Punishing the Guilty
 

Well, of course not. Shrub wasn't under oath, strictly speaking.

I'm torn
 

On the one hand slimy bastard Abramoff should do some time; on the other hand, if he squeals, there's no telling how many Republican congresspeople he could take down with him. Right in time for the mid-term elections.


Hmmm.

Punishing the Guilty
 

Welcome back.

Punishing the Guilty
 

Took you long enough to come around.

I'm torn
 

I'm hoping for as many as possible, but I'll settle for Tom Delay and Don Nickles.

Punishing the Guilty
 

If by "this law" you mean FISA, that's not my reading of it. If you're targeting a US Person, and if that US Person has a REP and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes, then regardless of where the interception occurs, it's "Electronic Surveilance" (1801(f)(1)), and you need can't go warrantless under 1802 if a US Person's communications are going to be intercepted.

I'm torn
 

But is the deal in exchange for ratting out the upper echelons of the Republican party, or for keeping his trap shut?

ETA: and is he crying in that picture? I suppose he could just be squinting against some glare. I hope so. Because if you're going to shake down half the industries in America for political favors, you really shouldn't be a pussy about it when they finally throw you in jail.

I'm torn
 

Probably depends on whether he's talking to the career DoJ guys or the political appointees.

I'm Confused.........
 

Here are some things I don't understand.

1) Why would congress pass an Act (FISA) that limited government surveillance beyond the bounds of the constitution. Especially when it comes to foreign nationals and calls outside the United States? The answer is probably that Congress did a lot of stupid things in response to Watergate.

2) If FISA or some other act did such a thing, why didn't the Patriot Act reverse those parts of FISA? Who dropped the ball on that one? Seems to me pretty obvious who dropped the ball on that one.

3) If the NSA computerized system sometimes picks up domestic calls between US citizens, then why don't they say that those were a mistake and they were working on the problem.

4) How can anyone argue that non-warranted listening to phone calls between US citizens in the United States is not a problem? How can anyone defend that? National Security? Following that logic why have any civil liberties at all? They just get in the way of National Security.

I'm torn
 

The Rolling Stone article about this guy was awesome. I liked the bit from a high school classmate about how his nickname was Abraham Jackoff.

I'm Confused.........
 

I'm not sure if this makes you a Commie or a terrorist. Maybe both.

I'm torn
 

The three Congressmen I am targeting in the primay are Doolittle, Delay and Pombo. They all have had dealings with Abrahamoff. I hope this guy sings like a Canary and he included these three in his swan song.

What a Christmas that would be. Although I have to admit, I have not been a very good boy this year, so Santa probably won't deliver all three on a silver platter.

I'm Confused.........
 

Why would be ban torture overseas? Why would we ban assassinations of foreign leaders? There are things the constitution does not bar, but it might nonetheless be good policy not to permit.

I'm Confused.........
 

I think I would like to be called a neo-terrorist. In domestic policy I am a neo-liberal, in foreign policy I am a neo-conservative, in social policy I have been accused of being a neo-progressive, and when it comes to the enviroment, since I don't think the government should subsidize waste disposal (thereby distorting makets) that makes me a neo-conservationist. So that pretty much just makes me a neo at everything.

I'm Confused.........
 

I hope you take the red pill.