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: Lane3 who wrote (12373)	2/16/2006 8:12:40 PM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 541385

It seems to me that he wants to be clear that George exceeded his authority but not punish him for it as long as Congress sets up something better going forward and George follows it. I'm not sure which you mean by the "George, you did wrong" bit. I'm just playing off Will on this one. He seemed to be saying something like, let's get a process in which wiretapping is supervised but let's do it in a way that doesn't chastise George for having wiretapped without supervision. That's all. The Bush folk, best I can tell, wish to do away with the process of getting warrants for wiretapping. Don't know why they wouldn't be receptive to a law change that met whatever needs they had that caused them to circumvent it. Not if it made this go away. I don't see Will arguing for a law change the Bush folk want. Which would be one that permitted warrantless surveillance. Will is opposed to the nonsupervised version of that. Which is precisely what the Bush folk want. Will and Bush are at a rather large loggerheads. Bush would have to compromise and, frankly, speaking for myself, I don't see how such a compromise could be constructed without it fairly explicitly saying rather loud and clear that "George did wrong." That is, it obviously wouldn't say so. But if Will got his way, he would deny the Bush folk the one thing they consider central, unsupervised (I just love the word) surveillance decisions. And, in doing so, argues for passing a statute that says Bush did wrong.