Jim

(Emphasis added). Wasn't sufficient to establish what? You agree that you want every terrorist communication into the United States monitored yet that is something FISA expressly does not do. The 72 hour grace period is irrelevant if you lack information that the recipient of the communication is an agent of a foreign power.

I'm sure by now the someone has advised the Washington Post as to the true facts. I'm sure we'll see the front page correction and apology to Mr. Gonzales any hour now. I think I'll bookmark http://www.washingtonpost.com/ so I'll be the first to see it!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/30/AR2006013001318.html If this is the relevant portion of the transcript, you are right. Someone is lying here: Lie #1: Feingold represents that he asked "a question about warrantless eavesdropping." False. Feingold asked a much "broader question" which was frankly incomprehensible. The words "warrant" and "eavesdropping" are not contained in the transcript. Lie #2: Feingold lies that Gonzales misrepresented that warrantless eavesdropping was a "hypothetical situation." A. Feingold didn't ask about warrantless eavesdropping. B. Gonzales said that Feingold was asking a "hypothetical question" which, obviously, he was. Gonzales didn't say anything about some "hypothetical situation." Lie #3: "Feingold asked Gonzales where the president's authority ends and whether Gonzales believed the president could, for example, act in contravention of existing criminal laws and spy on U.S. citizens without a warrant." More fiction. Search for the word "spy." Lie #4: "Gonzales added that he would hope to alert Congress if the president ever chose to authorize warrantless surveillance, according to a transcript of the hearing." This is at best sloppy reporting and at worse something far more insidious. Here the Post seems to represent that it checked the transcript. If it didn't, this is gross negligence. If it did check the transcript, the Post is guilty of intentional dishonesty. This should become a scandal.

No lie here. Gonzales said that Feingold is posing a hypothetical abstract question, which he was. The question is genuinely unanswerable as asked. Nope, no lie there either. If "this" is something? This what? Feingold is the poster child for indefinite pronouns. Gonzales' answer made the best out of a dumb question. The president is not above the law. Of course the Supreme law of the land is the Constitution which also gives the President powers too. Gonzales bluntly states that Presidents should not be expected to follow unconstitutional laws. What else Gonzales might have said, we'll never know because Feingold interrupts. You really can't accuse a man of lying (at least honestly) when you do not let him finish answering the question. (I mean that as a general proposition; you didn't accuse Gonzales of lying but just asked the question). Eh? Recognize what? Feingold cut him off mid sentence. Affirmatively telling what people? Some third parties? His own staff? Man, I feel for Gonzales. With 20/20 hindsight, a better answer might be: "Senator, *speaking VERY slowly now* if the criminal law makes no distinction between failure to enforce and telling people not to obey, then what difference would this make? This is a distinction in the law with which I am utterly unfamiliar. This entire line of questioning was predicated on a grossly abstract, hypothetical question so devoid of facts to be meaningless. All of this said, no, we will not go around willy nilly asking people to violate criminal statutes. That is not our policy. However, as I said just a few seconds ago, the historical practice of Presidents is not to obey unconstitutional laws. If you pass constitutional restrictions and if you do not supersede those laws, then, yes, as a general matter, I agree with what you are trying to ask." This "type of decision?" A memo is leaked about "it?" Instead of calling Feingold a doofus, Gonzales merely states that he'll do what he reasonably can. I think Gonzales was heroic in dealing with Feingold's obtuse questions.

I would never accuse anyone of lieing without seeing an actual full transcript of what was asked and what was said. Therefore, we can't answer your question based on this article.

Gotta love left wing humor. I can't wait to see the Doonsbury where they laugh it up about the critical deficiency in FISA documented by the 9/11 commission as hindering our effort to prevent the deaths on September 11, 2001.

I wasn't suggesting it was hypocritcal. There are two issues but I think there is a confluence too. Bush's actions are more defensible if there is a flaw in FISA which this clearly indicates.

The fact that these weapons could obliterate our species requires us to think more clearly about this than anything else we discuss. We need to make our best calculation and adopt policies which increase the chances of our survival. I don't see a moral issue. It isn't our fault that E=MC2 is imbedded in reality and allows for such destructive power. Given the inevitability of the discovery of such weapons, we are fortunate that nuclear weapons were first commanded by the United States instead of the Soviet Union or, worse, the Nazis.

I'm sure ol' Ben would apply a rule of reason so we could still conduct warrentless searches of American citizens boarding airplanes. I'm still flabbergasted that this hasn't been front and center in the MSM. If I'm reading this right, application of FISA was one of the direct causes of the government's failure to prevent 9/11. This isn't according to some conservative rag, but according to the esteemed 9/11 commission. Seriously, all politics aside, in light of this evidence don't we want the NSA reviewing every communication into the United States made by suspected El Queda terrorists even if we have no proof the recipient is an agent of a foreign power?

At first I wondered why Bush didn't use this. (I really don't need to ask why the MSM hasn't made this a part of the public debate). Now, I'm wondering if Bush isn't dumb like a fox. Let the democrats go ballistic on this issue and then tag them in November with these facts. It almost feels like a lawyer waiting to use his smoking gun piece of evidence until the time of trial.

I just use IE 6.0 but it must be something I've downloaded as an addon at some point. Thanks.

(Emphasis added).

It is a deterrent; what remains to be seen is whether it will always be an effective deterrent. I would "wish" that it never happened at all. However, I have no doubt that if Iran took out a major United States city, the response would be nuclear. True, we are all making predictions which remain to be seen. I just can't see disarmament as the immediate response to being hit with a nuclear weapon. Again, if we were to disarm completely, that would be a extremely dangerous situation.

I think it is my computer rebelling on me again. (The spell checker is in the uper right corner, an "ABC" over a check mark; it requires that you download an add on).

"So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us." http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120737/quotes

It remains to be seen whether the democratization of China is inevitable. The first application of data processing by a authoritative regime was, arguable, the Nazi's use of data processing to effect the "final solution." We are now witnessing the next evolution of this application of computing power to people as data points. The result is not certain. You can count on the rulers of China to use every technical means at their disposal to maintain control even as they jump start their economy. If they can spoon feed their view of history and are not contradicted by any outside source, indeed, if the credible outside sources seem to only point to supporting materials (albeit with a bland disclaimer), China's rulers have a chance. Couple this control over information with other possible future technologies (e.g. GPS banding of dissidents and perhaps more), then you have frightening picture. While they may still fail, I can see a little more clearly today their path to maintaining control than I once could. All of this said, I acknowledge this is a closer decision than I first thought. It is possible that the "corrupting" influence of McDonald's supersizing and of Britney Spear's navel (don't laugh- it destroyed Bob Dole!) will work it's magic in the Orient. The incremental difference of Google may not be that large given what other companies have already conceeded.

Why is MAD inapplicable? Our ability to assure the destruction of even small nuclear powers still acts as a deterrent. The M may now stand for Multilateral or Multinational instead of Mutual, but the policy is the same. If a nuke were to go off, there would be even less chance of disarmament. In any event, complete disarmament would be far more dangerous than the status quo.

I have a hard time imagining what life was like when my mother was young. When I once held a Roman coin I felt like I was touching a party of antiquity. Yet my mother's birth and the Roman civilization occurred during the last fraction of a fraction of a second on a 24 hour cosmic clock. I do not find it surprising that people do not intuitively appreciate the length of time life has been evolving on this planet.

You misunderstood my point, Pangloss. I wasn't saying you shouldn't express your opinion. I was saying, perhaps inartfully, that I do not think the perspective of the corporation (which is motivated to increase profits) is relevant to the issue being debated, i.e. whether the corporation's actions are ethical. I didn't mean this in the perjorative sense that the opinion was frivilous or should not have been expressed but in the sense that it does not advance analysis. If it helps, I'm only direct with people I respect. Anyway, I am sorry I wasn't more clear as to meaning. I'll give some thought to the substance of what was said and respond later today. Jim