That's a great comeback -- don't like something about your country? Well pack up, get out, and move someplace worse because america is perfect the way it is so you either need to accept that or get out - we don't need your changes!
But the base post in the threat makes sense? I think that is over generous by quite a stretch.
I'll know it is modest if the general public can get a dump of the meta data for every elected office holder as well as their staff members, and all judges.
Fine then. Will that also be the standard for: - All future search warrants (Your honor, its only fair to give the suspect your data too.) - A prerequisite for submitting tax forms ( Give me your data tax examiner and I'll give you mine?) - Answering census forms (So, census taker, do you have your data along with the Commissioners?) - Permit requests (If you want me to open this business here, where is the data for the town council?)
Every elected office holder? And staff? And all judges?
Oh yeah, that is well grounded. I suggest you get a grip.
You know, I just had a truly horrible thought. Please tell me that "sir" was not a Keith Oberman "sir". If it was, and at the moment this would only apply if it was, you are deep in the fever swamp of fringe politics, and I suggest you find yourself a way out.
The point I am trying to get across with this is that the teams doing this type of surveillance are made up of individuals, and as such, if you collect this information about your own citizens, you risk that information falling into unfriendly hands.
You take that risk regardless of what you gather it on, even against mortal enemies of your country.
I have to stop you right there. ECHELON has been gathering SIGINT for...
I was referring specifically to the newly revealed PRISM program and its apparent immediate predecessors in the news from several years ago. As far as I know they weren't started until after 9/11, although there were discussions of similar schemes before. The oft rumored ESCHELON program was apparently a Cold War program to gather communications, not the sort of data mining of metadata that has been disclosed as related to PRISM.
So, I don't think you've really contradicted me. If anything, you've pointed that that the technical means of surveillance is only one part of the picture, as I noted in the original post.
I say dubious, because for all the vaunted survelliance ongoing right now, it failed to stop the Woolwich stabbing attack [dailymail.co.uk]. It failed to stop the Boston marathon bombings
The surveillance is a tool, not magic. Even if the surveillance program provides good information it is still only an input to the security services. They still have to act upon it properly. In the case of the Boston Marathon bombing, the FBI appears to have dropped the ball, ignoring the direct warnings of the Russian security services. And somehow they didn't latch onto the trips to Dagestan. The security services are staffed flesh and blood that can make mistakes, no magic software is going to change that.
I think we are on a very slippery slope, where the temptation is all too great for the ruling parties to take the path of least resistance and extend the coverage gradually to all undesirables and enemies of the state - from terrorists to child pornographers to murderers to robbers to copyright infringers and finally to common members of the public.
Although I'm willing to agree that the security services need oversight from Parliament, I think there is a limited prospect for the sort of extension that you fear. In most democracies the dividing line between national security and ordinary criminal offenses tends to be well drawn and guarded. The two systems tend to live under different rules.
If you think this is impossible, look to China where it is happening even as we speak. The Chinese government even justified its censorship and surveillance of the internet on the basis of public security in a White Paper [english.gov.cn], including the following gem
I would hope it wouldn't be necessary to belabor the point that the British system of government is quite different in both manner and outlook from the government of the People's Republic of China, often referred to as Communist China. I think there is little danger there. They actually have a genuinely oppressive government there and have at best liberalized some.
What lies at the end of the slippery slope? Alan Moore might have the answer. [wikipedia.org] I suggest you look at his book, it is an intriguing read.
Thank you, but I'll take Alan Moorehead to Alan Moore any day. I've seen V for Vendetta. The movie is beautiful, the ideas are nonsense.
No, that isn't true at all. You've got an answer, but it doesn't apply to the situation. Ultimately Al Qaida wants to conquer and rule the world for Allah and convert the people of the world to Islam. In the process they will restore the Islamic Caliphate that was dissolved in 1923 with the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Many of the demands that people mistake as their goals are really nothing more than near-term or intermediate objectives.
Because they were so incredibly effective at preventing 9/11 in the US, and so effective at stopping the London, UK subway bombings, and so effective at preventing the train bombing in Madrid, Spain, right? I'm feeling less imperiled already.
As I understand it, the surveillance was started some time after the 9/11 attacks, so it couldn't have stopped that. But as to attacks in the UK, there has been a steady stream of arrests and trials over the years. A number of those plots were aimed at mass casualties by attacking stadiums, that sort of thing. I'm surprised you apparently haven't heard of them.
There have been regular arrests in the US besides actual attacks. Here is a sample.
I found V for Vendetta to be largely nonsense. And the purpose of police states generally isn't to prevent street crime, but to ensure the survival of an oppressive regime through oppression of the political opposition.
If you lose enough security you'll have difficulty enjoying freedom. Taking reasonable steps against terrorists is justified. Of course safeguards and parliamentary oversight need to be a basic part of the security arrangements. I have the courage to face both terrorist and government. You, on the other hand, seem to live in fear of government and ignore the dangers of the terrorist. That won't be a happy combination if widely emulated.
Conducting reviews for the issue of warrants in the FISA court helps to protect the operations and data of the intelligence agencies from unauthorized disclosure, which is rather important. Since any trials are performed in the other courts, it doesn't really have any effect other than the intended one.
Actually terrorists don't have anything to fear either. The FISA court doesn't conduct trials of suspects. It issues warrants. Trials are conducted in other courts. I doubt you've heard that before.
There isn't much parallelism there. The Star Chamber was formed to conduct trials of suspects from the start. The FISA court doesn't try suspects at all. Abuses of the FISA court are unlikely to persist or go undiscovered since the judges from other courts serve there on a rotating basis.
That will work to the same extent that the division of India and Pakistan was peaceful, leading to good relations and a sense of cooperation between the two. That is to say, not at all. Al Qaida is out for world conquest even if it takes 1,000 years. They are not in it for peaceful coexistence. The only peace they will seek with unbelievers is ceasefire until they can rebuild their strength.
The limited revelations so far have focused on the technical scheme and said little about the regulatory scheme, how it was used operationally. Leaving out that sort of data is like noting that almost everybody has in their house or on their person a device which has a microphone and transmits all it hears to remote listeners, that is a telephone, but leaving out the fact that it is off until you pick it up or turn it on. The existence of this technology and program says very little about if it is legal and if it has been used appropriately.
Turning off telephone service is inconvenient. Turning off the intelligence services ability to gather timely intelligence can perilous.
British authorities are tracking almost 30 high-priority terrorist plots involving 200 networks and 1,600 suspects, the head of Britain’s domestic spy agency said, adding that many of those under surveillance are homegrown terrorists plotting suicide attacks and other mass-casualty bombings.
The new chief of Britain's intelligence service MI5 painted a troubling picture of growing terrorist threat in Britain, saying the number of suspects in the country has more than doubled in the past year – and that many of the new recruits are teenagers....
LONDON, Nov. 5 -- British security officials suspect that at least 4,000 people are involved in terrorism-related activities in Britain and that al-Qaeda's "deliberate campaign" against Britain poses the "most immediate and acute peacetime threat" to the nation in a century, the head of Britain's domestic spy agency said Monday.
However, the danger of the Islamic terrorism can not, and should never, be used to justify the destruction of the Constitution of the United States of America
Two wrongs can never make a right, sir !!
I quite agree with you, the Constitution must be respected. And I acknowledge that this matter is treading on what could rightly be considered troubled ground, if not dangerous ground. Various parts of the federal government, from time to time, have engaged in behavior that didn't always properly respected the rights of Americans. Sometimes it takes a while to get it sorted out.
From what I have read, I think there are reasonable grounds to be concerned, but not to panic. While it is possible there is a genuine problem, that is far from clear. Congress needs to engage with this to perform good oversight. As more has been coming out, and responsible analysis of it performed, I'm beginning to think that it is unlikely there is a real legal problem. The biggest problems will be perception, political, and the potential for abuse, not actual abuse. I would feel much more comfortable about this if the IRS sandal hadn't demonstrated a wanton breakdown of protections inside a government agency with high potential for serious abuse.
One of the big problems with even discussing something like this is that It is fairly common for people to misunderstand the actual meaning and implications, or even existence, of the law, whether it is Constitutional, criminal, or the law of war. And sometimes there is a real question even in the legal community about what those rights really are, where the boundaries are, and what does it mean? Slashdot is no exception. There are many fanciful, faulty, or just plain wrong, ideas about how the Constitution works, the law works, what the courts have said, and what it all means. It really tends to come out at times like this.
I understand the danger of Islamic terrorism, first hand
I can't tell you where I am, suffice to say that I am posting this comment from outside of the United States of America, and my primary task is to penetrate some of the more virulent Islamic circles to obtain info on the global jihadist movement
I'll read between the lines and say thank you for your service, of whatever variety it is. Respect OPSEC. I pray for your safety, and that you have good hunting.
It has been reported that this program has helped to stop some of those attempts.
A program that doesn't exist has been given credit? Doubleplusgood!
I didn't realize that people where cheering so loudly over the disclosure of something that doesn't exist. Doubleplusodd.
CBS News has also reported that the so-called PRISM program, that tracked Internet activity, helped foil the plot to detonate bombs in the Grand Central and Times Square subway stations during rush hour. -- more
Well, look on the bright side comrade, maybe next time the bombs will get through. The question is, will it be London, Paris, Rome, or Washington? Or maybe a truckbomb in your town?
Even if it were true, it might work for CIA, but that isn't going to work for either NSA or IRS, is it? And even for the CIA, keeping it a secret would be a real problem.
What is the p-value for "no warming since 1998", for a linear regression line? What is the p-value for the time series starting 1997 and 1999?
Do you even know what I'm talking about?
Apparently the irony was unintentional. Well, don't confuse your lack of a sense of irony, and possibly humor, with my being stupid. If you want to look it up or do some calculations yourself, and post the results, knock yourself out. Just be sure to note the source of the data and your methodology in case anyone wants to replicate your work (this being science and all), as well as the usual measures of significance, etc.
If you want to quibble about the facts, perhaps you can inquire of Professor Judith Curry? (Will that be Chair to Chair, or random internet poster to Chair?)
Professor Judith Curry’s statement yesterday (25 April 2013) to a US House of Representatives subcommittee investigating global warming:
I am Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology
If all other things remain equal, it is clear that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will warm the planet. However the real difficulty is that nothing remains equal
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment report (IPCC AR4) published in 2007 made the following key statements...:
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emissions scenarios.”....
However, since 1998 there has been no statistically significant increase in global surface temperature. While many engaged in the public discourse on this topic dismiss the significance of a hiatus in increasing global temperatures because of expected variations associated with natural variability, analyses of climate model simulations find very unlikely a plateau or period of cooling that extends beyond 17 years in the presence of human-induced global warming
It looks like we'll have a pretty good idea within a couple of years, wouldn't you say?
So, what part did you find especially funny? The part where he flew to Communist China? The part where he disclosed Top Secret data to the media, which the Chinese now have. The part where he likely has more data to share?
The results of his comedy show will be reverberating for years to come.
Here is the real kicker: in time you may figure out that joke is on you.
After all, all true American "patriots" take stolen top secret intelligence data to communist countries - it's a long tradition.
Slashdot Mirror
Few things are more common among humanity than a failure of imagination.
Don't like it? Move to China.
That's a great comeback -- don't like something about your country? Well pack up, get out, and move someplace worse because america is perfect the way it is so you either need to accept that or get out - we don't need your changes!
But the base post in the threat makes sense? I think that is over generous by quite a stretch.
I'll know it is modest if the general public can get a dump of the meta data for every elected office holder as well as their staff members, and all judges.
Fine then. Will that also be the standard for:
- All future search warrants (Your honor, its only fair to give the suspect your data too.)
- A prerequisite for submitting tax forms ( Give me your data tax examiner and I'll give you mine?)
- Answering census forms (So, census taker, do you have your data along with the Commissioners?)
- Permit requests (If you want me to open this business here, where is the data for the town council?)
Every elected office holder? And staff? And all judges?
Oh yeah, that is well grounded. I suggest you get a grip.
You know, I just had a truly horrible thought. Please tell me that "sir" was not a Keith Oberman "sir". If it was, and at the moment this would only apply if it was, you are deep in the fever swamp of fringe politics, and I suggest you find yourself a way out.
The point I am trying to get across with this is that the teams doing this type of surveillance are made up of individuals, and as such, if you collect this information about your own citizens, you risk that information falling into unfriendly hands.
You take that risk regardless of what you gather it on, even against mortal enemies of your country.
Cambridge Five
John Anthony Walker
People betray their country for all sorts of reasons.
I have to stop you right there. ECHELON has been gathering SIGINT for ...
I was referring specifically to the newly revealed PRISM program and its apparent immediate predecessors in the news from several years ago. As far as I know they weren't started until after 9/11, although there were discussions of similar schemes before. The oft rumored ESCHELON program was apparently a Cold War program to gather communications, not the sort of data mining of metadata that has been disclosed as related to PRISM.
So, I don't think you've really contradicted me. If anything, you've pointed that that the technical means of surveillance is only one part of the picture, as I noted in the original post.
I say dubious, because for all the vaunted survelliance ongoing right now, it failed to stop the Woolwich stabbing attack [dailymail.co.uk]. It failed to stop the Boston marathon bombings
The surveillance is a tool, not magic. Even if the surveillance program provides good information it is still only an input to the security services. They still have to act upon it properly. In the case of the Boston Marathon bombing, the FBI appears to have dropped the ball, ignoring the direct warnings of the Russian security services. And somehow they didn't latch onto the trips to Dagestan. The security services are staffed flesh and blood that can make mistakes, no magic software is going to change that.
I think we are on a very slippery slope, where the temptation is all too great for the ruling parties to take the path of least resistance and extend the coverage gradually to all undesirables and enemies of the state - from terrorists to child pornographers to murderers to robbers to copyright infringers and finally to common members of the public.
Although I'm willing to agree that the security services need oversight from Parliament, I think there is a limited prospect for the sort of extension that you fear. In most democracies the dividing line between national security and ordinary criminal offenses tends to be well drawn and guarded. The two systems tend to live under different rules.
If you think this is impossible, look to China where it is happening even as we speak. The Chinese government even justified its censorship and surveillance of the internet on the basis of public security in a White Paper [english.gov.cn], including the following gem
I would hope it wouldn't be necessary to belabor the point that the British system of government is quite different in both manner and outlook from the government of the People's Republic of China, often referred to as Communist China. I think there is little danger there. They actually have a genuinely oppressive government there and have at best liberalized some.
What lies at the end of the slippery slope? Alan Moore might have the answer. [wikipedia.org] I suggest you look at his book, it is an intriguing read.
Thank you, but I'll take Alan Moorehead to Alan Moore any day. I've seen V for Vendetta. The movie is beautiful, the ideas are nonsense.
'A' for Absurd
No, that isn't true at all. You've got an answer, but it doesn't apply to the situation. Ultimately Al Qaida wants to conquer and rule the world for Allah and convert the people of the world to Islam. In the process they will restore the Islamic Caliphate that was dissolved in 1923 with the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Many of the demands that people mistake as their goals are really nothing more than near-term or intermediate objectives.
The Future of Terrorism: What al-Qaida Really Wants
Because they were so incredibly effective at preventing 9/11 in the US, and so effective at stopping the London, UK subway bombings, and so effective at preventing the train bombing in Madrid, Spain, right? I'm feeling less imperiled already.
As I understand it, the surveillance was started some time after the 9/11 attacks, so it couldn't have stopped that. But as to attacks in the UK, there has been a steady stream of arrests and trials over the years. A number of those plots were aimed at mass casualties by attacking stadiums, that sort of thing. I'm surprised you apparently haven't heard of them.
Just a small sample:
London terror bomb plot: the four terrorists
Fertiliser bomb plot: The story
Rucksack Bomb Plot Terror Suspects Nasser, Khalid and Ali Accused of Planning Attack ‘Deadlier than 7/7’
There have been regular arrests in the US besides actual attacks. Here is a sample.
I found V for Vendetta to be largely nonsense. And the purpose of police states generally isn't to prevent street crime, but to ensure the survival of an oppressive regime through oppression of the political opposition.
If you lose enough security you'll have difficulty enjoying freedom. Taking reasonable steps against terrorists is justified. Of course safeguards and parliamentary oversight need to be a basic part of the security arrangements. I have the courage to face both terrorist and government. You, on the other hand, seem to live in fear of government and ignore the dangers of the terrorist. That won't be a happy combination if widely emulated.
Conducting reviews for the issue of warrants in the FISA court helps to protect the operations and data of the intelligence agencies from unauthorized disclosure, which is rather important. Since any trials are performed in the other courts, it doesn't really have any effect other than the intended one.
Actually terrorists don't have anything to fear either. The FISA court doesn't conduct trials of suspects. It issues warrants. Trials are conducted in other courts. I doubt you've heard that before.
There isn't much parallelism there. The Star Chamber was formed to conduct trials of suspects from the start. The FISA court doesn't try suspects at all. Abuses of the FISA court are unlikely to persist or go undiscovered since the judges from other courts serve there on a rotating basis.
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
For very limited purposes, generally not trials. They do issue warrants for national security matters and perform oversight.
That will work to the same extent that the division of India and Pakistan was peaceful, leading to good relations and a sense of cooperation between the two. That is to say, not at all. Al Qaida is out for world conquest even if it takes 1,000 years. They are not in it for peaceful coexistence. The only peace they will seek with unbelievers is ceasefire until they can rebuild their strength.
The limited revelations so far have focused on the technical scheme and said little about the regulatory scheme, how it was used operationally. Leaving out that sort of data is like noting that almost everybody has in their house or on their person a device which has a microphone and transmits all it hears to remote listeners, that is a telephone, but leaving out the fact that it is off until you pick it up or turn it on. The existence of this technology and program says very little about if it is legal and if it has been used appropriately.
Turning off telephone service is inconvenient. Turning off the intelligence services ability to gather timely intelligence can perilous.
Bali death toll set at 202
London 7/7 terrorist attacks
Madrid train attacks
9-11 attacks
What has MI-5 had to say?
U.K. tracking 30 terror plots, 1,600 suspects - updated 11/10/2006
British authorities are tracking almost 30 high-priority terrorist plots involving 200 networks and 1,600 suspects, the head of Britain’s domestic spy agency said, adding that many of those under surveillance are homegrown terrorists plotting suicide attacks and other mass-casualty bombings.
What did the next head of MI-5 say a year later?
New MI5 chief says terror suspects in Britain have doubled in the last year - November 6, 2007
The new chief of Britain's intelligence service MI5 painted a troubling picture of growing terrorist threat in Britain, saying the number of suspects in the country has more than doubled in the past year – and that many of the new recruits are teenagers....
and more:
At Least 4,000 Suspected of Terrorism-Related Activity in Britain, MI5 Director Says - November 6, 2007
LONDON, Nov. 5 -- British security officials suspect that at least 4,000 people are involved in terrorism-related activities in Britain and that al-Qaeda's "deliberate campaign" against Britain poses the "most immediate and acute peacetime threat" to the nation in a century, the head of Britain's domestic spy agency said Monday.
And in 2012?
MI5 warns al-Qaida regaining UK toehold after Arab spring
You cripple the security services at your peril. Unlike the IRA, al Qaida doesn't tend to phone in warnings before a blast.
Cheers
However, the danger of the Islamic terrorism can not, and should never, be used to justify the destruction of the Constitution of the United States of America
Two wrongs can never make a right, sir !!
I quite agree with you, the Constitution must be respected. And I acknowledge that this matter is treading on what could rightly be considered troubled ground, if not dangerous ground. Various parts of the federal government, from time to time, have engaged in behavior that didn't always properly respected the rights of Americans. Sometimes it takes a while to get it sorted out.
From what I have read, I think there are reasonable grounds to be concerned, but not to panic. While it is possible there is a genuine problem, that is far from clear. Congress needs to engage with this to perform good oversight. As more has been coming out, and responsible analysis of it performed, I'm beginning to think that it is unlikely there is a real legal problem. The biggest problems will be perception, political, and the potential for abuse, not actual abuse. I would feel much more comfortable about this if the IRS sandal hadn't demonstrated a wanton breakdown of protections inside a government agency with high potential for serious abuse.
One of the big problems with even discussing something like this is that It is fairly common for people to misunderstand the actual meaning and implications, or even existence, of the law, whether it is Constitutional, criminal, or the law of war. And sometimes there is a real question even in the legal community about what those rights really are, where the boundaries are, and what does it mean? Slashdot is no exception. There are many fanciful, faulty, or just plain wrong, ideas about how the Constitution works, the law works, what the courts have said, and what it all means. It really tends to come out at times like this.
I found this helpful:
Minimization and the “Collection First” Surveillance Model
Why Does a Terry Standard Apply to Querying the NSA Call Records Database?
The Debate on NSA and PRISM: Andrew McCarthy and Conor Friedersdorf
Helping The Terrorists Avoid Detection and Capture, 2013 Edition
I understand the danger of Islamic terrorism, first hand
I can't tell you where I am, suffice to say that I am posting this comment from outside of the United States of America, and my primary task is to penetrate some of the more virulent Islamic circles to obtain info on the global jihadist movement
I'll read between the lines and say thank you for your service, of whatever variety it is. Respect OPSEC. I pray for your safety, and that you have good hunting.
Take care.
Do you think it is because they talked to the IG, or because there were talking to the media?
As the IRS case has shown, the IG office can be an imperfect institution, but If it is always a mistake to talk to the IG, why have them?
It has been reported that this program has helped to stop some of those attempts.
A program that doesn't exist has been given credit? Doubleplusgood!
I didn't realize that people where cheering so loudly over the disclosure of something that doesn't exist. Doubleplusodd.
CBS News has also reported that the so-called PRISM program, that tracked Internet activity, helped foil the plot to detonate bombs in the Grand Central and Times Square subway stations during rush hour. -- more
Well, look on the bright side comrade, maybe next time the bombs will get through. The question is, will it be London, Paris, Rome, or Washington? Or maybe a truckbomb in your town?
Not really needed. The Constitution's provisions work differently than you suppose.
Even if it were true, it might work for CIA, but that isn't going to work for either NSA or IRS, is it? And even for the CIA, keeping it a secret would be a real problem.
I think you are fishing a dry hole.
The disclosure is about what's being done. Want details? Lots of people here can provide details on how it can be done.
Not can be done, but is being done. Opinions are a dime a dozen, it is the facts of the matter that are important.
So maybe the have to meet in person. The park is a traditional spot.
Doesn't scale well for moving data from Pakistan or Yemen to the US.
Yes, sufficient detail to stop the attacks would have required required FBI headquarters to read the emails from their field offices.
That doesn't actually change my point. And for what it is worth, the CIA had data that the FBI needed.
What is the p-value for "no warming since 1998", for a linear regression line? What is the p-value for the time series starting 1997 and 1999?
Do you even know what I'm talking about?
Apparently the irony was unintentional. Well, don't confuse your lack of a sense of irony, and possibly humor, with my being stupid. If you want to look it up or do some calculations yourself, and post the results, knock yourself out. Just be sure to note the source of the data and your methodology in case anyone wants to replicate your work (this being science and all), as well as the usual measures of significance, etc.
If you want to quibble about the facts, perhaps you can inquire of Professor Judith Curry? (Will that be Chair to Chair, or random internet poster to Chair?)
Curry: less warming than predicted. Models seem wrong
Professor Judith Curry’s statement yesterday (25 April 2013) to a US House of Representatives subcommittee investigating global warming:
I am Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology
If all other things remain equal, it is clear that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will warm the planet. However the real difficulty is that nothing remains equal
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment report (IPCC AR4) published in 2007 made the following key statements...:
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emissions scenarios.”....
However, since 1998 there has been no statistically significant increase in global surface temperature. While many engaged in the public discourse on this topic dismiss the significance of a hiatus in increasing global temperatures because of expected variations associated with natural variability, analyses of climate model simulations find very unlikely a plateau or period of cooling that extends beyond 17 years in the presence of human-induced global warming
It looks like we'll have a pretty good idea within a couple of years, wouldn't you say?
Maybe.
Curry: less warming than predicted. Models seem wrong
What happened to global warming?
Always happy to please an audience.
So, what part did you find especially funny? The part where he flew to Communist China? The part where he disclosed Top Secret data to the media, which the Chinese now have. The part where he likely has more data to share?
The results of his comedy show will be reverberating for years to come.
Here is the real kicker: in time you may figure out that joke is on you.
After all, all true American "patriots" take stolen top secret intelligence data to communist countries - it's a long tradition.