And frankly, "Frankly my dear," I simply don't believe most of these accusation of torture. Remember, al Qaida types were trained to claim they were tortured if captured, and credulous press types and blinkered "crusaders" like Glenn Greenwald simply ignore that and gullibly lap up whatever propaganda they've been fed.

Tell me, did these Al Qaeda types cause this?

http://www.salon.com/news/abu_ghraib/2006/03/14/introduction/

Are those photos some kind of Al Qaeda propaganda, where the "Americans" in the pictures are just fair-skinned actors? Please explain.

(Or, if as usual, you have no explanation, feel free to resume your fetal position under the bed.)

Svensker, you make a great point. I would add to it saying that when it turns out that, yes indeed, we do torture (see Abu Ghraib), the point then becomes WE do not torture, but a few "bad apples" do. Then they find the nearest enlisted man with a rank below sergeant, throw the book at him (or her), and call the matter closed. Until the next time.

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.

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. 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.

Why is the government collecting all this information, really? And what the devil are they doing with it?

Here's my take. You're right, they lack the computing power to go after the public at large. Therefore, we can only assume they're collecting this data to use in going after specific targets. And since they felt that the FISA court would not grant them permission to spy in the way they wanted to, I'm left to assume they have been spying on their political opponents and the press, just as Nixon had been doing. Is there any reason to assume otherwise?

Dismantling your arguments is like swatting at really fat, lazy flies. Too easy, and I feel a little dirty afterwards.

Politically Lost has eloquently written exactly what I was going to say: that Bush has already admitted to not following FISA, so whether or not FISA was violated is a moot point. It was, and nobody contests this.

You're saying that since no evidence exists that abuses occurred during the spying, that we should leave well enough alone. You ignore, of course, the reason why no evidence exists: that the supposed perpetrators have been stonewalling investigations on this topic for years.

How about a real-world example. Say a woman goes missing. Everybody suspects her husband. They can't find the body, but they're sure he buried it in the backyard. But, say the husband is one of the world's most powerful men, and as a result, the cops can't get a search warrant to dig up the backyard. Would that satisfy you that no crime had been committed?

As for why Glenn (and every other reasonable mind in the world) assumes a strong possibility that BushCo has abused its power regarding the spying, the answer is simple. They have been shown to abuse every power given to them so far. Moreover, past governments who had the power to spy on its citizenry have been shown to have abused that power. The FISA law was enacted because it is understood through experience that a government who can spy on its citizens will very likely abuse that power. And BushCo have been profoundly uncooperative in coming clean about this topic, even in secret to the FISA court or congressional panels. Here in Reality, those facts do not make up a glowing endorsement of the president's law abiding nature. In your fantasyland, of course, they do.

Do people still insist that republicans are tougher on crime than dems? Or did that go the way of the buggy whip too?