Re: Where the *** Was Cheney?

In article <4a048112$0$23757$bbae4d71@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"The moderator" <no_spam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"William Clark" <clark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:clark-6792AF.13403407052009@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <4a02f3e3$0$23770$bbae4d71@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"The moderator" <no_spam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"William Clark" <clark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:clark-5ED706.10343707052009@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <4a02d458$0$23784$bbae4d71@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"The moderator" <no_spam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Don Kirkman" <donsno2@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:0q74055p3gs5k58csmbe896i2v7t6ruvtr@xxxxxxxxxx
It seems to me I heard somewhere that The moderator wrote in article
<4a009913$0$23786$bbae4d71@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:


"Don Kirkman" <donsno2@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:t20105h4jgm03lvgp9acf4d6v5n8q031vt@xxxxxxxxxx
It seems to me I heard somewhere that The moderator wrote in
article
<4a003460$0$23782$bbae4d71@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

Right, Obama filed a request for a stay. It is a routine legal
procedure
in
a case that is being defended. Why is Obama defending the case?

The usual way to stop defending a case is to ask the court for a
dismissal. Would that work for you?

He is doing the same thing. He voted to expand the eavesdropping
powers.

So I'll ask again: Now can you point to evidence that Obama is
"doing
the same thing that President Bush did" (specifically, not general
allegations) or "continued the eavesdropping program"? Your word
alone isn't evidence. A brief for a hearing on a request for a
stay
is not evidence of continuing the eavesdropping program; you might
as
well have cited the brief for the defense for the same hearing.

The court already refused to dismiss the case. It is a secret
program.
Specific's were not available on this program at any time. Based on
your
criteria there is no evidence this program existed under President
Bush.

So, IF you are correct the court has refused to dismiss the case.
What
options are left to the prosecution, then? It is an active case,
previous briefs have been filed and ruled on, and the court has
requested briefs on a specific issue: whether a stay should issue
pending a ruling on an appeal on a related matter. Does the
government refuse to obey and have some attorneys risk contempt of
court sanctions?

Please tell me what my "criteria" are and what they refer to, so I
can
decide whether I agree with you on that point. Meanwhile, there
seems
to be rather widespread knowledge about the secret program except
for
some of the details. The fact that such a program has existed and
still exists is no secret; it's the details that you seem to think
are
unknown--but you seem to know enough about them to know that Obama
is
pursuing them just the way Bush did. Please explain.

When you say the program still exists my point is made. Clark thinks
Obama
ended the program, but all the available evidence contradicts this.

Are your referring to the FISA program, or to the illegal Bush program?
There is a very clear difference, although it seems to have escaped
you.

Again you have no evidence that the program is illegal. Obama's
Administration is defending President Bush's program. Stop with the
canards
and false allegations.

Again, YOU are the one claiming that Obama is continuing Bush's illegal
wiretapping. So YOU produce the evidence or else withdraw.

I have never claimed that the wiretapping program was illegal. You made the
claim and continue to do so.

No, I did not. I re-iterated that wiretapping without conforming to the
requirements set out in FISA was illegal, and that was the modus
operandi of the Bush administration. You have been asked to substantiate
your inference that this illegal wiretapping is still being carried out
under this administration, and you cannot produce any evidence to say
that it is. No wonder you keep dodging and weaving.
.

Loading