Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: carranza2 who wrote (12311)	2/16/2006 4:00:22 PM
From: Dale Baker	Respond to of 541347

In this case, someone who was appointed Deputy Assistant Attorney General under Reagan is 99% likely to be a partisan Republican with a certain agenda behind how she presents the "facts". I find what she says possible but not proven absent corroboration from a source without her inherent bias. It is equally possible that all the Clinton era officials who worked with FISA are staying quiet about problems just to add embarrassment for the Bush crowd. We have no way of knowing being here on the outside. And an account from the Clinton era saying FISA works would be suspect for the same reason. Just about everything said on the subject now has a political agenda behind it, unfortunately. Which is why we agree they should sit down and fix the problem and go forward with a focus on national security and upholding the Constitution, not playing political pattycake.

To: carranza2 who wrote (12311)	2/16/2006 5:28:25 PM
From: KonKilo	Respond to of 541347

However, it doesn't follow logically that the folks who are experienced with FISA are hacks... I'm sure that not all FISA folks are hacks, but I suspect that if the Toensings had both been posting to this thread, they would have been the two RWEs that Dale would have banned. They are straight up and down apologists for GWB.

To: carranza2 who wrote (12311)	2/16/2006 7:38:33 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541347

Well, that only stands to reason since the Administration is primarily involved and the FISC acts secretly. However, it doesn't follow logically that the folks who are experienced with FISA are hacks or that everything they say is a priori incredible. Nor am I arguing such. On this point, I have two arguments. The first is that, to the degree we have public information about the process, it's people, close to the center of the action, objecting. Either FISA judges resigning or DOG appointees objecting. So some folk "experienced with FISA" don't like the Bush policy. Second, I don't think the folk you have in mind are hacks, necessarily. Some clearly are. Just check the wonderful list of "hacks" appointed by Bush's administration: Brown at FEMA, Deutsch at NASA, a long list from Larry Diamond's book on Iraq, etc. But some are not. I have no reason to think Gonzales is a hack. But Gonzales, because of his position as Attorney General and because of his long term closeness to GWB, is simply not a credible source. They are going, if they care at all, to have to find more credible sources if they wish to convince the general public. I think a new bill is necessary in order to streamline the procedures. And since national security is involved, I wouldn't worry about the political fallout. I don't object to "streamlining" the procedures. The problem is if that involves the granting of a well-nigh permanent right of warrantless surveillance. The Patriot Act affect on libraries is bad enough. Now here's another one.