[ndt]

"So, if you are correct, why is it not being presented by anyone that this clearly was illegal?"

Actually some legal scholars have said it was illegal and others say it was not. Most politicians, even the ones with a vested interest in seeing Bush out are mostly bitting their lips and asking for reviews. In reality, there is no way of knowing if it was or was not without the knowing specifics of the tapping instances.

Given the argument put forward by the DOJ it would appear that they are defending the warrantless tapping of U.S. Persons, so I would assume that is what they did/do.

[amutr22]

"Given the argument put forward by the DOJ it would appear that they are defending the warrantless tapping of U.S. Persons, so I would assume that is what they did/do."

Sorry, this part confused me, you assume they "did/do" what?

[Wasanother]

If there is no way to know whether it was legal or illegal without knowing specifics aren't we to assume it was legal first? Wouldn't the other way be the presumption of guilt before innocents?

[Cboldt]

Given the argument put forward by the DOJ it would appear that they are defending the warrantless tapping of U.S. Persons, so I would assume that is what they did/do.

I notice you've composed some substantial rebuttal to the cites used in the DOJ letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee. That sort of contribution would fit the following thread like a glove ...

Assistant Attorney General's Letters to Senate Intelligence Committee ...
Posted on 12/22/2005 10:01:42 PM EST by Peach.