I was on the Democrat National Staff of Gene McCarthy in '68 & Fritz Mondale in '84. I learned that there is nothing "democratic" about the Democrat Party. I had some good memories [John Podesta working for me in Brooklyn during the '68 NY Primary & The Chicago Convention], but all in all, the majority of Dems are like Harold Ickes [whom I worked for] and not John Podesta [who is a decent human being, if misguided.]

Tony Podesta, John's older brother, still calls me "Professor" when he sees me.

You speak a fine mumbo-jumbo, but the Islamists tend to disagree heavily with you. If you get a chance, drop a note to Daniel Pearl's widow about the "undeniable exchange of influence" her husband experienced, would you?

Your interpretation of Islamic cultural influence as your own 'subjugation' is the rigid part. Muslim values will influence Western culture, just as Western culture has influenced thought in Asia, Africa and the Middle East; this is how culture works, there is no 'subjugation' to be avoided, when we have contact with each other we have an undeniable exchange of influence. You will never be able to enforce the cognitive isolation that you apparently experience as freedom. Since you interpret the possibility of mutual influence so negatively, you also assume anyone who might have that influence on you to be your 'enemy' and therefore a legitimate target for surveillance, capture, elimination, etc.

Ease up, guy. It's a big world. If you quit trying to see everything that's not you as something dangerous you might find an awful lot of value in the things that don't currently make sense to you. In the meantime, you appear to be trying to live out a voyeuristic fantasy through your government–if you're that curious about what someone is doing, just ask. I think you'll find most the anti-American activists you're so concerned about to be more than willing to let you know what they think–but be careful, what you find out from them may 'subjugate' you.

If the telecoms did not break the law, then the lawsuits have no merit and will be thrown out. Pardon me for thinking they wouldn’t be looking for amnesty if they hadn’t done something they knew to be illegal

T.B. | Jun 25, 2008 | Reply

Au contraire…..maybe you should read this most interesting post to see what real life lawsuits are like vs. the one you picture in Utopiaville.

Also, you are incredibly narrow about wondering why the telecoms might need immunity. Don't you think it's even a little bit possible that these companies might not want to spend the millions of dollars it will take to mount a court defense? How about we apply your "if you're innocent, you don't have to worry" defense to individuals. You'd enjoy that, yes?

You don't know this, or any of that. The government refuses to say exactly what the program entailed.

All we know is that the government was spying on communications where one end was in the United States. This is a crime under FISA. The government broke the law and the telecoms helped them.

If the telecoms did not break the law, then the lawsuits have no merit and will be thrown out. Pardon me for thinking they wouldn't be looking for amnesty if they hadn't done something they knew to be illegal.

Every Democrat was willing to pass a bill to cover foreign-to-foreign communications; it's Bush who has held it up by insisting on amnesty for telecoms (which, unfortunately, the Democrats are going to grant). So Bush, having spied on Americans in violation of the law, is willing to hold up a bill to target foreign terrorist communications because he would rather spy on Americans than fight terrorists.

If you have any proof that the program was only aimed at foreign-to-foreign communications, let's have it. There is none, because the government was spying on communications where one end was in the U.S. And without a warrant, that's illegal.