Dear Mr. Coppolino:

According to a recent New York Times Article, entitled U.S. Asks Judge to Drop Suit on N.S.A. Spying, you recently argued that the controversial NSA wiretapping program was constitutional, but said that "the evidence we need to demonstrate to you that it [is] lawful cannot be disclosed without that process itself causing grave harm to United States national security." I hate to jump to judgements - so I need to ask you to clarify something for me: Did you seriously just make that argument in court? Furthermore, did you argue that the only solution was to dismiss the case?

I understand the need to limit court proceedings that could cause an imminent threat to national security. For instance, a case that could reveal war plans or the location of air craft carriers or the identity of covert agents could reasonably be restricted. However, I am unaware of any possible justification that could extend this concern to cover an entire program. Do you really think this argument has a chance of succeeding?

Perhaps more importantly, do you really want it to? Do you want the precedent that anything is above judicial review so long as somebody claims that it is a matter of national security?

Additionally, did you argue, as reported, that a 1978 law cannot constitutionally constrain the president when the nation is at risk? Are you really saying that the president is above the law in matters of national security? Please let me know if I am getting my facts wrong. The New York Times certainly seems to have a bias in this matter.

Finally, a request: please stop. I suggest a career in comedy as you can clearly say ridiculous things with a straight face.

Sincerely,

Dan

P.S. I've appended an award for you.

Overall

In the alternative, you could consider a career in vacuums and vacuum accessories.