interesting argument. I would like to think you are right. I just don't know.
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Gruss Gott <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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:294668 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
