I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and democracy - but that could change.

Dan Quayle, 5/22/89

US Republican politician (1947 - )

You wrote: "And overpopulation? Do you work for the World Bank or the IMF? Sure, eugenics is the answer... just ask the Chinese how well population control is going for them. Will you be the first to sacrifice your family for this existential threat, seeing as how worrying about terrorism isn't your cup of tea? Maybe sterilize your family members after they have proved themselves worthy and had their one child? Lead be example and whatnot."

I didn't offer solutions, but I will in my upcoming book, "Worldwide Happiness". The answer isn't as simple as "Bomb the evildoers" or whatnot. But there is an answer. Can you imagine all the good that could have been done with the time, energy and money we spent on the Iraq war?

I said that terrorism should be put in its place. In other words, there should be perspective. Terrorism should be dealt with through policing, international cooperation, education, spreading goodwill, etc. We should allocate resources intelligently i.e. to things that make a big positive long-term difference.

That's a valid point that this is certainly not a partisan issue and you want to be sure your contributions are used for this specific issue.

Keep an eye on Glenn's posts. He says he'll be announcing more partnerships with other groups on this FISA issue and I'm sure you'll find one with a specific fund you can donate to.

Don't give up! We can agree to defend the constitution even if we don't agree on anything else.

Any compromise on this subject that limits the scope of the judicial review to whether or not someone was told that the warrantless surveillance was legal is an absolute monstrosity. Just as "We do what we're told" is not, not not, not, not a reasonable defense for committing illegal actions, so "They were just doing what they were told," is no basis to determine legal culpability.

Why do you think I and many others here refer to it as an "atrocity"?

English doesn't afford a stronger way to put it.

Stark authority was pitted against the subjects' [participants'] strongest moral imperatives ... and ... authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation.

-Stanley Milgram, "The Perils of Obedience", 1974

empahsis added

link at signature

I do not and the law does not in any way, shape or form, care whether someone at the phone companies was told by someone in authority - President, Attorney General, White House Counsel, Office of the Vice-President, ANYONE - that warrantless wiretapping was legal, or necessary, or good.

Any compromise on this subject that limits the scope of the judicial review to whether or not someone was told that the warrantless surveillance was legal is an absolute monstrosity. Just as "We do what we're told" is not, not not, not, not a reasonable defense for committing illegal actions, so "They were just doing what they were told," is no basis to determine legal culpability.

I'd also prefer it if it had been your head on the block rather than Anne Boleyn's on 19 May 1536, but we can't have everything can we?

Hey, don't Bush and Cheney support capital punishment? Hoping ain't seeing but still...

I wonder what the telecoms picked up in their 'drag net' and are they able to use whatever they 'picked up' against those that want to deny them immunity.

I'd say a) quite a bit and b) wouldn't that be in keeping with this moral and ethical bankrupt administration.

What could they have on Hoyer to cause him to be so scared? Vegisexual? Transgender? Hookergate? Pagegate? Bushist mutual-masterbate?

Hell, if we knew that they could be bought out for the small amounts we're talking about, then I'm sure that we'd have a much better experience dealing with them, just buy them. They appear to stay bought...

The only conclusion any reasonable person can come to is that Hoyer has been bought off. Just like all those creeps who were paid to allow the health insurance companies to trample all over citizen's rights to affordable health care: paid for decades, in fact. According to Michael Moore, Bush himself was paid $850,000 to vote the 'right way' on a measure which actually increased what pensioners paid for their pills and potions while these cynical crooks trumpeted how much they all loved their mothers. Hoyer seems to have a touch of the Liebermans. Anyone can see how these laws can be abused. Lord Denning in a famous ruling in England said that an Englishman's home is his castle and that even though the wind and the rain could enter it the King of England could not without the permission of the owner. Perhaps someone should tell Gordon Brown and George Bush about this ruling. Bush will have to have a verbal briefing, of course. There might be too many big words in there for him.

Thanks for your GREAT work Glenn!

If they can't apply the law equally to ALL then they must go!

I attempted to donate money for the Telecom Immunity issue from the link in the Glenn Greenwald article. When I clicked on that link, I was take to the Act Blue site. I saw no indication on that site that the money would go exclusively for the purpose I was willing to donate for. Act Blue is a fundraising organization for the Democratic party. I do not support the Democratic party and will not donate funds to them. I called Act Blue and they informed me the money would go to the Blue America PAC and to contact them about how they handle donations. I then asked for a phone number for Blue America and my contact could not give me that number.

I am opposed to Telecom Immunity and would like to give a donation to work against the Bond compromise legislation and to oppose the all to familiar sell-out by the Congressional Democratic leadership. I will not donate, however, unless I receive iron clad assurances that the money will NOT go to the Democratic party.