come on "constructionists"

[JPaul]

Thanks for that. A few points.

1. "within or without this country", surely they mean outwith.

I think what is more surely meant is "...the activities of Foreign Powers within or without this country".

Proximity need not afford an enemy "safety" if it is on your own soil, I don't think; do you?

2. "Feck it's only foreigners so why should we bother with warrants" is actually quite offensive to us foreigners.

Are you a terrorist? A mal-intending foreign power?

3. Point 2. is commensurate with your position on torture, "we can do it to Johny Foreigner, outside of our fair land".

Bigfoot does what is necessary to protect it's own, and if you are attempting to equate targeted electronic surveillance to torture as a matter of standing policy, you need to get back to the matter at hand.

This discussion is not about torture, last I looked.

4. Do you have a source or sources for this explanation. I wouldn't mind seeing it in context.

It is an excerpt from a column by Michael Barone that is apparently too new to have been archived; I have read it but cannot find it on-line.

As I had to transcribe it myself so that you could read it, I suppose it is totally suspect, huh?

Not suspect in the slightest, I have no probable cause to assess you are misquoting.

I am neither a terrorist nor a "mal-intending foreign power", however who is to judge that, prior to intercepting my communications. I had assumed it would be your Courts, not your Administration.

The torture point was intended as being indicative of your Administration's general outlook. It's OK to treat foreigners a certain way, but not US citizens. Double standards and so forth. Are not all men created equal.

The without / outwith comment was more linguistic than geographical. I had assumed you would see that.

"which is apparently too new" > "that is apparently too new"

[j2k4]

The without / outwith comment was more linguistic than geographical. I had assumed you would see that.

"which is apparently too new" > "that is apparently too new"

Ah...cunning.

Really, though:

What's new about all this?

Granting that any "outrage" should be aimed at Bush-as he is in charge-no one seems to have any recollection of his predecessor(s) having done any of this, and if, as they say, this is what makes Bush "evil" why do they take such exception when, as a normal course of debate, someone raises the matter of precedent,and the outrage turns to umbrage at the mention?

Odd, that.

[JPaul]

The without / outwith comment was more linguistic than geographical. I had assumed you would see that.

"which is apparently too new" > "that is apparently too new"

Ah...cunning.

Really, though:

What's new about all this?

Granting that any "outrage" should be aimed at Bush-as he is in charge-no one seems to have any recollection of his predecessor(s) having done any of this, and if, as they say, this is what makes Bush "evil" why do they take such exception when, as a normal course of debate, someone raises the matter of precedent,and the outrage turns to umbrage at the mention?

Odd, that.

I've never been a fan of the "we've always done that" as a justification for actions.

Or even the "you did it, so you can't talk" as a defence for them.

If it's wrong, it's wrong. Stand alone. It matters not one jot whether people did it before, or whether those doing it were like minded to me.

Slavery is wrong, we legislate against it now. That, to me, is a good thing. No matter what our ancestors did. This is an example, albeit irrelevant to the current debate.

[vidcc]

It is an excerpt from a column by Michael Barone that is apparently too new to have been archived; I have read it but cannot find it on-line.

I believe it was this
Kev may not be using his source out of context however that does not mean Barone isn't.

I read it last week (like to get diffferent views)

[j2k4]

I've never been a fan of the "we've always done that" as a justification for actions.

Or even the "you did it, so you can't talk" as a defence for them.

If it's wrong, it's wrong. Stand alone. It matters not one jot whether people did it before, or whether those doing it were like minded to me.

Slavery is wrong, we legislate against it now. That, to me, is a good thing. No matter what our ancestors did. This is an example, albeit irrelevant to the current debate.

Slavery is probably the poorest analogy one could use, but aside and apart from that fact, my point had nothing whatsoever to do with precisely who may or may not be guilty of what you regard as transgressing behaviors; it is, rather, that these behaviors/tactics have been used by several recent administrations, and likewise several members of those administrations made statements in support of warrantless surveillance that vindicate it's use, cite legal precedent, and that I personally agree with.

A superb and magnanimous demonstration of non-partisanship by yours truly, for those who think otherwise.

Tangentially, I also feel that exception taken in Bush's case by those suffering an unqualified loathing for him indicates nothing, apart from their typical undifferentiated ideological bias.

[JPaul]

j2

I learned a new phrase today "tu quoque".

It is a concept you should be familiar with.

[j2k4]

j2

I learned a new phrase today "tu quoque".

It is a concept you should be familiar with.

I am now, thank you.

To reiterate though, you may consider the anecdotal recountings which include quotes from Clinton administration officials as merely an extension of my reasoning vis a vis Bush's actions.

I use them to support my case, not to accuse the Clinton administration, or engage in any permutation of 'them too'-ism.

Why exactly do you think this is the case?

[JPaul]

The fact that it's acceptable for any President to behave this way is, in a sense, worse than them circumventing the rule of law.

[j2k4]

The fact that it's acceptable for any President to behave this way is, in a sense, worse than them circumventing the rule of law.

What is your understanding of the transgressions alleged?

[JPaul]

The fact that it's acceptable for any President to behave this way is, in a sense, worse than them circumventing the rule of law.

What is your understanding of the transgressions alleged?

My understanding, based on your post is that there weren't any. That POTUS has the inherent power to do what he (they) did.