Ron Paul looks better every day. Even though I don't agree with him on a lot of issues, HE HAS A SPINE. Maybe some of these Democrats in Congress can get a transplant.

Someone said this:

>>Then he could ask himself how much better off the country would be if those 16 Democrats were replaced by Republicans

Uh, if they are voting the same as Republicans, what is the difference? Isn't that the point?

So that's Rove and Gonzales out. Why? It obviously has nothing to do with "being a distraction." Something big is about to hit the fan, either yet another scandal or we'll be bombing Iran soon and they wanted to clear the decks of the ballast first.

Glenn,

I recently watched your appearance on C-SPAN with David Rivkin. Maybe you already did this in a previous post, but I think it would be helpful for the non-lawyers out here if you addressed a few of the arguments he was making that you never really got a chance to rebut on that show. For example, his "mafia don" example, etc. You two basically called each other liars the entire time. I'm sure most viewers were just baffled by this and didn't know what to think.

Keep up the good work,

Thanks,

Orson

>>I addressed that point repeatedly. Nobody opposes eavesdropping for proper purposes. The issue is whether there should be eavesdropping with or without warrants. The government can eavesdrop on the "mafia dons" - as well as all the other scary figures such as The Drug Lords and The Terrorists - with oversight. I made that point in virtually every answer.

That isn't what I was referring to. I was referring specifically to Rivkin's argument that foreign surveillance targets that trigger domestic surveillance have never required warrants. He made that argument around minute 12:00. This was the second time he made this argument and even he said, "I haven't heard you rebut it."

>>Actually, from what I recall, I don't think, even implicitly, that we called each other "liars" even once, let alone repeatedly.

You both repeatedly claimed that each other were making false statements, e.g., "That is false."

>>Don't assume that when you are "baffled" by something, it means that "most" people are as well.

Sorry? I don't know where this is coming from. I was merely pointing out that when two people are debating an issue and they don't seem to agree on the basic facts in any way, non-FISA experts (in this case) who are looking on might find it baffling. And in that C-SPAN format, the moderator often did not give you a chance to rebut some of his specific points/scenarios.

>>I explained this many times as well. The law goes far beyond either the original FISA as well as the warrantless surveillance program, because it does not require that the target be foreign in order to listen in with no warrants.

I thought the point he was making was that even under FISA there were cases in which American citizens could be surveilled without a warrant, e.g., the target of the surveillance is foreign and the target calls someone in Indiana. In that case, the American citizen's communications with the foreign target could be surveilled without a warrant. If that is correct, his argument seems to be that if that type of warrantless surveillance of American citizens was and is acceptable under FISA, why do you object to other types of warrantless surveillance of Americans? This is of a piece with his other arguments: Americans are routinely searched without a warrant (at airports, borders, etc.), so why is the new law so pernicious?

This is really just obfuscation on his part. The only point I was making is that you never (it seemed to me) had the opportunity to challenge these specific analogies. You did repeatedly address the larger question of the importance of oversight, however.

Another way to put it: in what cases do you think warrantless surveillance or searches are legitimate and necessary (if there are any) and in what cases do you think warantless surveillance or searches are not legitimate and dangerous? And on what basis do you make the distinction?

Rivkin is trying to argue that if you admit any cases of warrantless surveillance/searches, then this undercuts your objections to any warrantless surveillance. That isn't convincing. However, you would make a better case by elucidating or expounding on the first two questions above.

Thanks.

>> Virginia is competitive again. Dems can pick that seat up.

What an exciting prospect -- maybe the Dems can pick up all 100 seats and then make their capitulation to the GOP unanimous. That would be awesome. I can't wait to pick up that seat.

Actually, Warner has shown more spine (as rubbery as it might be) than plenty of Democrats when it comes to Iraq.

When people on the Left start talking about "corporations" and the "conspiracy of the corporate masters," my eyes start to roll in exactly the same way they do when people on the Right start talking about the "liberal media." The main problem is that the press has forsaken its primary function in a democracy (government watchdog and gadfly) for a role in the celebrity DC cocktail party circuit.

Aspiring journalists and pundits are looking to join a country club, not to hold feet to the fire. The worst sin you can commit in the world they inhabit is to break decorum, to be unserious, to pee in the pool. The press should be at war with the government, not breakdancing with Karl Rove. But "journalists" are like little kids on a plane: the serious adults in the cockpit let them sit in the co-pilot's seat if they are good and obey the rules. None of this requires a conspiracy.