“Well, I think the record of activities as we know it, if true, is certainly proof that the procedure has not been abused.”
Okay, it is clear that they can never give you enough proof because you will always have doubt about that proof.
You know what pal? Then I want to get rid of all government. I want all our reps and senators impeached and thrown out of office. I want my slimy Gov Doyle booted out of office for his activities that are less than above board. I want all government agencies dismantled.
They will never be able to give me enough proof that the policies they have in place aren’t being abused. In fact, we have news stories all the time in the paper about IRS abuses, law enforcement abuses, judicial abuses (BTW how can we trust the FISA court? They are a secret court, how can we be sure their rulings aren’t tarnished somehow?),
Lets’ just stop doing everything because all policies at all levels have the potential to be abused, we have records of such past abuse occurring, and evne though they have proof that policies are followed, we still must wonder if such proof ‘is really true.’ We need proof that the proof is true. And then we will need more proof that that proof is really true. If, if, if.
What this boils down to is whether or not you trust the proof that was given. It appears that intellectually you admit they used it very selectively, used it properly, and documented that it was done the way they said it was, yet it appears it is not enough for you to trust them without even ‘more proof’ being needed.
I do not see why you seem so intent on disagreeing. As far as I can see, we are pretty much in agreement on this point.
I did not mean to imply that they were lying about how often this technique has been used. Far from it. My statement was, rather, meant to be an endorsement of their activities to date, and an acknowledgement that they have, according to all available information, behaved responsibly.