> Dana wrote: > > I have to say -- offhand I find that quite dismaying, and the source > unimpeachable. >
So we now have 2 administrations - polar opposites - approving of the same techniques. So just talking through the possibilities without endorsing any: (1.) Gov't loves abusing power through wiretaps. (2.) There's a good reason for the policy which involves something we don't know, and can't be disclosed to us. If the second is the case, why wouldn't either administration say something to this effect? To me it's not logically consistent that the DOJ would drop the case against Sen Stevens for corruption, but support this corruption (not that corruption always makes sense). Thus I think the answer to my hypothetical question would be: because if they said something it would undermine their legal case which they need to win for a reason they can't disclose to us. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:294666 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
