Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Communications Government United States News

NSA Overstepped the Law On Wiretaps 164

Posted by Soulskill
from the can-i-hear-you-now dept.
Hugh Pickens writes "The NY Times reports that legal and operational problems surrounding the NSA's surveillance activities have come under scrutiny from the Obama administration, Congressional intelligence committees, and a secret national security court, and that the NSA had been engaged in 'overcollection' of domestic communications of Americans. The practice has been described as significant and systemic, although one official said it was believed to have been unintentional. The Justice Department has acknowledged that there had been problems with the NSA surveillance operation, but said they had been resolved. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which oversees the intelligence community, did not address specific aspects of the surveillance problems, but said in a statement that 'when inadvertent mistakes are made, we take it very seriously and work immediately to correct them.' The intelligence officials said the problems had grown out of changes enacted by Congress last July to the law that regulates the government's wiretapping powers, as well as the challenges posed by enacting a new framework for collecting intelligence on terrorism and spying suspects. Joe Klein at Time Magazine says the bad news is that 'the NSA apparently has been overstepping the law,' but the good news is that 'one of the safeguards in the [FISA Reform] law is a review procedure that seems to have the ability to catch the NSA when it's overstepping — and that the illegal activities have been exposed, and quickly.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NSA Overstepped the Law On Wiretaps

Comments Filter:
  • by bugs2squash (1132591) on Friday April 17, 2009 @07:04PM (#27622079)
    I wind up in trouble. I hope the NSA does too
    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17, 2009 @07:08PM (#27622105)
      Nonsense! When a report about an agency of the government doing something illegal comes out, it is done not so that anyone doing anything illegal gets punished for it. Rather, it exists so that Congress can gently guide the NSA to stay inside the lines like a parent holding a retarded child's hand, trying to show them the proper way to color.
      • Name names.

        The NSA cannot "do" anything because it is nothing more than a legal fiction.

        It is the people who are employed under that legal fiction that commit the crimes.

        So, who will be fired for those crimes? It should be very simple to find the people who did it. And the people who authorized it. Etc.

      • I think congress counts as the retard in this scenario.
        • So it's the retard father leading the retard bastard monster child?
          I bet the child's grandfather cries when he sees them...

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Quothz (683368)

      I wind up in trouble. I hope the NSA does too

      That's because you don't take it seriously. If you did, like the NSA does, you'd be fine.

    • When a parent tells a child to commit a crime there isn't really a point to punish the kid. The government asked them to do something. Even if it is illegal the boss of the country asked them. It would be silly for the boss to then punish the kid for doing as told. It would be like punishing your router for sending emails to the wrong person when you typed in the wrong name. Or scrapping your car for violating a traffic measure. (am i missing any metaphors? ... something about tubes on a truck...)
      • by grcumb (781340) on Friday April 17, 2009 @09:57PM (#27623255) Homepage Journal

        When a parent tells a child to commit a crime there isn't really a point to punish the kid. The government asked them to do something. Even if it is illegal the boss of the country asked them. It would be silly for the boss to then punish the kid for doing as told.

        Tell that to the German officers who were executed for crimes against humanity, despite pleading their innocence on exactly these grounds.

        This plea has since become known as the Nuremberg Defence [wikipedia.org]. To my mind, it's no more compelling today than it was over 60 years ago, when we rejected it out of hand.

        In order for a democracy to remain healthy, it requires the participation of its citizens. This means more than just occasionally visiting a polling station. It means that, from time to time, we will be asked to challenge, in very practical terms, the validity of the assumptions to which we all adhere.

        I do not for a second believe that the NSA management and staff involved in this operation were not acutely aware that they were circumventing the law. If they knowingly broke the law, then they should be prepared to face the consequences.

        Opposing the System usually comes with a price. I don't doubt that refusing to carry out orders would be a, uh, career-limiting decision. But those who willingly participate in an immoral, unethical and illegal system should face the consequences of their choice as well.

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          the nuremberg defence isn't valid against charges of war crimes or crimes against humanity. that wiretapping constitutes a war crime or a crime against humanity isn't clear to me
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Kirth Gersen (603793)

          If they knowingly broke the law, then they should be prepared to face the consequences.

          We keep hearing of scenarios like you've captured a terrorist who's planted a nuke in Manhattan, but you can't torture him because of some stupid rules.

          I think if something like that ever *did* happen, someone who really wanted to go ahead and torture the guy would take the risk of a few years in prison. And if he *wasn't* prepared to take that risk, then maybe he wasn't really so sure the victim had really planted a nuke

          • This scenario is complete crap, because the main reason for not torturing people is a practical, rather than an ethical one. The information gained is simply unreliable, meaning that in the "24" situation, not torturing the supposed terrorist could yield the critical information for stopping an attack.

            The entire point here is that someone going ahead and torturing someone under the guise of saving lives is actually doing exactly the opposite: Endangering the lives of the people they seek to protect.
      • by camperdave (969942) on Friday April 17, 2009 @10:01PM (#27623285) Journal
        Even if it is illegal the boss of the country asked them.

        It doesn't matter who asked them. Illegal is illegal. SOMEONE broke the law. Someone made the moral/ethical decision to break the law. That person was not a kid, and should be held accountable. Also, asking someone to break the law for you is conspiracy. The boss of the country should also be held accountable. It's about time we started throwing Presidents and Prime Ministers in jail.

        Oh, and routers, cars, and tube carrying trucks do not have moral/ethical decision making capabilities. They cannot be held accountable for the actions of their users or abusers.
        • "It's about time we started throwing Presidents and Prime Ministers in jail." Well, that's not going to happen. Not in Amerika, anyways.

          Haven't you heard? It's not illegal if the President does it. Unfortunately, the laws have been corrupted enough that's true.

          People keep assuming that the problem was that the NSA got caught "overstepping" the law. I'm sure the NSA is busy working to fix that. Getting caught, that is.

        • Society subjectively defines the lines that should not be crossed; apparently, this society has decided the lines for Nazi's is different from our own side.

          Soldiers lose their lives for useless causes, missions, or by accident-- that is reality! It is the risk they take. One can only hope their bad luck results in something worthwhile. Most people die for nothing and some of them are soldiers.

          I can not see why consequences less than death are so horrible we can not dish it out to even well intentioned grunt

      • by drinkypoo (153816)

        When a parent tells a child to commit a crime there isn't really a point to punish the kid.

        In this case, both the parent and the child were old enough to know that what they were doing is wrong. The only problem here is that we're only punishing the child.

    • No joke. Read about Russell Tice from the NSA. He's breaching classification limits because he swore to uphold the Constitution of the US. He found his own agency in breach of civil rights and did the right thing.

      Criminals need to be held accountable or the frequency of the crime will increase; in this case the heads that should have known better need to be held responsible for the operations and orders they produced.

    • by Kabuthunk (972557)

      In don't know why anyone is even bothering to contemplate 'how people will be punished' or 'what action will be taken.

      We all already know exactly what is going to happen, and anyone who says otherwise is a liar.

      Nothing will happen.

  • by stox (131684) on Friday April 17, 2009 @07:07PM (#27622099) Homepage

    Telephone switches have had specific features to support this type of activity since at least the 1980's. The only difference, now, is that these practices are seeing the light of day.

    • by digitalchinky (650880) <dtchky@gmail.com> on Friday April 17, 2009 @07:32PM (#27622351)

      Perhaps to expand on what you are saying, because you are dead on accurate: GSM and many POTS telephone services use CCITT7, this comes with SANC, OPC, DPC, & ISPC codes (along with many others), these are all well established. The majority of countries that want to play nice with the rest of the world actually have to use these codes properly too. (Signalling systems are a complex business!) So what actually are these codes? They describe the geography of international telephone circuits. The phone companies latitude and longitude if you will, accurate to about the first digit. I did not say decimal place! :-) What can they be used for? Hypothetically speaking, one would feel confident in presuming these would be used by your local 3 letter agency to 'filter out the good guys' - that's about the only way I can figure it could be done practically anyway. Well, aside from I guess using the label written on some masking tape in sharpie at either end of the international fiber to figure out roughly who is using it. (Note: your good guys may not match my good guys, but that's a political thing)

      Now obviously the diligent programer of this particular 'black box' would be inclined to put switches in to do this filtering based on these pretty little acronyms, thus allowing the owners of the 3 letter agency to legitimately talk about 'safeguards' and such. This is great, fantastic. Now, step in greedy middle level managers, directors, and politicians looking for that fast track up the ladder, or just in love with the whole "I can spy on your telephone call!!1!one!!" Rhetorical Question: You really think those switches are going to be in safe mode?

    • . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawful_interception [wikipedia.org].

      And there is one case where this functionality was used by someone who was not authorized to do so: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_telephone_tapping_case_2004-2005 [wikipedia.org].

      Or maybe they were authorized, but by someone who was not authorized to authorize them.

      These spook stories become intentionally murky as they progress.

  • Obama administration (Score:5, Informative)

    by bonch (38532) on Friday April 17, 2009 @07:09PM (#27622107)

    Isn't this the same Obama administration that recently defended warrantless wiretapping [slashdot.org]?

    • by artor3 (1344997) on Friday April 17, 2009 @07:23PM (#27622271)

      Obama's administration has claimed that companies who wrongly cooperated with the government in the warrantless wiretapping program should not be open to lawsuits.

      While I, and many others, may not agree with that stance, it does not mean that he's going to let the NSA do whatever the hell they want.

      At least, not necessarily. We'll see if anything comes of this.

      • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

        The NSA/CIA/DEA/FBI will always do what it wants. And unless you have clearance, you will know nothing about it. The things you learn about now have been going on for decades. Nothing has/can/will be done about it, and they will continue to operate as always...in secret. Is there anybody here who actually believes we voted in a new/different government? That would be very naive.

      • by Phroggy (441)

        I too disagree with Obama's position on immunity for telecom companies, and sent him an e-mail expressing my concern after he voted in support of a bill to grant immunity last year.

        However, I'm not particularly interested in punishment for the companies involved. I just want transparency - the kind of transparency that only a lawsuit can bring. I want the public to know exactly what happened, why it happened, and who was responsible. What's important to me is that these these people not be protected from

      • Yes, but unfortunately the overstepping DOJ claim that the Government itself was beyond the law in this case means they're talking out of both sides of their mouth. They give lip-service to civil liberties at this point, and their actions speak volumes about their true intent. Rather like the "I'm not coming for your guns" arguments during the campaign. (See HR 45 for step 1.) It's disturbing to me as much as the last administration was.

        I guess it depends now on how this goes through the system. Are
    • by rpillala (583965) on Friday April 17, 2009 @07:29PM (#27622325)

      I think the difference here is what you'd call a dragnet. The Obama position (as I understood it) is that wiretapping individuals without a warrant is acceptable under certain circumstances. Gathering communication indiscriminately is different and objectionable.

      Personally I like the way FISA was set up in 1978 and feel that 72 hours to obtain a retroactive warrant from a secret classified court is sufficient latitude for intelligence gathering in the "war on terror." Eliminating oversight by the judicial branch completely is totalitarian.

      • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        "When the axe came into the forest, the trees said, 'The handle is one of us.'"

      • by camperdave (969942) on Friday April 17, 2009 @10:13PM (#27623331) Journal
        retroactive warrant? a secret classified court?

        You accept that? These things should strike terror in your bones and chill your very soul, yet you accept them?
        • by rpillala (583965)
          I guess I do believe in the necessity of espionage, and in the existence of state secrets. My objections are to the abuse of these concepts to justify any and everything. It is of course possible that there is no way to have espionage and state secrets without them eventually ballooning into what we have now.
      • I agree. We established what is called "Intelligence Oversight" in the 70s for exactly these reasons: Intelligence agencies have tendencies to ignore civil liberties and self-rationalize.

        Whatever happened to those oversight guidelines is beyond me, but I'm sure it has a lot to do with a number of unconstitutional acts and executive orders that the SCOTUS has become too politically-aligned to do their job and undo.

      • by dbcad7 (771464)
        The Obama position as I understood it.. was to find a way to get this case dropped.. had nothing to do with being for or against illegal wiretapping. If continued, then the government is put in a postion to defend the actions of their predecesors, costing how much ?.. I think the right move to drop it, and make better policies going forward... seems to be what's happening.
    • It is, and it is the same Obama who has stated that CIA operatives who were using torture won't be facing any consequences.
      So I strongly doubt that NSA will be in trouble now or ever.

    • This is just unsubstantiated opinion and spout off but...

      I get the feeling that part of the reason that the blanket "warrantless wiretapping is bad, mmmkay?" edict hasn't come yet is because, as of now, the Obama administration probably doesn't have a clear handle on how deep it goes, how much wiretapping we're really doing, and what examples are currently "in play." After 86? 88? days in office, I don't expect them know. Now, in a year....

      For example, how many wiretaps are going right now, across all branc

  • by Reality Master 201 (578873) on Friday April 17, 2009 @07:09PM (#27622115) Journal

    I mean, wow. They violated the law the first time, and then after the law was changed to allow that, they did it again?

    I mean, holy crap, who'da thunk?

  • Duh? Did anybody besides those who voted for this think differently?
  • by zymano (581466)

    Who bend the laws of freedom to fit their needs.

    Bush was no conservative.

  • by SpecBear (769433) on Friday April 17, 2009 @07:13PM (#27622153)

    "When inadvertent mistakes are made, we take it very seriously and work immediately to correct them."

    If such systemic negligence resulted in loss of employment, fines, and/or quality time in a federal PMITA prison, then perhaps they would take it seriously and make sure it didn't fucking happen in the first place.

    • by artor3 (1344997) on Friday April 17, 2009 @07:26PM (#27622287)

      Come on now, when have draconian punishments ever stopped people from committing crimes, let alone making mistakes?

      There should be punishments for messing up, and worse punishments for intentionally doing bad things, but you're kidding yourself if you think that the threat of jail time would stop this from happening.

      • by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Friday April 17, 2009 @08:27PM (#27622731)

        Come on now, when have draconian punishments ever stopped people from committing crimes, let alone making mistakes?

        The big difference is that most people commit crimes for their personal benefit.
        These guys are commiting crimes under some bogus rubric of protecting the country.
        At best their only personal benefit is a reduction of their own time spent on the project (for which they get paid for either way).

        • What? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by msimm (580077)
          You're familiar with careers right? If I break the law to further my career am less guilty? Something always motives both good and bad behavior, the idea with the bad I think is not to reward it.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by joocemann (1273720)

        And what we should be more interested in is this.... will we actually stop this, or put on a dog+pony show for the public and restart the same ops with new names, faces, and clearances.... Or just write new laws that you know the SCOTUS puppets won't deem unconstitutional because they are worthless and need to be publicly hung and eviscerated for corruption.

      • What if I make the "mistake" of killing somebody? Should I get away with an "Oopsie, I admit there was a mistake made, but it's been corrected, I'm not going to kill anybody from now on"?

        Too martial? Ok. Then I make the mistake of not paying for that shiny DVD player on my way out of Walmart. Think "Oopsie"'s gonna work?

        Even more trivial: "Oopsie, I wasn't making available any copyrighted content. I just accidentally left my MP3 folder world-readable. But that's been fixed now" is *definitely* going to spar

  • Okay, so what? What's to stop the next Bush/Cheney right wing douche-o-rama from doing the same thing? If there are no consequences, the next time they get a chance they'll do the same thing. We know we can't count on the FBI and NSA to police themselves, the Supreme Court is loaded with people who don't care about the Constitution, so NSA gets a slap on the wrist and new guidance. Big hairy deal. They'd do the same thing again if some sock puppet Attorney General told them it was okay.

    • by rpillala (583965) on Friday April 17, 2009 @07:37PM (#27622377)

      I think on this issue we can call it the current Bush/Cheney douche-o-rama. The administration announced yesterday recent that CIA personnel who relied on legal advice from the DOJ will not be investigated or prosecuted. This says that anything written by someone senior enough in DOJ will be carte blanch for torture. At least, that's the way I would read it if I had a mind to enable torture during my administration. The announcement did not mention what would happen to those giving the advice (Yoo, Addington, etc) or to the officials at the top (Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc.) However, the administration constantly says that they are not interested in looking backwards, only forwards.

      Well, that's a relief. When will this kind of forgiveness come to the criminal justice system that the rest of us live in? I mean, crimes I committed in the past should stay in the past why dredge up all that evidence at taxpayer expense just to put me in prison? Or, in the words of Bob Loblaw, "why should you go to jail for a crime that someone else noticed?"

  • by Amiga500_Rulez (988955) on Friday April 17, 2009 @07:22PM (#27622261)
    http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/obama-doj-worse-than-bush [eff.org] "The Obama Administration goes two steps further than Bush did, and claims that the US PATRIOT Act also renders the U.S. immune from suit under the two remaining key federal surveillance laws: the Wiretap Act and the Stored Communications Act. Essentially, the Obama Adminstration has claimed that the government cannot be held accountable for illegal surveillance under any federal statutes."
  • Newspeak framing (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 17, 2009 @07:23PM (#27622273)

    Just one example of newspeak framing:

    "The practice has been described as significant and systemic, although one official said it was believed to have been unintentional."

    "one official" -- makes the following sound like an "official" statement without anyone putting their name on the line. Who is the official?

    "said it was believed to be" -- implies that others agree and that this is the general belief. Governmentsprech for "some people say."

    Just reading this frames the subject, even if you know the announcement is full of s***. And framing is 90% of the battle. (Google George Lakoff on that one)

    • by slughead (592713)

      "one official" -- makes the following sound like an "official" statement without anyone putting their name on the line. Who is the official?

      And yet the headline seems to imply Obama's being tough on government abuses. If I were more cynical, I'd say this whole NSA smackdown is a sacrificial lamb to show he's "pro-civil liberties" after all, even though his administration recently won the warrantless wiretap case.

      Again, if I were cynical, I'd also say the media is eating it up. (on a related note [theonion.com])

  • by erroneus (253617) on Friday April 17, 2009 @07:29PM (#27622311) Homepage

    But you will notice that he didn't say it will stop!

    We have secret laws and secret courts convicting you with secret evidence. Is there anyone here who STILL thinks we are doing the right thing?

  • Power granted is power abused.

  • by TinBromide (921574) on Friday April 17, 2009 @07:32PM (#27622349)
    I know that slashdot believes that information should be free. (And AP was wrong in accusing google because IIRC, Google does indeed license AP material from AP and they do pay AP money), but this is precisely the kind of story that you wouldn't get from bloggers or non-paid (free) journalism.

    I wonder how much money NY Times paid for this story? $500k, $1m? So, remember, I will be modded down for this, but as you rail against the government for over-stomping our rights, this was the work of a paid Journalist or paid Team of Journalists who used their Journalism Major to bring home a paltry paycheck (well, paltry for those of us in the IT or engineering industry).

    Stories like these make me hope that the newspaper industry finds a way to make money, because reporting like this takes money, but in a rare move by Big Content, that charged money benefits us all. (Unlike the latest Britney Spears release or Hollywood Movie).
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Orne (144925)

      Paying for news is like torturing for information -- the only thing you're left with at the end of the day is a pile of suspect agenda-laden chatter.

      I prefer to get my news the old fashioned way, from grass-roots advocates and disaffected whisleblowers.

    • by Areyoukiddingme (1289470) on Friday April 17, 2009 @07:53PM (#27622511)

      Er, no? There was no investigative journalism involved in this story. The Obama administration investigated the NSA. How do we know? From the press release. This is release regurgitation journalism, nothing more, and blogs are more than capable of that.

  • ...and the pope is unintentionally catholic and bears unintentionally poo in woods.

  • by Areyoukiddingme (1289470) on Friday April 17, 2009 @07:42PM (#27622431)

    The practice has been described as significant and systemic, although one official said it was believed to have been unintentional.

    My 10 year old daughter uses that excuse. 'I didn't mean to throw cookie dough at my friend.

    'For 10 minutes.'

    Joe Klein at Time Magazine says the bad news is that 'the NSA apparently has been overstepping the law,' but the good news is that 'one of the safeguards in the [FISA Reform] law is a review procedure that seems to have the ability to catch the NSA when it's overstepping -- and that the illegal activities have been exposed, and quickly.'"

    Yeah, quickly. They were exposed almost 5 years [1] [salon.com] ago. An entire term of office for the US chief executive, for those of you keeping score. The FISA Reform act was not required to expose the activity. It was required to stop the activity. Maybe Time Magazine doesn't remember history very well, but we do. And we prefer not to implicitly lie with our choice of verb.

    Nor do we believe for a moment that the activity actually was stopped. Secret (kangaroo) courts and secret meetings and the utterly worthless assurances of the US Justice Department. Of course it's still on-going. I don't even have to wear a tin-foil hat to proclaim that. I don't sound the least bit nutty, saying that, because even major media reported the story, in detail, for months, and nobody cared.

    You think they're going to stop now? Of course they're not. Nobody was shot for treason when they endorsed a program that raped the US Constitution. Nobody was sent to jail when they designed a spying program that raped the US Constitution. Nobody lost their job when they implemented a surveillance program that raped the US Constitution. Nobody had their pay docked for listening to the phone calls of random citizens. Nobody got their knuckles rapped with a ruler for reading the email of random citizens. No, instead, they got condemned in the press. Oooooooo. The horror.

    They got away with it. Completely and utterly and totally. So why would they stop? When there are no negative consequences whatsoever, there's no reason at all to stop.

    The saddest part of all is that it can not be stopped. If Congress chose to do something about it, the members who led the effort would be pilloried as partisan and would lose reelection. Daring to stand on principle would result in losing their job, because that's what the voters think is right.

    Oh my people...

    • by Quothz (683368)

      Nobody was shot for treason when they endorsed a program that raped the US Constitution.

      So... you're suggesting that we rape the Constitution to protect the Constitution, eh?

      I agree with you generally - I dunno who said "If you aren't outraged, you aren't paying attention", but it's as true as true. But shouting "TREASON!" when arguing Constitutional issues makes you look silly, since it demonstrates a basic lack of knowledge about the Constitution. (Hint: Article III)

      • Come on now. We aren't lawyers here. When the average person uses the term "treason" they are broadly referring to any action which fucks our country.

        Obviously, what he meant was "Nobody was shot for fucking our country when they endorsed a program that raped the US Constitution.".
      • The United States is defined by the Constitution. Levying war against the United States requires an organized, armed force which attacks the United States. Therefore relying on the arms of officers of the United States to enforce violations of the Constitution is levying war against the United States. This specified as treason in Article III, along with adhering to enemies of the United States (violators of the Constitution), and giving such enemies aid and comfort. Therefore those who have relied on armed

  • by Anonymous Coward

    ...than to ask permission.

  • by carlzum (832868) on Friday April 17, 2009 @09:12PM (#27622995)
    My bank has a record of every purchase I make, my doctor has my medical history, and my ISP knows what web sites I visit, but I'm not worried. So why do I care if the federal government has that information? Because I don't trust them, and for good reason. The Patriot Act was supposed to protect us from terrorists, but as soon as it was enacted the government used it to enforce copyright violations [boingboing.net], kick homeless people out of a train station [firstamendmentcenter.org], and investigate drug dealers [nytimes.com]. Demonstrate some integrity and you'll earn people's trust.
  • by Angst Badger (8636) on Friday April 17, 2009 @09:31PM (#27623123)

    I dunno 'bout you, but when I accidentally turn logging on some high-volume task, I usually find out about it pretty quickly when /var/log fills up.

    Now, while I doubt that the high-volume task the NSA was monitoring -- like, oh, let's say all voice and data communications in the US -- went to /var/log, the fact is that when most folks build out storage for data collection, it tends to be built in proportion to the amount of data to be collected, plus some moderate wiggle room for unexpected overages. Exactly how much wiggle room you allocate depends, of course, on how big you think a plausible overage is, but since cost is a factor, even for -- or so I presume -- organizations with black budgets, you don't build out multiple petabytes to hold a couple of gigs worth of data, for example.

    So if the NSA was really only intending to capture a few, carefully targeted communications, you'd think someone would have noticed very quickly if they'd accidentally recorded more than they'd intended. For fucking years.

    I'm not sure what's worse: the original crime, lying about it, or this gross insult to the intelligence of everyone listening to their transparent fictions.

  • They also listen to our soldiers have phone sex when they call in from (overseas), which makes them possibly homosexual, but definietly perverted.
  • by shentino (1139071)

    suddenoutbreakofcommonsense

  • Who was in charge of Congress last July, who is in charge of the DHS now, and who is in charge at the White House (hint: it ain't the guy who sits in the Oval Office).

No man is an island if he's on at least one mailing list.

Working...