Comments on: Another FISA Push, This Time With Congressional Help…

By: Christy Hardin Smith

Christy Hardin Smith — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 19:38:56 +0000

There is a debate this evening — but the moderator would have to ask the question. Since the media has been loathe to cover the issue much, I’m not holding my breath it will get asked. But if any readers live in PA, IN or NC, and are participating in any town hall meetings where questions can be asked — and you get in a question about FISA that gets answered by either candidate, PLEASE let me know. Thanks!

By: Adie

Adie — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 19:03:03 +0000

Thanks dakine01. Schedule doesn’t permit me to keep close enuf track of goings on at the Lake. Glad to hear Marcy’s got hold of it. ;->

By: MrWhy

MrWhy — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 19:01:52 +0000

Is there a venue in the near future, like a debate, where the question could be put to Clinton and Obama about what their views on FISA are, telecom immunity in particular, and whether they support the view of the current Executive that the Executive needs broad powers beyond what they might already have to conduct their War on Terror? And whether they support the current House Bill or the Senate version or FISA without amendment?

By: bobschacht

bobschacht — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 18:46:31 +0000

“…but haven’t yet written about this to my email lists.”

Now I have. Your word to the computers of 100 Hawaii progressives…

Bob in HI

By: dakine01

dakine01 — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 18:31:05 +0000

Adie,
emptywheel was all over that yesterday morning

By: Adie

Adie — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:59:31 +0000

Way EPU’d but possibly helpful. Our computer-geek son just sent the following to us, so I’ll just pass it along in case anyone can use it.

Thought you might find this article interesting, FBI asking getting info legally, then re-asking for the same info illegally (via NSL) then going through proper channels again, all to show to Congress how unacceptable delays without NSLs are.

FBI Caused Delay in Terror Case Ahead of Senate Testimony

http://blog.wired.com/27bstrok.....or-ci.html

By: bobschacht

bobschacht — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:49:06 +0000

Christy,
Thanks again for keeping the attention on this issue! I’ve already signed on, but haven’t yet written about this to my email lists. Thanks for the poke.

Bob in HI

By: DWBartoo

DWBartoo — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:36:47 +0000

Thanks Christy, though I sincerely doubt my guess would be as ‘good’ as yours.

It really is all about our ‘Emperor’ and his sartorial elegance, of course.

Heh, heh, heh …

By: Christy Hardin Smith

Christy Hardin Smith — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:31:29 +0000

Technically, yes, if it was another hung jury. But there comes a time when there is a question of a waste of public resources — because it costs a lot of money to put on a trial — in prosecutorial and investigative manpower, in time away from other caseloads, in time and money from the judge and his staff and that of the courthouse, etc., etc. And, at some point, you have to weigh the odds of getting a conviction and the real need for it against those costs and the very real possibility that your case is not so strong as you once may have thought it might be.

Which, usually results in a re-trial not happening when the costs outweigh the societal benefit on a new trial. But that takes into account that the prosecutor’s office with which you are dealing is acting in a rational manner. Since this is a “terrorism” case, and a USAtty working for the Bush Administration? Your guess is as good as mine on what the orders from the top will be…

By: DWBartoo

DWBartoo — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:26:24 +0000

So, technically these ‘perpetrators’ could be ‘hung’ in limbo for …um
for a long time, whilst the sentiments of their peers sort themselves out?

Of course, I have no idea what caused the jury deadlocks and am engaged in wild speculation.

But I wonder …

I do that a lot.

Appreciate your responses, Christy. Always an education of the first order.