Clinton will hold a prominent position in democratic party politics for many years to come. You're kidding yourself to believe otherwise.

Posted at July 17, 2008 6:17 PM in response to Hillary Clinton Should Take Her Name Out Of The Hat Now

I fail to see how Obama is any different than Clinton in this respect. Plus...look at the other names Obama is supposedly considering for the VP slot: Bayh? Nunn? Dodd? Why should Clinton 'get out of the way' for them?

Posted at July 17, 2008 1:45 PM in response to Hillary Clinton Should Take Her Name Out Of The Hat Now

It seems that many still do not recognize that Obama needs those who supported Clinton in the primary in order to beat McCain.

Helping a former opponent retire campaign debt is nothing new, and Obama will ultimately benefit from making the request of his wealthiest donors. Furthermore, the belief that any money given to Clinton (which will be a rather small amount in the grand scheme of the campaign) could have instead been donated to Obama is incorrect. Both sides face donation limits.

The primary is over...let the nastiness go. Clinton will continue to be a prominent voice in democratic politics for a long time, so best get over it. (And yes, I supported Obama in the primary.)

Posted at July 16, 2008 10:56 AM in response to If HILLARY'S Supporters Are So Loyal and Devoted to Her.....

Obama neither asked his small donors to help nor did he hand over his own money or money he had already raised.

He's also not doing this out of the goodness of his heart. He can quite obvious benefit from Clinton's donors who cannot legally give her anymore money.

This is purely business on his end...it's silly to get upset over it.

Posted at July 16, 2008 9:13 AM in response to If HILLARY'S Supporters Are So Loyal and Devoted to Her.....

...and furthermore...

Telecommunications companies have repeatedly cut off FBI access to wiretaps of alleged terrorists and criminal suspects because the bureau did not pay its phone bills, according to the results of an audit released yesterday.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which has been sharply critical of the Bush administration's surveillance practices, called on the FBI to release the full report. The group's national security policy counsel, Michael German, also said that the report raises questions about the motives of large telecom firms, which have, in many cases, allowed the government to run wiretaps on their systems without warrants.

"It sounds as though the telecoms believe it when the FBI says the warrant is in the mail, but not when they say the check is in the mail," said German, a former FBI agent.

Link.

Posted at July 14, 2008 9:36 PM in response to I'm not a lawyer, but I play one TV.

I'll flip your question back on you: If all a person needs to do to win multi-million dollar judgments against a company for following what they took to be lawful orders why should they ever cooperate ever again?

Entities that deal in the private data of their customers should not be immune from civil suit simply because a government body requested that they break the law. I work in a similar area of law, dealing with public versus confidential information and the proper handling of it by the government and private entities.

You keeping saying those whose rights were violated. Which rights were those? Their Constitutional rights? Because only a government can infringe on those and last I checked Bush wasn't on the lawsuits in question.

It is the Bush administration that must be held accountable for not following the statute. The telecommunications companies, whether you like it or not, have a proven defense against these charges.

The aggrieved individuals possessed the 'right' to have their communications kept from government intrusion except as authorized by law.

I don't know how someone could believe that the telecoms are not liable here...a quick reading of the statute would show you that plaintiffs are specifically afforded a cause of action:

§ 2520. Recovery of civil damages authorized

"any person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or intentionally used in violation of this chapter may in a civil action recover from the person or entity, other than the United States, which engaged in that violation such relief as may be appropriate."

Posted at July 14, 2008 6:46 PM in response to I'm not a lawyer, but I play one TV.

It isn't just the Bush Administration that did wrong. It's difficult to take such a statute seriously when violators are quickly shielded from liability by the government.

The idea that the telecoms felt compelled to break the law is laughable. They had no problems cutting off the government's access when the bills weren't paid. I'd say that those whose rights were violated deserve their day in court. How else can such abuses be prevented in the future?

Posted at July 14, 2008 11:22 AM in response to I'm not a lawyer, but I play one TV.

Again, you're suggesting that opposition lies in FISA generally and not in the recent changes to the FISA statute, the granting of immunity to those who broke the law, or the fact that the Bush Administration simply ignored the law completely. That is simply not the case as far as many critics are concerned.

Did you even read the link I posted? It contained comments from a former presiding judge of the FISA court! He wasn't objecting to the statute or to the court review mandated under FISA, he objected to the warrantless surveillance that occurred outside of FISA (with the assistance of those same telecoms).

As for your insistence that only fringe groups are opposed to this action:

Opposition to immunity is widespread, cutting across ideology and geography. Majorities of liberals, moderates, and conservatives agree that courts should decide the outcomes of these legal actions (liberals: 64% let courts decide, 26% give immunity; moderates: 58% let courts decide, 34% give immunity; conservatives: 50% let courts decide, 38% give immunity).

Link.

Posted at July 12, 2008 3:27 PM in response to I'm not a lawyer, but I play one TV.

...and again, it's more than the "far left" than has objected on this issue.

One of many examples, and from a decidedly non-liberal source.

Posted at July 12, 2008 2:10 PM in response to I'm not a lawyer, but I play one TV.

(My mind will not change, rather.)

Posted at July 12, 2008 1:59 PM in response to I'm not a lawyer, but I play one TV.