wrote:

I do not believe that anything in FISA prevents Congressional hearings/investigations into these matters. Is there? From such hearings we would get the information needed to find out what happened. Litigation is not the only way to get information. Although it is a way to line lawyer's pockets --lawyers who represent telecoms and those who sue them would be happy as clams if the telecoms were not granted civil immunity!

Congress will not; this the problem, no? Congress is not doing its job, so immunity kills it.

The folks at EFF do not make a lot money. But I think you know that.

Stop acting like an idiot.

Excuse me but what civil liberties are you going to gain in a civiul litigation against Telecoms? It' not the Telcoms that took away your civil liberties. They just followed in blind patriotism and fear.

Those telecoms were well paid for what they did. They had legal advice, and no doubt they took the deal with what amounted to assurance that not only would they not pay the price for breaking the law, but that the legal questions would not even come up. But things did get a bit out of hand.

Why pursue this:

1. The rule of law must be followed if this kind of stuff is to be stopped.

2. The only practical way to find out what happened is discovery, and even that might not do it.

wrote:

Folks, there is an entire world out there that exists beyond the ivory towers of academe. It is called reality, and reality is directed, policed, and regulated by Government agencies. Agencies that belong to the Executive branch. Congress can pass legislation, but that's not administering actual regulations. And sometimes those regulations are enforced at the point of a gun. You know, deadly force?

When the Commander in Chief of all those regulatory agencies, makes a Presidential request, it would be foolish to refuse. As in all things having to do with Federal Agencies, one complies first and worries about ramifications later. That is the real world.

Exactly, congress can pass laws, and then it is up to the executive to enforce them. And that is exactly what the Bush admin. has not done, except in a minimal way in order to keep up appearances. To a large extent, the industry writes the rules that it lives under, and then the enforcement is lax in any case. This latest fantasy of yours is extremely strange. It does not contribute to what you are trying to do here.

Thanks, Derbig. Sometimes I lose control and need to be herded back in. Or is that the problem?

So again, is it that the pundits have isolated themselves from reality (and hence have no further connection with the objective facts) or are they simply the biggest crop of liars this side of a sideshow huckster?

Exactly the question I was pondering when I saw your post. I think ML's careful phrasing is an attempt to avoid facing the fact that she is lying. Sort of: "The people really mean this..." They are not really sufficiently isolated from reality to avoid some internal pressure when they lie, but not honest enough to face the truth of what they are doing.

Of course ML is lying. Obama's base is not left-wing. Sorry, no way. If you make a statement like that as part some other point you are making, it is all BS. What could be more obvious?

wrote:

Somebody who just wrote finds it obvious that Liasson is lying about Obama’s base. This person claims that she said his base is “left wing”. Did Mara say this? Does it mean this person is lying about Mara? It just becomes kind of silly when we “know” so much about lying.

Well, I looked at the transcript that Glenn referred to, and it is as he quoted. I think she meant to say "That might not be what his left-wing base wants" rather than "That might not be what his left-wing base does." "He" refers to Obama, as the sentence that follows indicates. So she has said that Obama's base is left wing, and implied that his base is not part of the American people, who want their "commander-in-chief" (not their president) to look at the facts on the ground. I think we have a president, and might have a better one in the future. I think that this passage is right wing propaganda, not a discussion with two sides. Yes, she lied as I said.

That is a very good ad.

I hope that there will be plenty of reminders on August 8th to complete the pledged donations, my memory not being what it used to be. I think the Olympics start that day. Make a mental note!

Hume's ghost says it is spiritual violation of the 3rd amendment. How appropriate! But I like that argument. For me the violation is a bit more solid.

Two obvious differences:

1. Amazon has access to a limited set of information. NSA has access to much more raw information and has tremendous ability to organize it.

2. Amazon can bombard you with a few ads. NSA, with the rest of the government, can make your life and death very unpleasant.

But these are just minor differences, right shooter?

When you say anything you want to keep secret can be kept secret, you mean: communicate it to no one. That is not the point. People need and want to communicate. Communication needs to be kept private. For example, you are a republican; you support business. How can business be done without privacy?