Letters to the Editor
DCLaw1
Published Letters: 839 Editor's Choice: 2
-
kstills:
[Read the article: Mike Allen and Hugh Hewitt on the politicization of the military]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]On the other hand, we still have the Iraq war going on. The next phase, after the security situation improves, will be to determine whether or not the country can get it's political house in order.
I doubt that you'll find anyone who would disagree with you that if there isn't a political reconciliation by next year, we should accept our losses and go home.
With as much respect as I can muster, you are either malevolently dissembling or a useful idiot. Those of us who support bringing the troops home sooner rather than later are supposed to take on faith that: (a) a relatively small infusion ("surge") of troops and a willingness to put security control in the hands of sectarian militias will result in a significant mollification of violence among a population in civil war, which by our commanders' own assessments would require hundreds of thousands more troops to put down; (b) the only thing preventing Iraq from getting its "political house in order" is that this violence in the streets, apparently coming from nothing connected to the vacationing politicians themselves, is keeping them from doing what's right; (c) although we have heard innumerable times before that this time, finally, we are starting to see things turn around and all we need is to be patient for just a while longer, this time will be different, despite the daily horrors that go unabated in that country; and (d) all of this in no way resembles Vietnam, except for the cynical start of a campaign to pin the inevitable failure to stop the civil war on the voices that were against this misadventure from the start.
For just one moment, try to accept the possibility that no, the American military cannot fix everything, and that clapping louder for Tinkerbell may make you feel good about yourself and your "resolve," but doesn't make a damn bit of difference in reality.
-
bebop
[Read the article: Mike Allen and Hugh Hewitt on the politicization of the military]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This is brilliance:
The madam hums today so loud I need ask yoo to ask Genial Betrayusa, and of golf-course, ask the Middle East troops vacationing in the cool red-dessert sand-traps, if they have a 9- wedge goon-club?
-
bebop
[Read the article: Mike Allen and Hugh Hewitt on the politicization of the military]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I am indeed licensed to practice in Maryland (not Pennsylvania), but my practice is entirely federal. As any lawyer can relate, I do get constant requests for legal assistance from friends and family, and I turn down nearly all of them because it's rarely ever a good idea, for multiple reasons.
-
sysprog - FISA
[Read the article: Mike Allen and Hugh Hewitt on the politicization of the military]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It is truly dizzying how abruptly and violently our Democratic Congress allows itself to be molested by this administration, yet again. Sen. Feingold said it best when he made the unremarkable but sadly necessary observation that Congress makes the laws, not the President.
I love the Balkinization blog because it is such a reliable way to get an accurate and digestible summary of the latest legislation and legal developments. Lederman is right: the current Senate bill would exempt from FISA court order requirements intercepts of conversations "directed at" (undefined) the communications of persons "reasonably believed" to be outside the US. There's a generous sprinkling of the word "reasonable" or "reasonably" throughout the bill, which is the magic word that famously allows lawyers to push the envelope of legality.
Essentially, while the bill would subject these programs to some degree of FISA Court review, the standard of review would be highly deferential to the government. What a surprise. "Good Senate, oh yes, such a good Senate! Sit! Roll over! Recess!"
-
sorry to post again so soon but...
[Read the article: Mike Allen and Hugh Hewitt on the politicization of the military]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I noticed on Balkinization that the previous bill that had been allegedly agreed to by the CIA Director, then rejected by the White House nonetheless, contained a provision subjecting these surveillance programs to Justice Department Inspector General review to ensure that they are being conducted according to the law. This was one of the few good features of that prior version.
I just did a search for the bill passed by the Senate and found no reference to the Inspector General or any oversight of this nature. Anyone else see whether this feature has been left out? This is a very dramatic omission from one version of legislation to the immediate next, to put it mildly.
What I still cannot comprehend, even after all these years of Congress' abdication of its constitutional responsibility, is how the Senate, including several Democrats, could capitulate so swiftly to such a cheap and undemocratic legislative technique - demanding legislation just before recess in order to rescue America from some glaring, impending threat. Are Republicans actually arguing that we need this FISA "fix" to prevent ourselves from being destroyed this summer? Are the Democrats actually buying it?
The bottom line is this and it is not hard to argue (just ask Sen. Feingold): this is not about giving government the tools it needs to protect America, this is about curtailing an already overreaching and unaccountable administration and standing up to its attempts to grab yet more power for itself and away from the courts, the Congress, and the people. FISA is not "out of date" - it was amended after 911, and the administration even turned down further expansions of FISA power. In the very recent wake of our Attorney General's utterly arrogant and deceptive testimony, and the abuses upon abuses of power of this administration, the President expects the Congress to rubber stamp yet another giveaway of power at the expense of our civil liberties?
Yes, he does. And they apparently will.