Letters to the Editor
-
I can't wait for another whiny response from Roberts
Be sure to post it Glenn.
-
John Roberts....
is a Canadian. He used to be a reporter for "The New Music" a long time ago, and he was pretty good, too. I remember seeing him at a mall in Toronto, doing a CITY-TV promotion, when I was a little girl. He was also a VJ on MuchMusic for a while.
Apparently, he lost his soul some time ago. Shame.
-
@Ufansius
What possible reason can the government give for resisting that mechanism?
They can't give a reason publicly, but I don't doubt the reason is to keep the scope of the operation from becoming widely public.
The stated goals of the program do not necessitate the degree of access granted or specific hardware known to be in use; I can only conclude that the program is broader (and therefore more illegal) than has been admitted by the administration.
Let's all remember, this program started less than two weeks after Bush came into office.
-
@ Glenn
Don't let the bastards grind you down. They aren't worth it. A hot toddy with lemon, a pair of comfortable slippers, I'd say, and let these demand queens go hang for a while.
That said, it's amazing the extent to which the consumer society seems to have deadened everyone's sense of proportion. Doing real stuff is hard; those who don't know that aren't entitled to anything from those who do except the backs of their hands.
You're appreciated by the discerning, and rightly so. I know you know that, but I still feel it's worth saying once in a while, especially when this or that unworthy get decides you owe him.
-
He refused to believe it because he had already been informed that a win in Florida had already been bought and paid for.
You forgot to mention that it was Bush's first cousin, John Ellis, working for Fox news, that first called Florida for Bush.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/nov2000/fox-n17.shtml
-
that's a good reporter
Who's a good boy? Hmmm? Who's a good boy?
You are! That's right, you are! Ohhhhhh, yes you are!
Now rollover! Good boy!
Fetch! Such a good boy!
-
Why even have a Constitution?
While it's intriguing to see the House of Representatives appear to stand up on its hind legs, at least for the moment, it's the better part of wisdom not to get your expectations up. Tomorrow is another day after all, and the PAA hasn't yet expired.
If the House snaps out of its Independent Reverie and does what it's told, then of course they will have served their master (Cheney) as ordered, and once again will have violated their oath of office, something they (and when I say 'they' I mean the collective body, not each and every individual) have done almost too many times to count since the installation of the Usurpers in 2001.
Why even have a Constitution when order and commands and diktats and ukases from the Unitary Executive have the force of whatever "law" is necessary.
Surely that moldering parchment has long since served its purpose; the only remaining function it has is to serve as a tourist attraction there in its glass case.
Of course there still might arise elements to wrest the Power away from the Autocrat, but that will clearly have to await the election (and subsequent installation) of a Democrat to the Presidency.
Ain't gonna happen so long as the Cheney Regime holds on to the throne.
-
@ prunes
I understand your point. I was thinking more of the "reasoning" being offered by McConnell for telecom immunity: that future cooperation by telecoms was being threatened by the danger that they might be penalized for cooperating (without a warrant) in the past.
Certainly a government that has operated in the illegal shadows in the past will want to keep that lawbreaking hidden. But McConnell's argument isn't about that; it's about obtaining telecom cooperation in the future, and that simply isn't endangered by holding telecoms accountable for their past sins. Regardless of the outcome of the retroactive immunity issue, telecom cooperation with future surveillance needs can easily be assured by the procurement of warrants compelling that cooperation, warrants obtained in a secret court that virtually never demurs when asked to provide them. McConnell's argument demonstrates that the government not only didn't bother to obtain warrants in the past, but it doesn't want to do so in the future, either. Why not? What possible reason could they realistically put forward for why they wouldn't want to obtain warrants from a servile, totally secret court for their future surveillance needs?
An arrogant demand for monarchical privilege, perhaps? It's difficult to think of another reason.
-
Aaron Burr
I found the mention of Aaron Burr earlier in this thread somewhat funny, as it seemed to imply that he was some sort of traitor. Forgotten is that he, as a member of the Democratic-Republican party (for strict constitutionalism and limited federal government) ran for president and tied Jefferson for electoral college votes, leaving the choice of who should be President at the hands of the House of Representatives who were essentially deadlocked. After many ballots, with little or no campaigning by Burr himself who was happy to have the Vice President role, Jefferson was elected. Burr went on to be praised in his role as VP due to his actions as President of the Senate. Yes, it was at this time that he had his famous duel with Hamilton (it was not the first duel for either man, in fact Hamilton had been involved in several before).
Later, Burr was charged with treason based in the information from a man later determined to be spying for Spain, but was acquitted, even though the President at the time was convinced of his guilt, most likely due to false information.
So yes, Burr would likely not approve of the government obtaining information about it's citizens without a warrant as he was against a large federal government, and suffered greatly at the hand of "stove-piped intelligence" which falsely branded him a traitor. He was known to be fair in judicial matters, especially while presiding over impeachment trials, so likely felt that the courts had a role to play in such matters.
I'm not saying he was a perfect man, but he was likely a better American than modern history presents him.