Letters to the Editor
-
Damn, why didn't I think of that!
You know, all my stalking of my ex was ordered by DHS
It would explain EVERYTHING....
The hidden webcam......the phone calls at all hours....the hacked e-maal account. John Yoo said it was all OK!
-
Pete b
Holly M called me a "fool" for replying in kind to Pro War - maybe she is right, and I take no offense regardless - but there is no other reply he merits.
-- pete b
I know what you mean on both counts. Of course you're right about PM. He gets what he deserves. As for Holly, she lit into me once. I generally don't care about those who do that. I mean, who cares what Sh**ter thinks for example. But Holly generally seems to make very fine points. So it was odd to me that she felt compelled to tell me to f off and die. To make matters worse, she used that old standby of "WE" think this way about you. Beats me who the "we" in her statement included.
-
@Paul Daniel Ash
I started out feeling angry at such rank trollery, but when I thought about the lack of self-confidence it must take to show up on a site day after day and post nothing but mean-spirited attacks... it just makes me kind of sad.
Makes sense, though, don't it... exactly which personality types argue which positions... very interesting stuff to watch.
-
ProWar
Glenn's very next sentence:
But a large number of elected Democrats vote in favor of the radical Bush agenda for a very simple reason: they believe in it.
I'll grant you that politicalchase did not (I belatedly realize) include that in his excerpt, but you doubtless read it. And you have me convinced that you're smart enough to understand it - you've repeated it often enough.
-
on pots and kettles
to disagree with Glenn on this issue you have to be craven, spineless, or corrupt
I also find it interesting that there's no assumption of "good faith" on the part of people who believe the Fourth Amendment means what it says, that we're all merely parroting our Dear Leader Greenwald.
I could be insulted at PW's insinuation that we're all mindless followers, but as it's pretty common to project one's own traits onto others, I'll let it slide...
-
Add some context
Add some context:
"But a large number of elected Democrats vote in favor of the radical Bush agenda for a very simple reason: they believe in it. Despite the glorious "D" after their name, their views are materially indistinguishable from the defining ones of the Bush faction on the key issues. A huge portion of Congressional Democrats are members of the corrupt, bipartisan Beltway political establishment first, and everything only follows that, and they thus embrace and support the values of that establishment."
They believe in it because they are members of the corrupt, bi-paristan Beltway political estalbishment.
Saying someone may disagree because they are part of a corrrupt establishment doesn't strike me as recognising good faith disagreement.
-
Requirements
The Telecommunications Act only makes a statement with respect to CALEA. It says there is an obligation on the part of the carriers to see the appropriate authorization:
47 USC 229 (b)
(b) Systems security and integrity
The rules prescribed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section shall include rules to implement section 105 of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (47 U.S.C. 1004) that require common carriers -
(1) to establish appropriate policies and procedures for the supervision and control of its officers and employees -
**(A) to require appropriate authorization to activate interception of communications or access to call-identifying information; and
**(B) to prevent any such interception or access without such authorization;
(2) to maintain secure and accurate records of any interception or access with or without such authorization; and
(3) to submit to the Commission the policies and procedures adopted to comply with the requirements established under paragraphs (1) and (2).
The only application of the term "good faith" is in the FISA that's on the books, and applies to companies that provide information pursuant to a court order, or an emergency order. The latter could be issued by the Attorney General. They had to see the order. Maybe that is what Glenn is talking about, the Attorney General issuing an order. The companies are still bound by the other to actually see the order, at least on paper as far as I could find. What the Attorney General would balk at would probably be issuing an order that didn't conform to the rules.
But if he didn't issue one, and the court didn't issue one, "good faith" doesn't cut it. QWest apparently told them so, and that makes it unlikely that he issued such an order. If he did, and the administration is preventing its disclosure, there is probably something wrong with it. The idea that disclosing the existence of a lawful order from the Attorney General would be of use to terrorists, who would change the way they communicated, is absurd. The President, the WSJ, and everybody else know that.
Sheikh bin Laden, I'm going to have to communicate with you by inking tattoos on a camel's ass, the interception of our phone calls is apparently legitimately authorized. I wouldn't have called you except that I thought it wasn't legal. Honest! Who knew?
-
@Paul Daniel Ash
I also find it interesting that there's no assumption of "good faith" on the part of people who believe the Fourth Amendment means what it says, that we're all merely parroting our Dear Leader Greenwald.
Or for that matter, what about the presumption of "good faith" for the American people, this program assumes we're terrorists and attempts to collect evidence to that end without warrants.
-
Salute!
I could be insulted at PW's insinuation that we're all mindless followers, but as it's pretty common to project one's own traits onto others, I'll let it slide...
-- Paul Daniel Ash
I have to add to this. PW also used and framed Bucky1 as an example of the so called Greenwald commenters as being in 'lockstep' with Greenwald. In actuality, Bucky1 has spent post after post accusing most of the people who comment on this board as being 'mindless followers' of Greenwald. We were waiting for Glenn to back a candidate was what Bucky1 said over and over again for an example. So, yeah, I would say PW is in the projection camp.