Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Which is the NSA program.

Anonymous Liberal:

• [I]t appears that the White House was willing (and in fact did, for a time) authorize a program that the Justice Department--including the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the head of the OLC, and the FBI Director--had determined to be illegal. And if all of these people had not threatened to simultaneously resign, it is very likely that the White House would simply have continued renewing this program without the Justice Department's blessing.
  
  That's a rather stunning fact, and one that I wish at least a few mainstream journalists would attempt to grasp the significance of. The White House authorized a program that everyone of significance in the Justice Department had determined to be lacking any legal basis. They willfully violated the law.

link

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Anonymous Liberal:

• [I]t appears that the White House was willing (and in fact did, for a time) authorize a program that the Justice Department--including the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the head of the OLC, and the FBI Director--had determined to be illegal. And if all of these people had not threatened to simultaneously resign, it is very likely that the White House would simply have continued renewing this program without the Justice Department's blessing.
  
  That's a rather stunning fact, and one that I wish at least a few mainstream journalists would attempt to grasp the significance of. The White House authorized a program that everyone of significance in the Justice Department had determined to be lacking any legal basis. They willfully violated the law.

link

hy-per-bole.

the WH didn't immediately stop a program that it had been told was fine, and had been running for 2 years. it did soon revise the program based upon justice's concerns.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
hy-per-bole.

the WH didn't immediately stop a program that it had been told was fine, and had been running for 2 years. it did soon revise the program based upon justice's concerns.

It's not clear the WH was running a program that Justice had said was fine. It appears that the WH may have been running a program that was somewhat different from what DOJ has said was fine, or maybe even one that DOJ had not opined as to the legal validity of.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
It's not clear the WH was running a program that Justice had said was fine. It appears that the WH may have been running a program that was somewhat different from what DOJ has said was fine, or maybe even one that DOJ had not opined as to the legal validity of.

evol-u-tion.

does it matter that the DOJ "revised" program was still illegal, at least in Congress' mind?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
evol-u-tion.

does it matter that the DOJ "revised" program was still illegal, at least in Congress' mind?

535 people in that building agreed unanimously that it was illegal? That's amazing.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
evol-u-tion.

We know it wasn't Intelligent Design.

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
evol-u-tion.

does it matter that the DOJ "revised" program was still illegal, at least in Congress' mind?

Dude, I'm on neither side on this board, but you sound like you want to defend what this administration does without consideration. Give up - even the most wing-nutty of conservatives gave up defending this group of Missississippi Baptists-cum-Robert Byrd pork barrel grifters.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by LessinSF
Dude, I'm on neither side on this board, but you sound like you want to defend what this administration does without consideration. Give up - even the most wing-nutty of conservatives gave up defending this group of Missississippi Baptists-cum-Robert Byrd pork barrel grifters.

the post you question was not an attempt to do anything beyond asking the question. the rest of it was nothing more than asking if there isn't a bit of ignoring context in all the wailing going on here. i realize they need something to excite them between jerk off sessions, but sometimes i think these guys get a bit out of hand.

they are posting for some reason. don't they want someone to keep them grounded? who else is here to do that?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
does it matter that the DOJ "revised" program was still illegal, at least in Congress' mind?

Do you think Congress knows enough about the program(s) to have this view? And does it "matter" for what purpose?

eta: My prediction is that Hank refuses to answer the hypothetical.

[sgtclub]

• Democrats are wielding a heavy hand on the House Rules Committee, committing many of the procedural sins for which they condemned Republicans during their 12 years in power.
  
  So far this year, Democrats have frequently prevented Republicans from offering amendments, limited debate in the committee and, just last week, maneuvered around chamber rules to protect a $23 million project for Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.).
  
  On Wednesday, Democrats suggested changing the House rules to limit the minority's right to offer motions to recommit bills back to committee -- violating a protection that has been in place since 1822.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0507/4046.html

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
the post you question was not an attempt to do anything beyond asking the question. the rest of it was nothing more than asking if there isn't a bit of ignoring context in all the wailing going on here. i realize they need something to excite them between jerk off sessions, but sometimes i think these guys get a bit out of hand.

they are posting for some reason. don't they want someone to keep them grounded? who else is here to do that?

Ah. The loyal opposition. Defending the indefensible for the sake of parlimentary procedure.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
the rest of it was nothing more than asking if there isn't a bit of ignoring context in all the wailing going on here.

What is the context that's relevant? You're hanging your hat on the claim that no one objected to the program for two years, so that gives it some presumption of legality. Yet, it was a covert program about which few people knew and no one proclaimed legal. You're cool with the fact that it went on for 2-3 years in an unknown form more broad than the current program that later came to light?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
What is the context that's relevant? You're hanging your hat on the claim that no one objected to the program for two years, so that gives it some presumption of legality. Yet, it was a covert program about which few people knew and no one proclaimed legal. You're cool with the fact that it went on for 2-3 years in an unknown form more broad than the current program that later came to light?

say you are in charge of the Memorial Bridge. 20,000 cars drive over it every day. The bridge is really important to get traffic into and out of the District. Now an engineer says that the Bridge isn't safe and really needs work.

You'd shut down the bridge the moment you read that report, or do you consider what you need to do to fix it, while still maintaining the critical traffic flow?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
say you are in charge of the Memorial Bridge. 20,000 cars drive over it every day. The bridge is really important to get traffic into and out of the District. Now an engineer says that the Bridge isn't safe and really needs work.

You'd shut down the bridge the moment you read that report?

You run a company sued for patent infringement. You employ a lot of people in good jobs, and you make good money. The other side seeks a TRO to enjoin your operations, and the judge says "no." Time passes. A new judge is assigned. The other side brings a new motion for a TRO, citing new facts and new law. The judge grants this motion, and orders you to suspend your operations. Do you obey the order, or do you figure that the first judge's ruling was good enough to give you cover?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
say you are in charge of the Memorial Bridge. 20,000 cars drive over it every day. The bridge is really important to get traffic into and out of the District. Now an engineer says that the Bridge isn't safe and really needs work.

You'd shut down the bridge the moment you read that report, or do you consider what you need to do to fix it, while still maintaining the critical traffic flow?

Is every engineer in the Transportation Department telling me that the bridge is sure to fail soon?