Daily Kos

View Story | 62 comments

  •  they didn't need to do what they did (4.00 / 4)

    they could wiretap for 72 hours before getting a wiretap.

    Meaning they could get a wiretap immediately and worry about getting a warrent a day and a half later.  There is nothing about the current law that would slow them down.

    and if the FISA court would have denied their request then, well, considering how few requests have been denied by the court over the year, then there would be a very good reason for it.  Fear of having a warrent being denied isn't a valid reason to have this program.

    There is absolutely no reason to have it. Zero. None.

    •  I agree (none / 0)

      with the specifics of this case - I'm talking about (as AG Gonzales prefers not to) about a hypothetical situation in which the president did have to authorize a violation of the law - what happens then. Should he not do it, should he try to hide it, or should he be held accountable. The law is obviously not perfect and never will be, I'm just interested in people's thoughts about that scenario - forgetting for a second that I disagree with what's been done in this instance, which I think I made pretty clear, no?
      •  if the president feels that way (none / 1)

        afterwards all the facts should be presented to the congress and the american people and they can decide whether the action was absolutely necessary or not.

        obviously that isn't happening in this case

        •  yup (none / 1)

          and that's exactly what I think our central push should be about. the gonzalez hearings, in which he essentially ducked every question should be assailed and loudly. Pat Leahy's retort to Gonzalez apologizing sarcastically that he forgot that Gonzalez couldn't answer any relevant questions should not just be on the daily show.

          If I had one word I could use to campaign on this november it would be accountability.

View Story | 62 comments