NSA bugged UN headquarters, listened in on video conferencing

[fskimospy]

Spying on American's without warrants is deplorable, it's unconstitutional! IE, against the law!

What civil liberties did Lincoln deny, specifically?

Brian

Lincoln unilaterally suspended habeas corpus and reserved the right to hold any individual indefinitely without trial. The courts ruled that this was unconstitutional, and Lincoln ignored them.

How's that for unconstitutional?

 

[werepossum]

Spying on American's without warrants is deplorable, it's unconstitutional! IE, against the law!

What civil liberties did Lincoln deny, specifically?

Brian

Seriously? While Lincoln did great and necessary work holding the union together, he was by far the worst President on civil liberties, with the possible exception of FDR. (Smart people will see a pattern here.)

 

[Brian Stirling]

Lincoln unilaterally suspended habeas corpus and reserved the right to hold any individual indefinitely without trial. The courts ruled that this was unconstitutional, and Lincoln ignored them.

How's that for unconstitutional?

Hows this...


The U.S. Constitution specifically includes the habeas procedure in the Suspension Clause (Clause 2), located in Article One, Section 9. This states that "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it." Section 9 is under Article 1 which states, "legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in the Congress of the United States..."


Brian

 

[fskimospy]

Hows this...


The U.S. Constitution specifically includes the habeas procedure in the Suspension Clause (Clause 2), located in Article One, Section 9. This states that "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it." Section 9 is under Article 1 which states, "legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in the Congress of the United States..."


Brian

How's this:

1.) The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, acting as a circuit judge, ruled that Lincoln's actions were illegal. He ignored the court order.

2.) Article 1, Section 9 is speaking about Congress, not the President. I am aware of no competent legal authority that would say that by prohibiting Congress from suspending habeas corpus except in the cases of rebellion/invasion that somehow the President had the power to do so unilaterally. If Lincoln wanted to suspend habeas corpus, he needed Congress to go along.

He eventually did that, but only after years of lawless, unconstitutional imprisonment of political prisoners.

With this information in mind, have you changed your opinion about what Lincoln might be doing in this case?

 

[Brian Stirling]

How's this:

1.) The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, acting as a circuit judge, ruled that Lincoln's actions were illegal. He ignored the court order.

2.) Article 1, Section 9 is speaking about Congress, not the President. I am aware of no competent legal authority that would say that by prohibiting Congress from suspending habeas corpus except in the cases of rebellion/invasion that somehow the President had the power to do so unilaterally. If Lincoln wanted to suspend habeas corpus, he needed Congress to go along.

He eventually did that, but only after years of lawless, unconstitutional imprisonment of political prisoners.

With this information in mind, have you changed your opinion about what Lincoln might be doing in this case?

Hows this...


From Wikipedia...


On April 27, 1861, the writ of habeas corpus was suspended by President Abraham Lincoln in Maryland during the American Civil War. Lincoln had received word that mobs intended to destroy the railroad tracks between Annapolis and Philadelphia, which was a vital supply line for the Union. Lincoln did not issue a sweeping order; it only applied to that specific route.[9] Lincoln chose to suspend the writ over a proposal to bombard Baltimore, favored by his General-in-Chief Winfield Scott.[10] Lincoln was also motivated by requests by generals to set up military courts to rein in "Copperheads," or Peace Democrats, and those in the Union who supported the Confederate cause. Congress was not yet in session to consider a suspension of the writs.
His action was challenged in court and overturned by the U.S. Circuit Court in Maryland (led by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Roger B. Taney) in Ex Parte Merryman.[11] Lincoln's Attorney General Bates ignored Taney's order, and upheld the suspension.[12]
When Congress convened in July 1861, a joint resolution was introduced into the Senate approving of the president's suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, but filibustering by Senate Democrats and opposition to its imprecise wording by Sen. Lyman Trumbull prevented a vote on the resolution before the end of the first session, and the resolution was not taken up again.[13] Sen. Trumbull himself introduced a bill to suspend habeas corpus, but could not get a vote before the end of the first session.[14]
On February 14, 1862, Lincoln ordered most prisoners released,[15] putting an end to court challenges for the time being.


Brian

 

[fskimospy]

Hows this...


From Wikipedia...


On April 27, 1861, the writ of habeas corpus was suspended by President Abraham Lincoln in Maryland during the American Civil War. Lincoln had received word that mobs intended to destroy the railroad tracks between Annapolis and Philadelphia, which was a vital supply line for the Union. Lincoln did not issue a sweeping order; it only applied to that specific route.[9] Lincoln chose to suspend the writ over a proposal to bombard Baltimore, favored by his General-in-Chief Winfield Scott.[10] Lincoln was also motivated by requests by generals to set up military courts to rein in "Copperheads," or Peace Democrats, and those in the Union who supported the Confederate cause. Congress was not yet in session to consider a suspension of the writs.
His action was challenged in court and overturned by the U.S. Circuit Court in Maryland (led by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Roger B. Taney) in Ex Parte Merryman.[11] Lincoln's Attorney General Bates ignored Taney's order, and upheld the suspension.[12]
When Congress convened in July 1861, a joint resolution was introduced into the Senate approving of the president's suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, but filibustering by Senate Democrats and opposition to its imprecise wording by Sen. Lyman Trumbull prevented a vote on the resolution before the end of the first session, and the resolution was not taken up again.[13] Sen. Trumbull himself introduced a bill to suspend habeas corpus, but could not get a vote before the end of the first session.[14]
On February 14, 1862, Lincoln ordered most prisoners released,[15] putting an end to court challenges for the time being.


Brian

Uhmm, your link supports what I've been telling you.

1.) It doesn't matter if Congress is in session yet or not. If you believe otherwise, can you point me to the part of the Constitution that gives the President this power if Congress is out of session? This act was unconstitutional.

2.) This summary mentions that Lincoln was given a court order to cease, but the Attorney General decided to ignore the rulings of the courts. This act was unconstitutional.

3.) The Senate brought up a resolution that failed to pass. Failed resolutions are irrelevant.

4.) Just because Lincoln (mostly) stopped doing unconstitutional things in 1862 doesn't mean he wasn't doing unconstitutional things before then.

Earlier in this thread you were arguing about how bad this was because people were being spied on in violation of the Constitution. (of course the UN has no protections against this) I've shown you an explicit example of Lincoln not just spying on people, but throwing them in jail. Do you agree that he is a poor choice to invoke in relation to civil liberties?

 

[Brian Stirling]

Uhmm, your link supports what I've been telling you.

1.) It doesn't matter if Congress is in session yet or not. If you believe otherwise, can you point me to the part of the Constitution that gives the President this power if Congress is out of session? This act was unconstitutional.

2.) This summary mentions that Lincoln was given a court order to cease, but the Attorney General decided to ignore the rulings of the courts. This act was unconstitutional.

3.) The Senate brought up a resolution that failed to pass. Failed resolutions are irrelevant.

4.) Just because Lincoln (mostly) stopped doing unconstitutional things in 1862 doesn't mean he wasn't doing unconstitutional things before then.

Earlier in this thread you were arguing about how bad this was because people were being spied on in violation of the Constitution. (of course the UN has no protections against this) I've shown you an explicit example of Lincoln not just spying on people, but throwing them in jail. Do you agree that he is a poor choice to invoke in relation to civil liberties?

The period of the Civil War was pretty bad -- 650,000 died as you know. And, in spite of a long record of opposing slavery, as in the Lincoln Douglas debates, Lincoln didn't sign the Emancipation Proclamation until nearly two years into the war. Holding a nation together aint easy.

On the points above ...

Lincoln's suspension was limited in time and place and a direct reaction to intelligence reports that mobs would destroy vital supply lines.

How do you act in time to prevent that if you have to wait for congress to go back in session?

Congress was denied a vote on the matter because the Dems through filibustering -- where have I seen this game being played before?

His suspension was limited in time and place and and ended, not years later as you claimed but 9.5 months later.

Equating the suspension of habeas corpus in time of war to counter an actual threat from a limited area with the wholesale spying on every single American is absurd in the extreme. What have you done to threaten America? Doesn't matter because the government has decided they need to monitor your every action.


Brian

 

[fskimospy]

The period of the Civil War was pretty bad -- 650,000 died as you know. And, in spite of a long record of opposing slavery, as in the Lincoln Douglas debates, Lincoln didn't sign the Emancipation Proclamation until nearly two years into the war. Holding a nation together aint easy.

On the points above ...

Lincoln's suspension was limited in time and place and a direct reaction to intelligence reports that mobs would destroy vital supply lines.

How do you act in time to prevent that if you have to wait for congress to go back in session?

Congress was denied a vote on the matter because the Dems through filibustering -- where have I seen this game being played before?

His suspension was limited in time and place and and ended, not years later as you claimed but 9.5 months later.

Equating the suspension of habeas corpus in time of war to counter an actual threat from a limited area with the wholesale spying on every single American is absurd in the extreme. What have you done to threaten America? Doesn't matter because the government has decided they need to monitor your every action.

Brian

So your argument is that violating the Constitution is okay if the President has a good reason.

If you want to make that argument that's fine, but don't act like Lincoln was a great protector of civil liberties.

 

[Brian Stirling]

So your argument is that violating the Constitution is okay if the President has a good reason.

If you want to make that argument that's fine, but don't act like Lincoln was a great protector of civil liberties.

Your playing partisan games, let me ask you this:

If Lincoln was wrong to suspend habeas corpus, during time of war, in a limited time and place, in response to an actual threat, how is it you're indifferent to spying on every single American no matter what they're doing, where they are, or any actual threat? Just to be clear, are you saying Lincoln was wrong and that it's OK for the NSA to spy on absolutely every American -- forever?

As I indicated in prior posts I can accept some limits on my liberties if:

1. There is an actual threat, and

2. It's of limited scope, and

3. The limits are tied to the threat

There can be no doubt that a mob, threatening to disrupt supply lines, in time of war, was a threat of extreme exigence and that there could be no delay in its implementation. The fact that it was limited it time and place was a clear indication that this was not some general effort to quiet dissent.

The statements made by the president and others that the NSA is being very careful and limited in the use of this broad net of data is countered by evidence, some revealed by Snowden, that it is being used well beyond the areas they claim it to be. Evidence that the DEA is being given access to some of this data and being told to cover up its source should be troubling to everyone given the obvious mission creep that's taking place.

So, in summary, can you tell me if you think the NSA spying on every single American is OK?


Brian

 

[fskimospy]

Your playing partisan games, let me ask you this:

If Lincoln was wrong to suspend habeas corpus, during time of war, in a limited time and place, in response to an actual threat, how is it you're indifferent to spying on every single American no matter what they're doing, where they are, or any actual threat? Just to be clear, are you saying Lincoln was wrong and that it's OK for the NSA to spy on absolutely every American -- forever?

As I indicated in prior posts I can accept some limits on my liberties if:

1. There is an actual threat, and

2. It's of limited scope, and

3. The limits are tied to the threat

There can be no doubt that a mob, threatening to disrupt supply lines, in time of war, was a threat of extreme exigence and that there could be no delay in its implementation. The fact that it was limited it time and place was a clear indication that this was not some general effort to quiet dissent.

The statements made by the president and others that the NSA is being very careful and limited in the use of this broad net of data is countered by evidence, some revealed by Snowden, that it is being used well beyond the areas they claim it to be. Evidence that the DEA is being given access to some of this data and being told to cover up its source should be troubling to everyone given the obvious mission creep that's taking place.

So, in summary, can you tell me if you think the NSA spying on every single American is OK?


Brian

This post is just showing you didn't read the thread.

I don't support the NSA spying on Americans without warrants. I do support the NSA spying on other countries. From the reports that have come out, the DEA is being given information that the NSA can lawfully pass to them, and that is not a problem. The problem is with the DEA concealing the source, which is an unconstitutional breach of the ability to confront the evidence against you.

None of this changes the fact that Abraham Lincoln engaged in mass violations of civil liberties and did so in defiance of court orders to the contrary. As I said originally, to say that Abraham Lincoln would be aghast at what is happening ignores just how little Lincoln cared about civil liberties.

 

[Brian Stirling]

This post is just showing you didn't read the thread.

I don't support the NSA spying on Americans without warrants. I do support the NSA spying on other countries. From the reports that have come out, the DEA is being given information that the NSA can lawfully pass to them, and that is not a problem. The problem is with the DEA concealing the source, which is an unconstitutional breach of the ability to confront the evidence against you.

None of this changes the fact that Abraham Lincoln engaged in mass violations of civil liberties and did so in defiance of court orders to the contrary. As I said originally, to say that Abraham Lincoln would be aghast at what is happening ignores just how little Lincoln cared about civil liberties.

If the cops stop you and ask you if they can search your car would you think that's improper? What if there was a prison escape nearby and the escapes had just killed a family -- would it be OK if they searched your car in this LIMITED exigent situation -- I would.

If you were walking along and the cops stopped you and asked to see what was in your pockets would you think that's OK? What if you're going through security at an airport? In the first instance I'd be very unhappy, but in the second case, LIMITED to those boarding a plane, I'm not happy but I tolerate it.

Would you think the police searching someone's home is bad? What if they received a warrant based on other evidence of wrongdoing? I am absolutely opposed to unlimited search and seizure but I support the police right to search pursuant to a legally obtained warrant that is LIMITED to specific areas and materials.

The key here is LIMITS and in the case of Lincoln the suspension of habeas corpus was LIMITED in time and place and directed to address an actual treat with exigence that, like the police looking for the escaped convicts, requires action before legal action can sign off on. The congress, when they took of the habeas corpus case, played games with the issue and failed to vote one way or the other and yet the threat remained -- would you have allowed the mobs to destroy the supply lines? Would you allow the escaped convicts to get away?

The NSA programs aimed at every single American is unconstitutional no matter what the current court says and sometimes the courts are wrong.


Brian

 

[fskimospy]

I think you are confused about what is and is not constitutional. Most of your examples are explicitly constitutional searches, as upheld by the courts.

Lincoln's action was explicitly unconstitutional, as stated by the courts.

Period.

End of story.

 

[Fern]

How's this:

1.) The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, acting as a circuit judge, ruled that Lincoln's actions were illegal. He ignored the court order.

2.) Article 1, Section 9 is speaking about Congress, not the President. I am aware of no competent legal authority that would say that by prohibiting Congress from suspending habeas corpus except in the cases of rebellion/invasion that somehow the President had the power to do so unilaterally. If Lincoln wanted to suspend habeas corpus, he needed Congress to go along.
-snip-

I mostly agree with you.

However, IIRC the Constitution only permits Congress the power to declare war yet the President may act prior to Congressional action if necessary to defend the USA. Given the travels times back then, the President could not afford to sit around and wait until Congress managed to convene.

I think it could be argued that the power to suspend Habeas Corpus should be viewed similarly. I.e., the President can act quickly to carry out his Constitutional duties if Congress is not available.

I notice the case never went to the actual SCOTUS but just the US circuit court so it could be argued that it wasn't truly unconstitutional. (I believe other President's have carried on even if losing at the appellate level. However, they may have had some, or at least one, appellate court rule in their favor and may have sought and obtained a stay from the court ruling against them pending a SCOTUS hearing.)

Fern

 

[werepossum]

The period of the Civil War was pretty bad -- 650,000 died as you know. And, in spite of a long record of opposing slavery, as in the Lincoln Douglas debates, Lincoln didn't sign the Emancipation Proclamation until nearly two years into the war. Holding a nation together aint easy.

On the points above ...

Lincoln's suspension was limited in time and place and a direct reaction to intelligence reports that mobs would destroy vital supply lines.

How do you act in time to prevent that if you have to wait for congress to go back in session?

Congress was denied a vote on the matter because the Dems through filibustering -- where have I seen this game being played before?

His suspension was limited in time and place and and ended, not years later as you claimed but 9.5 months later.

Equating the suspension of habeas corpus in time of war to counter an actual threat from a limited area with the wholesale spying on every single American is absurd in the extreme. What have you done to threaten America? Doesn't matter because the government has decided they need to monitor your every action.


Brian

I think you are missing his point. It's not that Lincoln wasn't a great President or that the unconstitutional steps he took were above what he deemed necessary. It's that Lincoln, having taken those steps, is a poor choice for a President who would be spinning in his grave at other Presidents taking what unconstitutional steps they deem necessary. Lincoln would no doubt find the NSA spying to be a reasonable violation of Constitutional rights, having himself decided that a President could violate Constitutional rights as he wished and/or deemed necessary.

 

[Jhhnn]

I think you are missing his point. It's not that Lincoln wasn't a great President or that the unconstitutional steps he took were above what he deemed necessary. It's that Lincoln, having taken those steps, is a poor choice for a President who would be spinning in his grave at other Presidents taking what unconstitutional steps they deem necessary. Lincoln would no doubt find the NSA spying to be a reasonable violation of Constitutional rights, having himself decided that a President could violate Constitutional rights as he wished and/or deemed necessary.

That's pure projection. Lincoln was dealing with armed & organized insurrection by 11 southern states & sympathetic mobs in the mid atlantic states, which is in no way comparable to the situation of today. Not in the slightest.

It's also important to remember that Justice Taney was the author of the Dred Scott decision, so his circuit court ruling wrt Lincoln's invocation of Martial law remains highly suspect.

 

[Brian Stirling]

There can be no doubt that revoking the writ of habeas corpus was not something a president wants to do but in time of war you sometimes HAVE to do things you'd prefer not to.

Some might argue that collecting data on every American is the same given the ongoing war on terror but that fails the limits test I've been talking about.

Pretending that Lincoln was some kind of monster for suspending habeas corpus as he did and claiming he had no concern for civil rights seems to me an afterfact effort to replay the war the other way. The North won and the South lost -- get over it, bad mouthing Lincoln, because you would have preferred a different outcome is pathetic.

My sense is that Lincoln was deeply concerned about suspending habeas corpus and the limits on it reflect that, so yeah, Lincoln WOULD be offended that the nation he served to protect was now being eviscerated from within.


Brian

 

[fskimospy]

There can be no doubt that revoking the writ of habeas corpus was not something a president wants to do but in time of war you sometimes HAVE to do things you'd prefer not to.

Some might argue that collecting data on every American is the same given the ongoing war on terror but that fails the limits test I've been talking about.

Pretending that Lincoln was some kind of monster for suspending habeas corpus as he did and claiming he had no concern for civil rights seems to me an afterfact effort to replay the war the other way. The North won and the South lost -- get over it, bad mouthing Lincoln, because you would have preferred a different outcome is pathetic.

My sense is that Lincoln was deeply concerned about suspending habeas corpus and the limits on it reflect that, so yeah, Lincoln WOULD be offended that the nation he served to protect was now being eviscerated from within.

Brian

Wait, now you're arguing that I wanted the south to win the Civil War?

 

[werepossum]

That's pure projection. Lincoln was dealing with armed & organized insurrection by 11 southern states & sympathetic mobs in the mid atlantic states, which is in no way comparable to the situation of today. Not in the slightest.

It's also important to remember that Justice Taney was the author of the Dred Scott decision, so his circuit court ruling wrt Lincoln's invocation of Martial law remains highly suspect.

Good points, but again, the point wasn't to denigrate Lincoln but to point out that he is a poor choice of grave spinner. Washington (who turned down being king) or Jefferson (the impetus behind our Bill of Rights) for instance would have been much better choices.

There can be no doubt that revoking the writ of habeas corpus was not something a president wants to do but in time of war you sometimes HAVE to do things you'd prefer not to.

Some might argue that collecting data on every American is the same given the ongoing war on terror but that fails the limits test I've been talking about.

Pretending that Lincoln was some kind of monster for suspending habeas corpus as he did and claiming he had no concern for civil rights seems to me an afterfact effort to replay the war the other way. The North won and the South lost -- get over it, bad mouthing Lincoln, because you would have preferred a different outcome is pathetic.

My sense is that Lincoln was deeply concerned about suspending habeas corpus and the limits on it reflect that, so yeah, Lincoln WOULD be offended that the nation he served to protect was now being eviscerated from within.

Brian

Dude, if you think Eskimospy, one of our most left posters, the guy who called the South mostly evil and accordingly wants it kept under the federal government's thumb seemingly in perpetuity, wants the South to win the Civil War you've gone insane. Probably not half a dozen people in this whole forum even secretly wish the South had won. Nobody is bad-mounting Lincoln, merely pointing out that he is a poor choice of grave spinner.

It's certainly important to keep in mind the very real threats that led Lincoln to repeatedly violate the Constitution and to judge him in light of those threats which thankfully have never been repeated. It's a very bad idea to ignore those violations because it sets a precedent that other leaders may also violate the Constitution when they deem necessary.

 

[Brian Stirling]

Good points, but again, the point wasn't to denigrate Lincoln but to point out that he is a poor choice of grave spinner. Washington (who turned down being king) or Jefferson (the impetus behind our Bill of Rights) for instance would have been much better choices.


Dude, if you think Eskimospy, one of our most left posters, the guy who called the South mostly evil and accordingly wants it kept under the federal government's thumb seemingly in perpetuity, wants the South to win the Civil War you've gone insane. Probably not half a dozen people in this whole forum even secretly wish the South had won. Nobody is bad-mounting Lincoln, merely pointing out that he is a poor choice of grave spinner.

It's certainly important to keep in mind the very real threats that led Lincoln to repeatedly violate the Constitution and to judge him in light of those threats which thankfully have never been repeated. It's a very bad idea to ignore those violations because it sets a precedent that other leaders may also violate the Constitution when they deem necessary.

First, Eskimospy wasn't the only one pushing the Lincoln was evil line and you know that!

Yes, in time of war a leader must, MUST sometimes do things that they would not otherwise not do and it's that fact that pisses me off about the suggestion that Lincoln was callous about the imposition of martial law etc.

You and I don't go around shooting people for no reason but if confronted with a threat to your life shooting and killing someone, though undesirable, may be necessary.

Arguing that shooting someone during a grave threat is evil, thou shalt not kill afterall, is a game -- an awful game.

I think Lincoln more than most would have been unhappy to see the unlimited termination of civil rights in the PRISM program not because he never suspended civil right but precisely because he did -- with cause and limitation.


Brian

 

[fskimospy]

First, Eskimospy wasn't the only one pushing the Lincoln was evil line and you know that!

I don't think Lincoln was evil, he was one of our greatest presidents. That doesn't mean that his record on civil liberties was good.

Yes, in time of war a leader must, MUST sometimes do things that they would not otherwise not do and it's that fact that pisses me off about the suggestion that Lincoln was callous about the imposition of martial law etc.

You and I don't go around shooting people for no reason but if confronted with a threat to your life shooting and killing someone, though undesirable, may be necessary.

Arguing that shooting someone during a grave threat is evil, thou shalt not kill afterall, is a game -- an awful game.

I think Lincoln more than most would have been unhappy to see the unlimited termination of civil rights in the PRISM program not because he never suspended civil right but precisely because he did -- with cause and limitation.

Brian

If you want to argue that Lincoln had a good enough reason to do what he did that's fine. I might even agree with you. I firmly believe that there can be threats to the US that could arise which are serious enough that we can't wait for normal constitutional processes in order to act, particularly in that age of slow travel, bad information sharing, etc. That doesn't mean that what Lincoln did wasn't a violation of constitutional protections against imprisonment.

 

[Brian Stirling]

I don't think Lincoln was evil, he was one of our greatest presidents. That doesn't mean that his record on civil liberties was good.



If you want to argue that Lincoln had a good enough reason to do what he did that's fine. I might even agree with you. I firmly believe that there can be threats to the US that could arise which are serious enough that we can't wait for normal constitutional processes in order to act, particularly in that age of slow travel, bad information sharing, etc. That doesn't mean that what Lincoln did wasn't a violation of constitutional protections against imprisonment.

The interesting question I have, and I don't have an answer for, is have we learned anything since Lincoln suspended habeas corpus? That is, has the laws been adjusted to permit the president to act, before the confirming body of the congress, to deal with imminent threats that can't wait till congress is in session? The war powers act is more clear cut than the case for martial law. Seems to me there was a hole in the laws that needed, and perhaps still needs, to be filled.

Another area of concern is the law preventing the military from acting on domestic problems -- the posse comitatus. Although the law was originally enacted by those in the south to prevent the federal government from intervening in the south it is a reasonable idea to limit federalism of the most aggressive kind. However, as Katrina showed us, in a major disaster it's necessary for outside forces, trained to deal with the problem, to be able to come in and assist.

But, even Katrina isn't the worst that can happen and when I think about the possibility, almost certain given enough time, of a massive earthquake in southern California, the idea that local authorities could deal with the kind of disaster an 8.3 magnitude earthquake would do is almost criminally ludacris.


Brian