I cannot convince any of the '30 percenters' like this fellow:

"lawsuit reform"

Elephantman, are you saying your idea of "lawsuit reform" is that people should no longer be able to sue another party for breaking the law?

Or are you just unaware that under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (50 U.S.C. §§1801–1811, 1821–29, 1841–46, and 1861–62) the telecoms broke the law?

This is actually a serious question.

-- Paul Daniel Ash

There are serious questions there. Does FISA apply to what was actually done? Was it intended to apply? Was there a legitimate national security issue that was being addressed by Presidential order? Does FISA need amendment? Are civil suits an intended remedy for the kind of alleged FISA violation that you are claiming?

You have made up your mind, and I have no hope of changing it. I have little or no reason to believe that there needs to be any criminal investigation and prosecution here. I am even less convinced that civil lawsuits would serve any purpose other than to enrich the lawyers.

...

Suppose McCain was elected and brought back the draft?

...

-- Don Carlo

Second, it's Charlie Rangel, not John McCain, who wants to bring back the draft.

Feinstein ought to follow Lieberman to the GOP side

I'm too angry to write more than that at this point.

-- Gordon Wagner

They all ought to go over to the GOP side. Right now. We hadn't formally counted on the Independent Democrat Joe Lieberman, but we'll wlecome him with open arms. You can keep your own 'Independent' socaialist Bernie Sanders.

That would give the GOP a majority of about 79 to 20.

How quickly can we complete the paperwork on this deal?

"Does FISA apply to what was actually done?"

...

There is no real question that the Bush Administration still believes this, as it fought long and hard for retroactive amnesty of telecom lawbreaking.

...

-- Paul Daniel Ash

Well, no, actually. The Bush Administration has said that no laws were broken, but that it nevertheless wanted to protect the telcoms from vexatious and horrifically expensive civil litigation which might impact on future national security operations. It was the right thing for the Administration to do. It was the stand-up thing to do. The Administration had every right to expect it and its officers would be immune from suit or prosecution. It undertook the amnesty provisions to protect its principles.

What's done is done. Berkeley's esteemed city council has done its part to convince most of the rest of America that the left really does have some out-of-control anarchist leanings, that places like Berkeley can never be taken seriously unless and until they come up with some new computer chip, a cure for a disease, or an answer to a previously unanswerable equation. Too bad for Berkeley, because people were just beginning to take the football team sort of seriously. These stories, inconsequential as they may be (Berkeley's own free-speech and free-association laws would probably protect the Marine Corps even if city council wanted them to leave) nevertheless gets inordinate amounts of press because, let's face it, most of the rest of America associates this kind of statement ("We don't want you here") as an affront to everyone in the Marine Corps, and reinforces the image that the left just generally hates the military, and should not be trusted to lead us in military affairs.

that so many of you are so seriously afflicted with Bush derangment syndrome, that you can't even ask the right questions.

I mean, you're free to hate Republicans all you like. No problem for me. But don't you wonder why so many Democrats came to such a completely wrong-headed and utterly unjustifiable conclusion (your view) as to how they would cast a vote on this issue?

You all want to take the easy path, and presume that a scurrilous, dishonest lobbying/bribery campaign is what got telcom amnesty through. That's an awful lot of Democrats that you are condemning! I think the last time that I had to condemn so many Republicans was when they all voted to kill the Dubai Ports World deal. But I never regarded that as a massive conspiracy. Rather, it was the power of public opinion. Stupid public opinion in that case, but powerful public opinion in any event. Not a lobbying conspiracy. (Although remember that the whole story was prepackaged for the media by a competitor to Dubai Ports World.)

Anyway, you all ought to take a lot more careful measure of your own side on this. I have the feeling now, as Virginia primary results come in, that an issue like this is just going to energize an already-loaded Obama campaign. It may be over for Hillary, who was clearly the more electable candidate. I'd say be careful what/who you wish for, because you might just get it. But I think it's too late. You'll be campaigning this fall for The Honorable Barack Hussein Obama for President.

I am picking the U.S. Marine Corps for my side. Okay, now your pick. You want the ACLU?