Sometimes the freedom of the press is just too much for a propaganda machine.-- FMHilton

All of the letters absolutely demolish the prosecutor's claim of a clean, happy prison. One letter states that his client attempted suicide because death would be preferable to being held at the prison.

They also listed as heinous torture having a beard shaved and being forced to pray in their underwear. Oh, the inhumanity...

None of them have any good words to say about the editorial, and all of them rebut soundly the arguments that the prosecutor states.

Right, because I say so.

We would not have been so quickly validated on our own opinions.

Translation: Because I'm liberal and therefore morally superior.
All this reminds me of the sage wisdom of years gone by... don't do the crime, if you can't do the time. But as always... IOKIYAD. They don't go to prison, or even resign for that matter.

I haven't seen a single call for a "Fairness Doctrine" on this subject. I wonder why?

Now that you folks are whipped up into a frenzy of paranoia It's time for a little sanity. Let's start here....

Very shortly, one of our resident trolls will write this:
You libs just want to make sure that Osama can talk freely with Mohammed, so that you can help Al Qaeda conquer America. Heh.

While that may or may not be true it certainly makes life easier for people "here" to touch base "there". The accusation summarized is, that to monitor international calls with the US on one end is a 4th Amendment violation. It might be or not. I don't believe it's been tested. More importantly nobody knows what was happening.

Glenn: "as Shane writes -- that "there is no evidence" that the administration used its eavesdropping powers against, say, political opponents, but that fact is not exculpatory, because there is "no evidence" at all, one way or the other, regarding how the administration eavesdropped.

That's the left's problem in a nut shell. There's no evidence of a crime. But as demonstrated in the Fitzpatrick investigation, no crime is necessary for prosecutors to haul people up in front of a grand jury.

As Glenn puts it: For exactly that reason, upon finding out that the President broke the law by eavesdropping on us with no oversight, the assumption ought to be that these powers were abused, rather than to assume that we can simply blindly trust their good faith. At the very least, it is ludicrous to simply take the word of the lawbreakers that they did nothing wrong.

That's a presumption of guilt....
* How does Glenn KNOW a law was broken? he just finished expounding that noone knows ANYTHING.
* How would Glenn KNOW there was no oversight? He doesn't.
* Presumption of guilt on hearsay, innuendo, and politics. Kinda like McCarthy don't you think?

Meanwhile back at the ranch....
To cut this argument off at the knees before an imbecile utters it, I'll point out that, by violating FISA, the Bush Admin proved that their goals went far beyond tracking terrorists.

But you have no idea FISA was violated. You know nothing of the sort. What we do know is that the NYTmes leaks about the banking surveillance and data base analysis, exposed two legal programs and damaged intelligence gathering. There was clearly an attempt to submarine the administration. Where's the beef? Everything else got leaked.

The existing FISA law provides great flexibility in pursuing our enemies, and I'm pretty sure they have always granted warrants, even retroactively. Bush's point in violating FISA was strictly so he could spy on those Americans whom the FISA court most likely would not grant a warrant.-- paulpsd7

* Hopefully the part about this not being about purely domestic phone calls sank in.
* How would you propose a warrant be drafted to monitor all calls crossing the border? You can't. Assuming this is the program in question, is that a smart thing? There's also the border aspect. One can be cavity searched with no warrant, but I think looking at laptops is still up in the air.
* Let's also remember that the resignations went unfilled because the President told Comey et al to do what they thought was need to make things legal.
* Lastly, does anyone think telling the world everything they need to know about our intelligence set up is a good idea? He's not called "Leaky Leahy" for nothing.

Hi Shooter. I don't agree with a thing you wrote, but thought I'd say hello.

Aways a pleasure Laura. Stand by, this might get interesting.

Quite so... "legal" is an assertion until tested in court. Would you be happier if I said "more legal"? How about "legaler"? But it's still all speculation at this point.

FISA is a criminal statute that says in it's preamble that it is the SOLE way for the government to spy on Americans. Again, the President and the Attorney General have publicly admitted to violating this requirement. That is a crime.-- Politically Lost

How about if the FISA court disagrees with you?

The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fiscr111802.html