YellowLinesandArmadillos

Hmm, so that begs the question, does the term agent refer to an AQ contact that happens to be a U.S. citizen under that previous Scotus ruling. I do know that part of the McCarthy and Watergate reforms tried to get at the idea of political witch hunts v. legitimate investigations. Problem is, I don't think anyone trusts the current admin to differentiate and are increasingly getting intolerant of the just trust us mantra. Would that justify them listening in as rumored, to then Presidential candidate John Kerrey phone calls while overseas? Stay tuned, this is still unraveling and I think may expose the White House to more scandal. Even the appearance of continued inproprieties hurt them on the trust issue. Thanks, I plan to read the CRS report and I read your comments. Still not sure how FISA even as ruled by SCOTUS justifies WH actions. I still suspect they are hiding behind the executive priviledge exception as a way to avoid exposing illegal domestic surveillance. If it goes to court and there is any kind of discovery it will prove embarrassing. Sooner or later some techno geek is going find a way to trace their activities.

I love your cynacism and knowing the folks I know on both sides of the aisle, lobbyists, business men etc, I unfortunately would have to agree with you. However, that is not to say that there aren't a number of folks that do follow the letter and try to follow the spirit of the law. But man there are a lot of crap heads out there.

Explain to me how FISA is unconstitutional?

Nice try, they have modified the damn thing 6 times, at least 3 or 4 since Bush has been in office and he still can't comply with it. Hey, Dems are not the ones who have been rewriting the thing. Goes back to the competence thing. You'd think they either have it right by now or he would comply, guess he just doesn't like anyone saying he has to follow rules he didn't arbitrarily make up or is it just a P.R. game to those guys. Probably the later, they don't really care about the law unless Dems violate it. Outcome based logic, which is how we got involved in Iraq in the first place.

What a Southern cracker like Sessions, please...but I can understand the other sides uncomfortability with it, puts the GOP in a tough position between defending the Constitution and justifying the war in Iraq.

CTW, I figured that, seen your arguement before on this subject, interesting though, the President through its AG is arguing that the war resolution gives him the authority. Specter wasn't agreeing or disagreeing with Feingold, said he did not know given the lack of info about the program the WH has given the Senate.

Yeah, yeah...blah...blah, when law and order Republicans start obeying the law, there might not be so many victims. I am afraid there will always be whiners...we get it from Canadians, ahhh Mum.

What do folks think of Feingold's arguement and substance of his resolution?

I for one just want hypocritical law and order Republicans to follow the law. Mickey help me out but I think Feingold is correct and is on the floor of the Senate introducing a resolution of cencure of the President for unilaterally breaking the FISA law, claiming executive priviledge, in violation of the National Security Act. If nothing else, this should be a really interesting political fight in the Senate, especially considering that Frist just attempted to deny Feingold the right to introduce this resolution. Naw, can't put Republicans on record acknowledging Bush violated the law. Check out CSPAN now! Seriously, I know it is somewhat off topic...P.S. I agree for once with Silver n Red!

You mean...like that woman who got fired in San Diego for having a progressive radio bumper sticker on her car. Her supervisor said she thought she might be a security threat...@#$#$% Got to use a real life example!

There you have it...but it is not going to stop there, I am sure there will be more prosecutions of this WH Admin, while the Limbaugh's of the world cry about Clinton folks...the only thing they seem to know how to do. Thanks for the stats.

I think Mike Espy was too, but it may have been overturned on appeal, don't remember, but that is about it as far as I can remember. Of course the removal of W keys on all key boards at the WH during the transition still has the Bushies panties in a wad. Yeh, yeh government property...yeh, yeh, still was funniest partisan prank that I ever heard about. Immature too, right along with most partisan politics, sorry I haven't grown up.

Dark man, dark...careful...have a friend, former special forces...we call the green lantern, who is now a contractor for them...(mercenary). He don't talk about where he goes, but he hates camping of any sort.

With a little work. Des Moines River from the Missouri, it could, right in downtown, but that would be cool! Not much else in Des Moines, couple of cafe's, Cargill, Monsanto, Swine Center, ISU...and a couple of bridges over river dowtown.

All the local b.s. aside, why would you want to screw up S.F. skyline with a piece of floating metal that even the Navy doesn't want anymore. Sink it an make it a reef where it can do some good restoring sea life.

Sort of, I was idealistic...a drug in itself, then I realized that I didn't want to be a lawyer and started looking to do something to get out. P.S. the lobbying perks in the House AG Committee weren't bad early on for a low level staffer. Didn't have to shop for food for the 2 months around x-mas. Then the rules changed after 94 and it got strict, sounds like they are just violating GOP rules. Also, lawyers probably found the loopholes or worked a few judges to create some. I still enjoy watching the show, despite my cynacism...photography and graphics seemed like a natural evolution of my talents. Now I am gone and am a lot more serene. Neat hail storm here yesterday. SoCal folks freaked, but I thought it was pretty cool coming off the ocean.

Yes, I have to agree, this whole debate is full of hypocritical blather. I understand why folks have reacted negatively to this deal...it is a specific instance the folks can hone in on, but there is so much foreign owned infrastructure, this debate is about a drop in an ocean. What was the trade deficit last month 65.9 billion, 202 billion with China alone last year. That is how much foreign ownership of critical infrastructure was purchased in this country last year. Pretty pathetic to argue over a few billion when DPW already owns a lot more in the U.S.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/11/politics/11lobby.html

Sounds like Dad is a stubborn blow hard. Have some friends Dad who is like that, especially when it comes to politics. He is washed out Jesuit...all four sons in their forties are Dems and haven't changed., need I say more. If he were the opposite, I am sure the sons would be GOP. In my dark moods, libertarianism, minus the gun paranoia seems attractive, but that is as far as it goes.

And there is the rub, the GOP can threaten removal of all that pork barrel spending they are doing and while some Dems have been bought off too, enough aren't getting any chear from this group that they wouldn't care about the threats, with two parties with control of the parts there is at least some competition to hold each other accountable. Sometimes they form compromises even with two parties and secret deals get done that corrupt the whole process. But usually that stuff leaks because someone sees it to their advantage and it implodes down the line. Better than one party in control.

Just a point of clarification. There cannot be adequate oversight by the out party because they do not have the ability to schedule hearings, issue subpoenas or independently investigate the executive branch. In this case Republicans have successfully blocked every attempt to do, as an example, denying and shutting down the investigation into the NSA controversy. Press has paid little attention to this despite Democratic protests. This is what happens when you have no check on the Executive Branch. On the other hand you have to tolerate B.S. investigations like Whitewater and Presidential sex habits. The only thing Dems can do is invite testimoney of folks with knowledge of to but not participants in the Administration or its ongoing scandals.

No problem, P.S. I heard on CNN this morning, but can't confirm from thier website that Dubai ports has some military operation contracts with the Navy, signed in the last 6 months. Look for that to break loose, here we go again! Forget COSCO, that is third tier.

Not so under California law, can't do it for political or religious reasons, not matter what, read the law.

Didn't know Jay was a screamer, but it is not about waiting for an opportune time to start screaming, but more if the wind blows too stiffly, or it rains too hard, or if my raw meat has too much salmonella because I don't cook it enough, or if a hurricane hits NO then I am going to scream, and I know how because I practice on my staff all the time.

CYA, here is apt editorial explaining why, chicken *****, but it makes sense politically, they need proof that they acted for their campaign talking points: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6030902293.html