There were some people who were unbelievable the other day. I mean really bad. The blanket purge was the easiest thing to do, since I tried to do it selectively the first time and apparently nuked some people’s comments that they felt I shouldn’t have. And I’ll do it again if people hit me with that kind of stuff.

I suppose I am just used to being deleted and/or banned for leaving comments at various places. Not for being obsene, name-calling, or acts or trolling, but for posting well-reasoned factual posts that express the wrong viewpoint.

If that is not the case, I sincerely apoligize for insinuating otherwise.

As far as HAVING to allow a comment, you certainly don’t. Many, many political sites allow no dissenting viewpints, of this I can assure you. Once you respond to a comment, however, you do have an obligation to not disallow a response. Which apparently isn’t the case here.

http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/04/09/washington-post-gets-it-right/

Everything got cleaned out. Pro or con.

But why in the world would you assume I have to publish your comment?

Which doesn’t explain away the deletion of my April 9th post.

Unless you are making a habit off mass-deleting your comments that is.

–This post has been deleted because the server does not allow dissenting views.–

Jim

Assume a law was not broken for a moment. Then the leaker divulged national intelligence gathering technology secrets. That would be a bad thing, yes?

I’m not sure why you’ve brought elections into this, so let’snot veer off onto a tangent.

The president “broke” the FISA law secretly. Noone who knew of the program had any authority to inform ANYONE of its existance. We were never supposed to find out about this. Acccording to many reports the Justice Department is actively pursuing a leak case on the issue.(Irony..yes..but beside the point)

Which askes the question, what OTHER laws does the president have the right to secretly “break”?

Particularly distressing was AG Gonzales refusal to preclude laws preventing the CIA, FBI, NSA from influencing American elections from being secretly “broken”

Put another way,
What guarantee do we have that a president CANNOT order the subversion of american elections, by way of secretly declaring congressional laws prohibiting such activity unconstitutional?

AG Gonzalez was asked this VERY question before congress. We’re still awaiting an answer.

If I read the report properly, Ashcroft wanted changes made. They were and he did sign off.

I am not familiar with what Gonzales said during the confirmation hearings, so I can’t answer that.

What I have read of the EFF lawsuit so far is a lot of speculative legalese. But, let’s just see how it does in court.

Why in the spring of 2004 did then Attorney General John Ashcroft refuse to give the OK to warrantless wiretapping? Did the Administration begin wiretapping without the Attorney General’s consent? What is your judgement on that action?

Why during the Gonzales confirmation hearings did Gonzales dismiss as an impossible hypothetical the legality of the administration being able to wiretap without a warrant? Did he say that should anything like that occur that he would let congress know?

What are your thoughts on the recent EFF lawsuit that charges that AT&T is redirecting all of its internet traffic to the NSA so it can be scrubbed? If the charges are true, do you think that violates the spirit of the fourth amendment? If not, what does “probable cause” mean to you Gauis?

Jim