fusion

I've known Rangers, a SEAL, and a few Pararescue and Combat Control that are liberals. I'm pretty sure most of them you wouldn't call pansy ass to their face.

Sorry to hear that man. I sent some emails out to see if any of the groups I have worked with are looking for any IT staff.

You know Nick get's to be his number one. It's long been obvious Todd has a thing for him.

Is it possible to go back and withdraw any evidence I was ever in this thread?

That's pretty cool. I guess I'm not schizo.

Yeah definitely liking the black and gold. Much more than the candy cane I think.

I haven't read much about it yet, but if that's accurate that really sucks.

Awesome! That reminds me I need some type of banner for my photo stuff.

Precedent isn't set in stone. Even if this is dismissed based on this filing. It can be over turned by a higher court. Also, similar cases can be distinguished from this one to support different findings through a number of means. The question of defending a knowingly guilty client (beyond all reasonable doubt) is probably the oldest and most debated ethical question in law. Of course this is from the single law class I took ages ago, but I'm pretty sure it's near the top. Definitely not going to be solved here. In this case though the Asst AG isn't taking on a new case, he's arguing legality based upon an argument already set in motion by the prior administration. On top of that he's defending a new administration that inherited the suit against an old administration. So the new set of people should accept responsibility for what the old set of people did? I think change comes in actual policy in action not in the defense of an old suit you got handed when the last people left. Frankly I won't be surprised if this administration ends up as big a pile of shit as the last. They both are different odors wafting from the same pile of crap.

Defense lawyers defend a rapist's right to rape, a murderer's right to murder,...? No they use what ever argument necessary to win a case when acting as a lawyer for the defense. I'm not OK with murder or rape, but I'm OK with a defense lawyer doing his job in defending such cases.

So you're saying this is stating that the Obama Administration is conducting warrantless wiretapping along with supporting warrantless wiretapping and it's not just the Asst AG doing his job as the lawyer for the defense on a case that was started before Obama was elected? I'm okay with this lawyer doing his job and defending a lawsuit. I'm not okay with a policy of warrantless wiretapping.

Oh you don't understand what is being said? Need us to use smaller words and talk slower?

now we're both confused.

Only if you didn't follow the link and see it's what was in the Motion to Dismiss and it was not the Obama Administration its self saying that. All that says is the new Asst AG is smarter than the one Bush's Admin appointed.

That would only be true if it came out that Obama's administration was supporting active warrantless wiretapping. Not the continuation of an already existing lawsuit.

Only if you ignore the difference between policy and legal defense. Bush used it as a policy, here they are using the argument only as a legal defense to a suit that was filed while Bush was still in office. They are using Bush's own policies as a legal defense to a suit that was brought against that administration. Apples and oranges... http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/jewel/jewel.complaint.pdf

errr not quite there's a difference between a policy decision and legal defense. Obama's policy hasn't changed at all, but it's still the AGs job to defend against suits the way any other lawyer would.

Knew a ton of Air Force chicks when I was in that looked at least that good.

Nah I don't know him. I just checked out his site and saw his work and where he was at.

He's got some great work and a Dayton guy too. If he ever needs someone to hang around his studio and annoy the piss out of him let me know.

Country music does that to people...