they are not the only institutions that matter. Family, Community, and Faith are all important aspects of American (human!) life, and yet something terrrible happens to them when we attempt to bring them under the banner of, or interpret them in terms of, economics.

So I'm not sure how Sierrra Leone ties in to this. Forgive me if my argument was unclear.

Dan Silver, pass the popcorn!

surfing 2 hours :)

Hybrdized the last 2 days' WODs:
Three rounds for time of:
C2 row 500m (1:44/1:49/1:49)
30 GHD Hip Extensions (as per photos)
TOTAL TIME=16:28 (5:10/5:55/5:22)

We can debate war, poverty, and bad leaders but the fact is they will always be there and right now we are dealing with all three of these things in the mid east. The fact still stands that a large chunk of the world economy is based on the steady supply of middle east oil and as we are now working on alternative energy supplies it has to be a seamless transition so in other words over a long period of time. So we have to keep working on the mid east and encourage the refomers in Iran and try and get Iraq as straight as possible and these things cannot be achieved without the threat of war. To give a example in the darfar region the UN sent the Sudan a letter saying could you please stop slaughtering your people, but when the US and the UK starts to get involved then they will be a bit more interested in listening. As for a earlier comment about why we have not gotten to fixing some of the issues in Africa....not enough oil and little political will. Remember people like to see results or a great reason before one of their sons or daughters go to die...right now villigers in the Sudan is not meeting that burden....sad but true.

Is that Zone popcorn Dan?

According to the free CF journal: "Athletes engaged in sports or training where a preponderance of the training load is spent in aerobic efforts witness decreases in muscle mass, strength, speed, and power."

My question is this: is 10-20 miles of running per week, in addition to WODs, enough aerobic conditioning to counteract my development in power, strength and speed?

skied yesterday at Mt. Rose and then tried Tabata running last night...pretty sweet. ran 4.1mi today...as if running in 30 degree weather wasnt enough, i got to run into a 20mph wind for the second half. not cool, Mother Nature...not cool.

deterence...the tools to fight, the will to use those tools if necessary, and the enemy's perception of both. pacificism is great on an individual level but societal suicide as a foreign policy. and thats not to mention the fact that most pacificists have earned the right to be pacificists (and still live) by the blood of their countrymen. furthermore, it is naive and irresponsible to deny the fact that there are evil, power-hungry men in the world, who will respond to anything less than a gun to their head. sometimes you just have to take it outside.

Mike G,
great question...sorry i dont have the answer. however, i think youd get a better response if you posted it to the Message Board.

www.rudepundit.blogspot.com

A nice counterpoint to the Heritage Foundation's pathetic, shameless attempt to co-opt MLK Day for the political gain of conservatives.

augustK wrote: "You can weed your garden, but it will grow back because there's a feeding ground for it. Just like the "war on drugs", did we win that or are we still fighting?"

From this and subsequent posts, you seem to be making the point that since we can never completely extinguish the unwanted problem, there is no use in trying to eliminate or reduce it. I respectfully disagree and would argue that one of the reasons you visit CrossFit is because you disagree as well. If I (or you) stop working out, my fitness level will deteriorate (ie the unwanted problems of muscle weakness, poor health, sucking wind when climbing stairs, etc. will soon return) and it is inevitable that no matter how long I battle this problem of non-fittness, that whenever I stop the fight, it will return. Aside: Our bodies and our level of fitness will decline with age despite our efforts, but exercise has benn shown without doubt to retard this decline. So, you too, by your presence here, have aknowledged that it is not always prudent to surrender to an enemy that keeps returning.

Furthermore, unlike my neighbor, I continue to weed my garden and it continues to provide me with an abundance of fruit and vegetables. My neighbor, who decided to avoid the work of weeding his garden, looks out over a pile of weeds in his yard and buys his produce from me. (There are a lot of metaphors in here on several levels. I must thank you for providing the original framework for this idea.)

augustK also wrote: "My point is to change the underlaying causes of terrorism"..."

Man basically has a sinful nature. There will always be bad boys motivated by money, sex, ego, etc. to disregard the rules and cause harm to others. When these bad boys are from another nation and other means of diplomacy cannot resolve the issue, we send the world's finest armed forces to "persuade" the bad boys to mend their ways. When the bad boys are here at home, our law enforcement agencies get the call. Not always a nice and tidy job, but in order to keep the weeds down to a level where fruit can fluorish, someone's got to do the job.

COACH (and LAUREN) - The fitness concepts and workouts alone provided by CrossFit make it a great site. The addition of articles on a variety of important issues of the day to develop our minds and encourage thoughtful discourse with others on the site is a tremendous addition. I hope that I can make it to a seminar someday and thank you. personally.

"We can debate war, poverty, and bad leaders but the fact is they will always be there and right now we are dealing with all three of these things in the mid east."

Unfortunately we are also dealing with them on our home-front too. The issues are never as simple as one would wish for them to be. I believe wholeheartedly in the individual's right to freedom and the righteousness of fighting for such freedom, but I despise a government that funds dictators only to claim to "overthrow" them some years later, with no plan for an organized transferal of power to the people they are supposedly benefiting...

Thanks for the advice ediddy. I will post my question there as well.

"When the bad boys are here at home, our law enforcement agencies get the call...."

Or we elect them for public office...

Rower: 15:25min 300 Cal
Lifecycle: 30min 11.3miles (PR)

5X 6reps of Weighted Pull-ups 25lbs=30
5X 20 Dips=100
5X20 Back Extensions+100

Hi all,
Workout as follows
Due to weekend camping adventure in the cod of the Adirondacks, dehydration and fatigue allowed for a tiring experience.
{Bike ride (Airdyne) one mile, sit-up+20#'sx20, lat pull-down (110#'s)x20, and push-up (feet elevated)x20}x4.
Duration 21:40. Average HR 150. BP 10:00 following bout- 111/61 and HR 94. More fluid...
Until tomorrow...

Re: #75.

The perceived lack of a plan for the transfer of power is an exceedingly poor criticism to make now that the transfer has in fact been completed. Iraq is the only democratic constitutional republic in the Arab world.

Pretty good for "no plan." (Er, maybe they actually had a plan, and then adjusted as best they could to the circumstances as they unfolded until they succeeded, or something like that).

Where does this "no plan" argument come from anyway? We can surmise that the words "no plan" tested well with focus groups who didn't know jack and that this is why some politicians started saying "no plan" in their talking points even though they knew there was a plan and knew it was working.

Best regards,

The Dude: Smokey's like me man, he's a pacifist.
Walter: I dabbled in pacifism once. Not in 'Nam of course.
The Dude: I'm just saying he's got problems man.
Walter: Problems? You mean beyond pacifism?

"To everything there is a season" and whatnot. The complex nature of the human species necessitates both the Churchill's and the MLK's. That in itself provides a broad enough spectrum for almost all points of view to find purchase.

MLK and Gandhi both relied on the fundamental goodness inside of the people they shamed into decency- people who were appalled by beatings and water hosings and separate but unequal treatment. The foe Churchill faced, and who we face today, isn't bothered by such things and will only stop when forced to. The difference between a Neville Chamberlain and MLK is being able to spot the distinction and act accordingly.

Rest Day as RX'd 12 HRS.

Kids and I did our own version of the clock workout. Minute hand at 12 do squats adding one for each minute. Minute had at 6 do push ups.
Made it for 15 minutes.

regarding the discussion today.

It may be simplistic but I don't see how countries are much different from school kids. You can try and avoid trouble but usually the bully finds you. The authorities can protect you as long as they are paying attention, but when they aren't the bully seems to know.
Who does the bully avoid and leave alone? The stronger tough kids who don't take crap from him.

My 2 cents.
J

Since everybody has been giving their opinion, I will give mine. It is what I think and I am entitled to think what ever I want freely, like it or not.
-There were no weapons of mass destruction in Irak, but thousands young soldiers and civilians are dying.
-Sadam Hussein has not always been an ennemy of the USA, far from it, even if all knew how he exterminated the Kurd minority and treated his own people.
-Bin Laden and other terrorists were originally trained, financed and armed by the USA (remember the cold war and the Russian invasion of Afghanistan?).
-Is it normal that one country can decide their own definition of terrorism, and call terrorist who ever they want in order to send them to Cuba and deny them the benefit of the Geneva Convention on prisonners of war?
-What is it all about: petrol, money, power?
I have served in close conflict areas and have seen what wars, civil wars and occupation do: nothing good; those who pay with their lives are never the ones who are guilty of anything.
After Irak, it should be Syria's turn, unless Iran keeps pisssing everybody off with their nuclear program, in which case they will be next.

We just got home from Roger's Gymnastics seminar. I highly recommend it. It was one of the most challenging and most fun days I have spent training.

I watched 60 minutes and saw North Korea getting ready for when the US invades. Looked at my wife, who bought me a brand new HK P2000 handgun with LEM trigger for Christmas, and said, "Let's buy some more ammo."

"...an exceedingly poor criticism to make now that the transfer has in fact been completed..."

So wait...we removed our troops? When did that happen? For some reason I seem to remember an increase in stationed troops with numbers constantly on the rise....

FRAN

Anthony (BW=180) as rx'd
Time: 5:20

Jodi (BW=110) 45lbs thrusters / assistance at hips on last two rounds of chinups
Time: 6:29

Lori (BW=180) 35lbs thrusters / BW-70 on chinups
Time: 8:29

Cory (BW=240) 95lbs thrusters / assistance from feet on chinups
Time: met pukie and quit around the 20 minute mark (4 thrusters and 9 chinups left)

Bored at work. Pulled one out of the vault.
Lift 150lbs from ground to overhead, as many times as you can in 10 minutes.
57 reps
Combined shoulder press, and push press.

Steveo

Correction for AndrewB:
MLK did not rely on the fundamental goodness in people.

As a Christian minister, he believed in the inherent evil in people, known as sin. If there were goodness naturally, then our society and humanity would be on a progressive upswing in love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness and self-control. I feel safe in saying that this is not the case. It's not to say that they do not exist and that some are not blessed with these qualities. However, if you say that humanity is inherently good, then these things would be the norm and not the exception.

Man is inherently based on "self" and the preservation thereof.

When man sets the self aside and stands for what is right. Then the qualities of goodness, kindness, etc. happen.

(picking popcorn husks from teeth)
I'll make some more. Looks like we're just getting started.

"If you're 18 and not a liberal, you have no heart. If you're 40 and not a conservative, you have no brain."
-Sir Winston Churchill

"There will be peace in our time."
-Neville Chamberlain
Just thought I'd throw that out there.

Lets put it this way,
I am conservative in my values.
I am right and you are wrong,
But because I am right and I constantly fight for that fact, You have the freedom to be wrong all you want, maybe someday you can get it right too!
There, I said it!

7 rounds of:
6 jumping pull ups
15 ring dips
15 toes to bar
10 walking lunges

"I am conservative in my values.
I am right and you are wrong,
But because I am right and I constantly fight for that fact, You have the freedom to be wrong all you want, maybe someday you can get it right too!
There, I said it!"

Absolutely excellent!

As for my last post, reading back over it, it comes off entirely naive, as I know that a transferral of power doesn't instantly equate to a removal of troops...ugh, this is why I try not to discuss politics over the internet, it never comes out right!

Dan, pass the beef-jerky (popcorn would totally ruin my zone blocks...) ;)

Only a warrior can be a true pascifist!

did Sat's WOD

1. This speech reminds me how the greatest men's words are amazingly timeless, and although everyone uses the language of their day, this still sounds fresh and would work in any era.

2. Total courage and conviction in the face of majority scorn. his ability to do the right thing whatever the personal risk.

3. The alliance of the US and the UK over the last 100 years has driven an international force for good despite mistakes that is without equal in modern history. If you doubt this statement try plugging any other country in and see what happens--France? Germany? China? Japan? Russia? Israel? even plugging in a close ally country like Canada illustrates this.

For fun ride 2 miles (Airdyne) 5:15.

1. Someone once said that pacifist movements (MLK and Ghandi) have only succeeded in societies with a rational structure of government (USA and English/Indian in these cases). In pre-rational societies/dictatorships, pacifists just get run over by tanks, much to the chagrin of the dictator.
2. Most of the world does not rely on reasonable constitutions and government structures.
3. I think we should simply hold ourselves to the highest standards of maturity possible as the situation changes (which has not been the case in many abuse cases of the Iraq War so far). Also, the more good ideas, the better.

I think this deserves to be read, if you'd like the South Park interpretation of things (which I consider quite mature, despite their bathroom humor on the surface) *profanity warning*:
http://www.whysanity.net/monos/teamamerica.html

Matt Halperin #73,

I like your post.

If those bastards at Heritage ignore MLK's B'day, well, they're bastards for ignoring it.

If those bastards at Heritage celebrate his B'day, well, they're bastards for a "pathetic, shameless attempt to co-opt MLK Day for the political gain of conservatives."

damn good popcorn.

Mr. Glassman, #101:

Here's another one you'll like:

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Text_of_Gore_speech_0116.html

Dale Saran , comment #43,

a) the caliph is the equivalent of your president eg Goerge Bush, is his authority not accepted???, vvhy dont u make that sound evil???
b)vve all pay taxes in one form or another, novv, vvhy dont u make that sound evil????
c)&d)-spreading religion- islam does not prohibit other religions, it does not encourage the slaughter of other religions and races- the koran says "there is no compulsion in religion"-hovv you come up vvith the gargage you have about muslim males being allovved to slaughter at vvill is unbelieveable-the propagnda against islam is obviously succeeding in your part of the vvorld.The koran forbids the taking of human life vvhether it be muslim christian or pagan .

you obviously have not read the haddiths properly either-the prophet of islam prohibits the killing of innocent civilians during vvar-so any decent muslim fundamentalist or othervvise vvould not or should not condone UBL or 9/11.

Islam does not preach the destruction of any nation- I have nevvs for you-it is the Bush regime currently in the Middle East trying to impose its ovvn principles on people that dont vvant them there, its is the USA that has invaded Afghanistan ,Iraq vvhose next syria , iran saudia vvhen vvill George be appeased???

You vvill no doubt say the muslims are bringing it on themselves , hovvever the USA blind fundamentalist Christian hard core supporters of Israel-based on some prophecy in the bible - is vvhat is bringing all this on....muslims are not invading anyone , it is the US doing all the invading .

Gotta run.

Matt,

I think I was the only person on earth to read Al's "Earth in the Balance" in its entirety.

That should exempt me from ever having to read another thing of his again.

No one could possibly read that and question VV's (that's Australian Liberal for G.W. Bush) intelligence again.

How come no one has commented on #61? Did he really say that?

My popcorn bucket has a lot of unpopped kernels in it.

Yeah, that one was kind of amazing . . . like you, I wonder if it was accurate, or when he said it?

In effect, it seems sort of equivalent to saying "Might makes right."

If you can be forced off your land by a "higher-grade race" of people, too bad. You deserved it. I wonder if, by extension, it also applies to the garden-variety thief, mugger, or bureaucrat that takes by force . . . if you allow it, you deserve it?

It would seem that you could justify any action at all with that philosophy. Sort of the ultimate relativism . . . no objective right or wrong at all.

Or, in other words: Power rules the world, winners write the history books.

Sort of amazing . . . I thnk it's worth considering as a cautionary tale. There *are* people who think like that (Churchill, evidently, assuming that quote is accurate).

Not a philosophy I want to live by, myself, although I can certainly see how useful it could be.

As long as there *are* people who believe that, it certainly makes the old saying "Peace through superior firepower" seem pretty sensible.

David,

Sounds like you'll be heading back home to Europe. Unless, of course, you're one of those "people who think like that."

Before you leave, give a little more rigorous thought to the matter: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/225tpziw.asp?pg=1

(My buddy Dave is going nowhere; he just climbed too high on his horse for a moment.)

Regarding Churchill's comment that was quoted in post 61, it is also worthwhile to put things back into context and realize that Churchill was a man of the early 20th / late 19th century, a product of that time, when theories about racial superiority were really not uncommon at all and quite broadly accepted in society. It was then fashionable to apply darwinism to human races, in order to explain why whites had become predominant in global power. People believed that the "white race" (and with Anglo-saxon, Germanic people first, Latin people a distant second) was superior to others and that it was its duty to evangelize and bring civilization to the rest of the world. So although Churchill's comment seems shocking nowadays, it was really a very mainstream opinion of that time.

I composed a piece yesterday that I wanted to post, but the ability to post was blocked(?). Anyway, it's at home, I'm at work and I will post it tonight...

Forgot to post on time.

WOD as Rx'd

2:52,4:56,6:56(pukie),6:30,6:14

Rest was as Rx'd fit pukie in!

WOW

Coach,
Thanks for the link to the National Review article. Kind of sums up my philosophy, yet I never understood why I felt that way. Key quote from Churchill:
"if people come in and make a livelihood for more, and make the desert into palm groves and orange groves? Why is it injustice because there is more work and wealth for everybody? There is no injustice. The injustice is when those who live in the country leave it to be desert for thousands of years."
I get it.

I agree with Comment #109 - it is worthwhile to put things into context and realize that racist ideas prevailed in a less enlightened time. However, in response to Comment #108 (Coach), while power may rule the world and winners may write the history books, it does not follow that might makes right.

The high visibility story recently leaked that NSA was conducting warrantless searches is only the latest in a string of half baked, under reported, unresearched media events.

In the story, reporters and talking heads say Bush is violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and ignoring the FISA courts the Act created. None though, not even the fairly balanced reporters who are also attorneys, have bothered to read the law.

FISA is 50 USC §1801–§1871. Section 1801 is definitions. It defines

>"Foreign power" means--

> (1) a foreign government or any component thereof whether or not recognized by the United States;

> (2) a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not substantially composed of United States persons;

> (3) an entity that is openly acknowledged by a foreign government or governments to be directed and controlled by such foreign government or governments; … . §1801(a)

So a pretty good argument could be made that groups like al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah, sponsored and protected variously by Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran as they are, would qualify as factions and a Foreign Power under (2).

The next section in FISA is the meat of the regulation at §1802. But the first thing it does is to establish conditions under which a court order is NOT required. The attorney general must make a certification and notice, but then warrantless surveillance is OK if it is directed at

> (i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in [50 USCS §1801(a)(1), (2), or (3)]; or

> (ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in [50 USCS §1801(a)(1), (2), or (3)]; … §1802(a)(1).

Not only that, but

> the court shall not have jurisdiction to grant any order approving electronic surveillance directed solely as described in paragraph (1)(A) of subsection (a) unless such surveillance may involve the acquisition of communications of any United States person. §1802(b)

Recently, Attorney General Gonzales has been saying that the surveillance is legal if it originates off shore! The law doesn’t distinguish where messages originate or terminate, but who is involved.

If the Administration did what the critics say they should have done, that is, request a warrant to “eavesdrop” on communications, say, to a telephone number found in a captured al Qaeda laptop, the FISA court should throw it out for lack of jurisdiction. It can’t even hear the request. No case.

Conclusion: Where are the investigative reporters? Who checks the sources? Aren’t the statutes included? And where is the Administration? Bush’s PR team must be gathering just over the horizon.

I haven't read the law either (so maybe I should keep my mouth shut), but based on the law you've provided, IMO:

(1) "faction" requires further definition to support your argument, either from the statute, caselaw referencing the statute, a similar statute, analagous caselaw, a legal dictionary or Webster's, in that order.

(2) Just like faction, "not substantially composed of United States persons" requires further definition (to support your argument). The fact that 50 USC §1801(2) says "persons" instead of "citizens" is probably significant as it would appear to be more inclusive.

(3) Then, even if this statute allows you to do what you argue it does, you still have the issue of United States citizens being caught up in this warrentless surveillance web (which I thought was the main problem anyway).

(4)Then you have to explain what all this has to do with "We Must Arm" by Winston Churchill.:)

Re Comment #115
Archie,

Good concerns. I could find no case defining "faction" for FISA. And I could find no Code of Federal Regulations for FISA which would define its terms. However, the Attorney General who would prepare that CFR wrote the following for 18 U.S.C. §951, Part 73—Notifications to the Attorney General by Agents of Foreign Governments:

>(b) The term foreign government includes any person or group of persons exercising sovereign de facto or de jure political jurisdiction over any country, other than the United States, or over any part of such country, and includes any subdivision of any such group or agency to which such sovereign de facto or de jure authority or functions are directly or indirectly delegated. Such term shall include any faction or body of insurgents within a country assuming to exercise governmental authority whether such faction or body of insurgents has or has not been regarded by the United States as a governing authority. 28 CFR §73.1

That implicit definition is probably as good as any dictionary definition.

FISA defines "United States person" at §1801(i). It's too long for this post, but generally its a U.S. Citizen or an alien admitted as a permanent resident, plus a few related categories.

FISA definitions don't help with a U.S. Citizen who's working as a foreign agent, for example.

FISA requires the AG to attest that the communication intercepts are not likely to intercept US person communications, and to safeguards called minimization procedures to protect information concerning uncooperating US persons.

The bottom line is that FISA PERMITS WARRANTLESS SEARCHES, under certain circumstances, and the FISA courts do not have jurisdictions to oversee those activities.

The Bush critics and others claiming the Administration has violated FISA (e.g., Napolitano, former FISA judge & Fox commentator) are on the spot to show that the admitted warrantless searches violate §1802(a)(1).

Lots of luck on that assignment.