Letters to the Editor
-
I think we could forgive the telco's if we could get accountability from govt.
If I were the congressional Dem's, I would back a law that indemnified the telco's and made the administration accept the blame. I mean if the president comes to you and says "we really need your help", a good American would generally say "yes". I think all we really want is Bush and the administration to be accountable for their misdeeds. That seems to be impossible; however, so we are going after the next best target. What we really want and need is for the government to start following the law, and the lawbreakers to be punished.
You know I try to tell people at work about how crazy and serious all this is, and they just laugh at me and say "we don't read all that conspiracy theory stuff!", "you shouldn't believe everything you read", etc. My reply is "for Heaven's sake this is all public knowledge and part of the congressional record." Still they are unmoved. It hasn't sunk in that we are in uncharted territory here. This isn't the county I grew up in --it's now Bushistan.
-
Call it what it is: AMNESTY for law breakers
And add it to the immigration bill. See where that goes.
-
@CtzKane, do go on!
This is really interesting to me, I've talked with some but not a lot of people from so called 3rd world countries about this, and the one thing I heard repeatedly is that they felt that no country in the world wants a decay in the civil and human rights standards, the rule of law, of the U.S. because it keeps the bar high.
I've heard that even countries that hate us, while they may be glad to see us decline, do not look forward to a world where no country at least tries to stand for basic rights and the rule of law.
Is this true?
-
re: And finally (last one, I promise)
As Glenn points out McConnell himself says that FISA warrants are required for surveillance of Americans.
And as you conveniently overlook, that's exactly what McConnell says he does.
There's a claim of reverse targeting. Now what that means is we would target somebody in a foreign country who is calling into the United States and our intent is to not go after the bad guy, but to listen to somebody in the United States. That's not legal, it's, it would be a breach of the Fourth Amendment. You can go to jail for that sort of thing. And If a foreign bad guy is calling into the United States, if there's a need to have a warrant, for the person in the United States, you just get a warrant.
http://www.elpasotimes.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?articleId=6685679&siteId=525Now then, which part of that are you having trouble with?
The reason I've elaborated on this again is not that I think I'll convince shooter, but that his "legal" arguments appear on their face to have at least some merit to people unfamiliar with the law when they are really just his typical trolling, this time via cut and paste from Powerline. -- Margalis
While you have provided nothing but unsubstantiated assertions.
I think you are going to have to accept the idea that we don't know what the exact form of the program is, that involves warrantless wiretaps. It may not involve listening to conversations at all. Also, if you are going to "appeal to authority" via McConnell, you'll have to take the whole package.
Maybe you should rethink the blog business. -
What no "tsk"?
Man, all that hard work and not even the trademark dismissive "tsk tsk" cluck from the wise mother hen.
-
@ondelette do go on
I heard repeatedly is that they felt that no country in the world wants a decay in the civil and human rights standards, the rule of law, of the U.S. because it keeps the bar high.
In a sense it is not so much the keeping the bar high - but so many 3rd world client states - (@Michael Harold earlier) - have or were forced to model their government systems following US standards.
Take the following view: NAFTA "allows corporations to sue the national government of a NAFTA country in secret arbitration tribunals if they feel that a regulation or government decision affects their investment in conflict with these new NAFTA rights" (ch 11)
When the agreement was negotiated there was a lot of pressure on Mexico to bring their legal system up to "standards". How is that playing out now when policy is established to retroactively or dynamically assign rights on a particular company or party or individual?
-k
-
Update II
Mr Greenwald, if you ever take up archery, William Tell will have to sneak out of town, with his cocyx between his legs. You score a bullseye every time. I don't care if the Serious People say it's just the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, you ring the bell every time and get the cigar or coconut, according to choice.
-
Graas roots response redux
FWIW, my local Democratic Party organization approved and signed the letter I posted earlier in the day. There was only one dissenting vote, from a person who thought that it was too negative. It will be in the mail tomorrow. Small potatoes, maybe, but it's a start....
-
The case against these private sector companies must be strong
Now if you play out the suits at the value they're claimed, it would bankrupt these companies.
McConnell's concern regarding the bankrupting of these private sector abettors is evidence that the case against these companies stands a reasonable chance of resulting in a conviction that withstands appeals all the way to the Supreme Court.
Not to mention that his comments seem to confirm that which the DOJ has repeatedly argued can not be confirmed or denied, as it is a double-top-secret-extra-hush-hush state secret.
-
As Always, Shouter is Wrong
Shouter242 bathes himself in rightwing media propaganda until it permeates his very flesh, and spews it here from some unspecified orifice as if it's something other than what it is. We went through this entire discussion back at Unclaimed Territory, and it was shown beyond any question that the administration has been breaking the law, and admitted it. Shouter's buddies have been in a panic since then and convinced themselves that some dicta (as Arnie points out) means something it doesn't. It's all they have though, so they stick to it and cut and paste it anywhere they think it might fit and hope nobody there knows anything about law.
Fortunately the world that shouter lives in is shrinking fast, and the last few loyalists are praying some miracle will save them from the ignominy to which they are destined. Too bad for them the truth always comes out.