Reply #2: I've been reading and processing this post for a few minutes now....

[Political Heretic]

And I've been quite reluctant to talk about this because its taken me longer than everyone else to have the time to read the motion, and start reading criticism and support of it and figure out what the deal is.

But my initial reaction to this is that I'm not sure that I'm comfortable with the "its their job" line. I'm not saying it isn't true, I'm saying I'm not sure that's the way it should be, and I'm saying I believe that the administration could get around that if they were interested in doing so.

What's been missing for me so far, is no one has made an affirmative argument as to why its better for America that the administration take this expansive position. Many people have made defending arguments explaining why this might not be as bad as some thing, why it might not be a big deal - and perhaps that's true.

But what I want to here is a full argument for the virtue and benefit to the public of making this argument as opposed to not doing so.

Incidentally, the paragraph that you didn't quote (though I'm not assuming on purpose; looks like you hit the four paragraph limit) to me seemed to contain the weakest argument. The author didn't seem to see the concern over the move to expand immunity via the Patriot Act, simply because as a lawyer he's or she is going to make any argument possible to defend the client, and lawyers don't set policy, etc....

Unfortunately, anyone without short term memory loss will remember how not too long ago lawyers and lawyers motions were setting and reinforcing a complete spectrum of destructive, constitutionally eviscerating laws or executive practices. They did influence policy, if not outright establish it. Each time the arguments of the administration were upheld, their executive approach was legitimized. What attorneys representing the United States executive argue and what the executive branch stands for as policy are unfortunately interconnected, as we have all seen first hand in previous years.

I return to my original question - why do this? I understand how one can defending it as people "just doing their jobs, its not their fault" or "its not that big of a deal" or "some provisions were dropped." But that doesn't give an affirmative answer. Why do this? How does it benefit America, how does it increase transparency and accountability, restore constitutionally protected civil rights and the rule of law?