I think the Left is pretty united agaisnt waterboarding

The Left worries about the corruptive powers of precedents on Dems as well as Reps.

Have mercy. Im laughing over here Runasim. I think the demons are running amuck in your NON left and right head.

It's impossible to talk about The Left. The Left has never been a united front.
So let's talk about issues, instead,
As far as blogs go, it's not always the loudest voices who are hte mostt representative. I, for example, never read Daily Kos unless he's quoted somewhere.

First, re prosecuting Pres. Bush.
That idea has been suggested by some prominent conservatives on the grounds of his abuse of executive power and ignoring the Constitution, as well as International treaties. I know that some Dems favor it, but the lleadership in Congress felt it was a bad idea, because with two wars going on, it would put too much stress on the nation's social fabric. I haven't heard Obama say anything about it, but he doesn't strike me as one who would favor impeachment.. I'm just guessing, though.

I tend to side with the conservatives. I think an impeachment, or some sort of reckoning would be important, not as punishement, but as a warning to future presidents. The Left worries about the corruptive powers of precedents on Dems as well as Reps.
I don't see what the timing for that would be, though. The US is in so much trouble, I don't see an opening for such a procedure .

As for prosecuting telcom executives, I haven't even heard about that before. Stripping immunity from the FISA bill is very important for many, though, myself included. I think of it more as a cautioanry measure for the future though, not as a punitive measure for the past.

The concern about precedents also extends to the politization of gov. Dept/s

I think the Left is pretty united agaisnt waterboarding . They are joined in that by many on the Right. That has nothing to do with who is waterboarded. It's a question of defining who we are as a nation and what we are not.

I have no idea where blood-thirstiness comes into this, You'll have to settle that in your own mind.

You can edit your posts after posting them………at the bottom of each post is a reply and edit button…..just click on the edit feature and edit away after you've posted.

We killed Zarqawi, not KSM.

We water-boarded KSM, causing the same lefties braying for the blood of domestic political opponents to shed many tears.

I don't recall such glee on the political left, when, e.g., we killed KSM in Iraq. He was only a sworn enemy of America in a war, who had killed American servicemen.

I really think that great many of you are cases of arrested development. “Self-arrested” might be a better way to put it, because you all are responsible for your adolescent thuggery.

Which we all know that those of you who support destroying the telecoms just hate big business so much that you will look for any reason to bash them.

Yet in your haste remember that no corporation ever pays taxes or pays legal fees or pays court costs or pays settlements.

WE DO.

Suing the telecoms just means your bill will go up. Your CELL PHONE bill will rise. The price you pay for the internet will continue to soar and in the end WE PAY. NOT THEM.

Havent you lefties figured this out yet??????????

What a strategy this is.

In case I didn't make mayself clear. I think it would be much more fruitful to discuss the issues as such, instead of always framing ithem in terms of what so-and-so did worng. That way we end up talking exclusively about people. instead of poliices.

Again, I think this is being discussed in the wrong order.
it's not about letting Buxh off the hook or defending Obama.

it's about what the best policy is AND what can realisticallly be done about it. .
To quote you:. “I'd be glad to rewrite it for them, RUNASIM. I doubt they'd accept my revision”.

You hit the nail on the head,,but it's not only a problem for you. It's a problem in the country and it's reflected in Congress. To get anything done, you have to bring along a significant number of those who have basic disagreements with you,
This is where advocacy that is ONLY negative fails, If you demand the impossible of leaders and then destroy them for not delivering miracles, you are worse off than ever, because you may be destroying those best positioned to help you in attaining your goals, AS THAT BECOMES POSSIBLE.

Just pinpointing what's wrong is useless without a strategy of how to make it right..
As an example, everyone is dumping on the Dems in Congress, who haven't delivered on ending the war. Advocacy consisting of ONLY criticizing the Dems (they lied, they're spineless) might end in decreasing their numbers in Congress . Would you be any closer to seeing the end of the war if that happened? And what other policies would you be dumping overboard along with the Dems?

Life isn't a quick sprint. It's a complicated chess game, and to win, the moves have to be carefully calculated, step by step. If you're going to sacrifice any men, be sure the sacrifice pays off. Strategy.

I support Obama because he is a realist. He understands long-term strategies, IMO, and he understands the importance of inclusion rather than warfare that ends in stalemates and accomplishes zilch.

I agree that someone should rewrite the bill, and I'd be glad to rewrite it for them, RUNASIM. I doubt they'd accept my revision.

I intend to go on 'groaning and moaning' whenever I see Congress fail to perform its constitutional function as a check on the extension of the powers of the executive. To do anything else is to enable their laxity and venality.

I know that Obama — who you will never permit to be criticized — is on the wrong side of this issue, along with many Democrats. But just because you're willing to let the Bush administration off the hook doesn't mean that the rest of us have to be.

I left out one of the other myths: that criminal liability will serve the same purpose as civil. That is not the case for many reasons.

The problems with wiretapping arise from abuses both by the executive and by personnel, There were many..
Having a law means there is at least some standard by which abuses can be measured.

What could be done without the law didn't really matter, because existing rules and guidelines were being ignored, anyway.

It's also a starting point. Practice will show how things work out, what needs to be altered or deleted or added. In the meantime, there is at least some standard for saying: ” You can't do that. It's against the law.”

I think you are right, in that he law was largely written to give cover for that which was being done anyway. The task at hand was then, to legalize the necessary parts of wiretapping without legalizing the unnecessary parts. That's an impossible task these days , as you know, if you follow how Congress works these days. The Dems need a supermajority to pass a resolution about lunch menus.
It came down to having a bad law or having no law.

For the resons I stated, I think having a bad law is less dangerous to rights in the long run than having no law. It's also a realistic acknowledgement that modern terrorism is real world wide and extremely difficult to detect.

I'm less panicked about rights, because of a historical perspective. In times of angst, societies always overreact, and then they work themselves out of it in gradual steps. The notion of 'gradual'appeals to me,becasue it's the only way to hold the country together,instead of having riots in the aisles of the Senate and the streets. I hope to see a gradual dialing back, and I think it will happen if the Dems gain more Senate seats.
To be considered also is what would happen should another attack occur. My guess is that there would be another clamor to return to worst practices, maybe even worse than anything we've seen so far.

On top of everything else, we are really talking very much in the abstract. No one knows what the real usable information from these wiretaps has been, if not in arrests then in tracking plots and connections .here and leading to other countries. Finding out how terrorists work is as important as finding specific terrorists.
A more useful fight to take up would be a fight for information, so that we know what we're talking about. Now it's all about fears, suspicions, allegations and extreme opinions.

I hope the immunity will be stripped. from the bill, but I reject making this an argument against the bill in its entirety.
As i said, let's tackle the problems with FISA, one by one and not drown the essence in the details.
.

Maybe we can turn the clock back to the 1600's while we're at it.

Living in the world as it is TODAY,I have no patience for people who spout absolutist slogans without absolutely taking responsibility for the consequences.

Gun lovers, please move to Wahsington DC and bring gun violence under control, in beween court dates to answer charges of reckless endangemrent and wrongful death, that is. Show everyone how it's done, instead of just spouting off at your keyboards.

FISA haters, write the law that will protect the country against terrorist plots while ensuring your perfect privacy.
There are legitimate compalints about how law enforcement and the CIA have misused the law, and those can be tackled one by one. There is no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater., unless you live in a fairyland where everything is sunshine and roses.

Take action. Take responsibilty for something besides moaning and groaning!

Rights come with responsibilities.
We've heard a lot about rights, now it's time for responsibilities.
Instead of being backseat drivers, step up to the plate, propose what should be done, not just what shouldn't be done.

Walter Walter Washington
Marion Barry
Sharon Pratt Kelly
Anthony A. Williams
Adrian Fenty

All of these Mayors should be tried for obeying the laws that were before them. In addition all city council members who conspired against the citizens of DC for their duplicity in continuing to enforce a law that was unconstitutional should also be named in the law suit.

For example, there are certainly methods that are illegal under existing wiretapping laws that would be extraordinarily helpful in identifying persons of interest in counterterrorism efforts–eg, broadbased computerized searches of connections and patterns within networks and the like. (Apologies if this point is utterly unconnected to the legislation.)

So is there a line to be drawn that this bill gets right or wrong or is it necessary to adopt an absolutist approach in order to fully protect individuals' privacy rights? I have no idea, but we do make such compromises with most of our constitutional rights and there seems to be a lack of back-and-forth on these fundamental questions as opposed to what are (I think) less important issues, such as the retroactive immunity for telecoms (which, as Greenwald admits, is pretty moot considering the difficulty of bringing such suits and the swiftness with which they would be dismissed).

I do think, though, that accusing telecoms of cooperation primarily out of greed seems a tad sensational without some persuasive evidence (not that it would surprise me, mind you) .