Thanks. The rebuttal to your piece is in the portion of the statute you yourself quote. I've got nothing to add.
Over the weekend I tried to explain to former NSA lawyer @Susan_Hennessey what "shall" means.
https://www.emptywheel.net/2017/10/15/ben-wittes-and-susan-hennessey-endorse-judicial-lawbreaking/ …
-
-
-
I've had feedback from people who know more about this than you who say I got it right. I'll take you having nothing to add as concession.
-
I stand by what I wrote and feel zero need to engage with your piece. You're welcome to take it however you'd like.
-
Yes. And I'm also welcome to keep pointing out that an NSA lawyer got the law & intent wrong while calling other people childish names.
-
Luckily engineers building the network you're both using for this conversation understand the definition of SHALL: https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
-
(and they agree with
@emptywheel)
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.