Two questions:

* Why was it so awful for Nixon to spy on his political opponents, but it’s now okay for Bush and all future presidents?

* Why is copying documents as they traverse the Internet less odious than breaking into an office and copying those same documents there — assuming of course that a cooperative landlord let them in?

We are talking about legalizing the theft of information.

Why should the real crooks go without accontablity, when they are spying on the American People, we DESERVE THE SAME BACK!
Have a great day!

Besides Immunity, and Basket warrants there is a third major element of this legislation, and that is the Bush push to give DOJ oversight of the surveillence program. Congress, not the executive branch, is supposed to be the appropriate oversight branch. Of course they have abdicated completely to the Executive branch, particularly the Democrats with no backbone whatsoever who continue to vote as Bush rubberstamps.

BobbyG @ 44

That is ultimately what the Supreme Court will have to decide.

The court will never decide on this one. They will not admit anyone has standing since being in a basket will be a state secret. They already walked away from this once this way.

Why are we in this basket?
Why is it so hot in here?
Where are we going?

Shhh, that’s a state secret!

Two questions:

* Why was it so awful for Nixon to spy on his political opponents, but it’s now okay for Bush and all future presidents?

* Why is copying documents as they traverse the Internet less odious than breaking into an office and copying those same documents there — assuming of course that a cooperative landlord let them in?

We are talking about legalizing the theft of information.

Terrific arguments against immunity.

Re: Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) S.2248

Honorable Senator _________:

Thank you for your energetic and consistent support for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The White House and some in the Congress seek to erode the American tradition of equality under the law by granting amnesty for telecommunications companies who broke the law in order to facilitate the Administration’s illegal domestic surveillance program.

I am confident that you will argue against any such amnesty, because these privileged and powerful telecommunications companies knew that the Administration was asking them to spy illegally on Americans. This was not, it is now clear, a set of isolated incidents as we were led to believe. The illegal surveillance was very broad and undertaken prior to 9/11.

The telecommunications corporations who abetted the Administration in these crimes have benefited enormously through the awarding of Federal contracts. This is not “patriotism.” Even the most sincere patriotic efforts must adhere to the law that protects our rights. Otherwise, such efforts are not truly patriotic.

Allow the lawsuits to go forward by blocking blanket amnesty and basket warrants from the new legislation. If the companies did nothing illegal, our courts will rule accordingly. If they did break the law, the courts need to try those cases in order to preserve equality under the law.

Sincerely,

“whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends (i.e. fails to protect our unalienable rights), it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it”

We’ll have no choice but to take it to the streets. Like the Czechs or the Indians under British rule.

selise @ 74

wigwam @ 71 –

imo, glenn was NOT being either a supporter or an apologist – and david was waaay over the line to call glenn disingenuous. i think david is reading more into glenn’s posts than is there…. and i think that david is not considering how apparently racist all the other candidates are.

… in any event, david’s apparent unwillingness to actually discuss questions people have had about his posts on paul doesn’t help foster understanding (especially since he’s been willing to throw insults).

David traffics in guilt-by-association.

or at least, i think, he’s not applying the same standard of guilt-by-association to everyone, and i think he’s conflating some associations. for example – it’s quite different to solicit $ and votes vs. to hire someone into senior position on one’s staff.

in any event, i read all the comments in both threads last night – over 700, including at sadly, no! and wiskeyfire who wrote posts on it (if there are new ones, i’m behind) and had some interesting conversations. although, not with david. it’s really irksome that he won’t explain good faith questions and engage in any substantive discussion. i’m not irked so much that he doesn’t respond to my quesitons – it’s that he doesn’t really respond to anyone. i’m left thinking maybe i don’t understand his point – and he seems pissed off when people that people don’t understand and/or don’t agree.