Letters to the Editor
-
FISA "yes" votes in the House
A handy guide to those who voted "yes" and their home pages:
http://pruningshears.squarespace.com/pruning-shears/2007/8/5/house-fisa-yes-votes.html
-
So, in other words...
..the Dems are weak-minded cowards who blow with the wind.
-
Question for Glenn
Could you point to a single question you feel Chris Dodd actually answered? Perhaps in person with body language he made sense, but his answers in cold print are just shy of incoherent.
You asked clear questions and did not get clear answers.
It may be the case that asking modern politicians questions is an exercise in futility.
-
Let Sen Dodd talk!
I asw the headline for this story and looked forward to heading Dodd's views. Unfortunately, Glenn Greenwald seemed to think he was the focus of the interview with his tedious, aren't-I-brilliant questions. Greenwald has an ego that won't quit.
-
Joel_Grant
Could you point to a single question you feel Chris Dodd actually answered? Perhaps in person with body language he made sense, but his answers in cold print are just shy of incoherent.
The last one.
Transcribed conversations can appear less coherent than they really are. But I posted this because Chris Dodd has been around the Senate a long time and I think it's pretty reflective of how Beltway political figures think, and it is revealing for that reason.
I do believe he has become passionate about defending constitutional values and using his campaign as a platform to highlight some of these issues. I think that based on how animated he was, how sincere he seemed to be when talking about that - and I haven't seen that from anyone else - for whatever any of that is worth.
Posting this is obviously not an expression of support or anything other than an opportunity to hear how someone like Dodd thinks in response to questions of this type.
-
FISA
I think a an interesting aspect of the FISA legislation is this:
``(e) With respect to an authorization of an acquisition under section 105B, the Director of National Intelligence and Attorney General may direct a person to--
``(1) immediately provide the Government with all information, facilities, and assistance necessary to accomplish the acquisition in such a manner as will protect the secrecy of the acquisition and produce a minimum of interference with the services that such person is providing to the target; and
``(2) maintain under security procedures approved by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence any records concerning the acquisition or the aid furnished that such person wishes to maintain.
``(f) The Government shall compensate, at the prevailing rate, a person for providing information, facilities, or assistance pursuant to subsection (e).
``(g) In the case of a failure to comply with a directive issued pursuant to subsection (e), the Attorney General may invoke the aid of the court established under section 103(a) to compel compliance with the directive. The court shall issue an order requiring the person to comply with the directive if it finds that the directive was issued in accordance with subsection (e) and is otherwise lawful. Failure to obey an order of the court may be punished by the court as contempt of court. Any process under this section may be served in any judicial district in which the person may be found.
------
This allows the government to compel a US citizen or US corporation to secretly provide access to their records and communication networks without a warrant. Just because the government is forcing me to provide access in furtherance of foreign intelligence collection does not mean the fourth amendment does not apply.
If the government can get people to cooperate with them than fine, but I am pretty sure the government forcing US citizens to provide access to their records and communication networks without out a warrant runs astray of our current understanding of the constitution.
But IANASCJ.
-
re: Joel_Grant - Question for Glenn
Could you point to a single question you feel Chris Dodd actually answered? Perhaps in person with body language he made sense, but his answers in cold print are just shy of incoherent.
You asked clear questions and did not get clear answers.
It may be the case that asking modern politicians questions is an exercise in futility.
I noticed this as well, but my take is slightly different than yours. Simply put, I think many, many politicians (actually people in general) just don't have the skill to talk in public. Whether it is an interview like Glenn did or a stump speech. Most plainly suck.
Also, if you noticed Glenn's questions were very detailed and nuanced. That alone probably scares the shit out of any one getting interviewed. Let's face it, many interview questions are vapid, stupid, simplistic, and asked by people who really don't have a clue.
-
Come ON, Senator Dodd
Dodd said to Glenn: "They say what have you learned from all of this, and I say -- I need to be more of a skeptic. It sounds quaint, the story about de Gaulle - he was prickly -- but the fact that he said the word of the American president was good enough for him. Part of why I'm running in a sense is I'd like to get back to those days."
Seriously, you have got to be kidding me. At this stage of the game, Dodd is bringing up some rosy picture of bygone days when Men Were Men Who Spoke the Truth?? He is just figuring out now that he has to be "a skeptic"?? Where the hell has he been all this time? Anyone who was paying attention knew, from the moment that George Bush emerged on the national scene, that he was a vicious, lying sack of shit. Over and over and over he has proved himself hostile to the truth, to the people, to the constitution, and, of course, to the Democrats. But so what, says Dodd. Let's give him every benefit of the doubt, let's cling to some imaginary masculinist notion of honor.
This concept that he is trying to hide behind is completely at odds with what the founders knew about how power works.
I just don't know how these Dems have any time left in the day after spending all of it trying to reconcile the endless and appalling stream of contradictions.