Re: Something we can all agree on

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 21:46:02 -0800, "Richard Henry" <rphenry@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>
>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:2vo9q1p71a9g7294ed6lkrloh21msoiv7q@xxxxxxxxxx
>> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 18:50:40 -0800, "Richard Henry" <rphenry@xxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>message
>> >news:c7j9q153sftkt709i50pttvls7t7tcf1gn@xxxxxxxxxx
>> >> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 17:49:52 -0800, "Richard Henry" <rphenry@xxxxxxxx>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >So now that W has admitted committing a crime, and has confirmed that
>he
>> >> >will do it again, when do the impeachment hearings start?
>> >>
>> >> Don't be silly. Members of Congress of both parties were briefed on
>> >> what was going on. And these same people are going to vote to impeach
>> >> him? And, during those hearings, reveal who leaked?
>> >>
>> >> I suspect not.
>> >
>> >So you don't deny that it's a crime?
>> >
>>
>> Tapping international phone calls to try to keep Americans from being
>> killed? Do you think that's a crime?
>
>Tapping international phone calls, when knowledge of the contents might save
>American laws and property, is a powerful tool of our technology. There is
>even a law and a special court set up to authorize things like that.
>
>W apparently decided he doesn't need them. Or his handlers told him he
>doesn't need them.
>
>> I don't, and there's a couple thousand years of legal precedence that
>> says it's not.
>
>A couple thousand years of wiretapping?
>

A couple of thousand years of recognizing that a small crime is no
crime if it prevents a much bigger one.

Couldn't you figure that one out?

John

.