Comments on: Errant Cassandras http://www.sundriesshack.com/2005/12/27/errant-cassandras/ Delivering the Best of the New Media Since 2004. Mon, 14 May 2012 14:27:23 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: benninghttp://www.sundriesshack.com/2005/12/27/errant-cassandras/comment-page-1/#comment-140629 benning Thu, 29 Dec 2005 21:34:47 +0000 http://sundriesshack.com/?p=2160#comment-140629 Which word won't make it through your s--m filter, by the way? Or is this related to the other problem? Which word won't make it through your s–m filter, by the way? Or is this related to the other problem?

]]> By: benninghttp://www.sundriesshack.com/2005/12/27/errant-cassandras/comment-page-1/#comment-140628 benning Thu, 29 Dec 2005 21:32:41 +0000 http://sundriesshack.com/?p=2160#comment-140628 Hope my comment makes it through your spam filter! Hope my comment makes it through your spam filter!

]]> By: Jimmiehttp://www.sundriesshack.com/2005/12/27/errant-cassandras/comment-page-1/#comment-139496 Jimmie Tue, 27 Dec 2005 12:49:40 +0000 http://sundriesshack.com/?p=2160#comment-139496 Of course you can't, because you didn't actually check any of the links I provided, which cover the situation far better than I. However I will say that the vast majority of the commentary on this issue thus fas has been that the President did not break the law. I've yet to find anyone who can tell me, conclusively, how what President Bush has done approaches the level of the ECHELON program, which was far more intrusive and had a much broader scope. If that program, which was used to monitor a broad swath of domestic communications (instead of the specifically-targeted international communications monitored under this program) didn't prompt any sort of investigation, I fail to see how this program would. Unless, you know, the President that does the monitoring matters more than the monitoring program itself. Of course you can't, because you didn't actually check any of the links I provided, which cover the situation far better than I.

However I will say that the vast majority of the commentary on this issue thus fas has been that the President did not break the law. I've yet to find anyone who can tell me, conclusively, how what President Bush has done approaches the level of the ECHELON program, which was far more intrusive and had a much broader scope. If that program, which was used to monitor a broad swath of domestic communications (instead of the specifically-targeted international communications monitored under this program) didn't prompt any sort of investigation, I fail to see how this program would.

Unless, you know, the President that does the monitoring matters more than the monitoring program itself.

]]> By: Stephenhttp://www.sundriesshack.com/2005/12/27/errant-cassandras/comment-page-1/#comment-139495 Stephen Tue, 27 Dec 2005 12:23:41 +0000 http://sundriesshack.com/?p=2160#comment-139495 Seems like quite a few reasonable/knowledgeable people don't agree with you that there were no laws broken. Since you don't provide any defense for that assertion, I can't take the rest of what you write as worthy of consideration. Seems like quite a few reasonable/knowledgeable people don't agree with you that there were no laws broken. Since you don't provide any defense for that assertion, I can't take the rest of what you write as worthy of consideration.

]]>