I think it's necessary to point out that journalists should not be compelled to reveal their sources by any government functionary such as the courts.

But would you agree that a court should compel a reporter to reveal a source whose testimony was (to quote from federal and NY law on the matter) "1) highly material, 2) critical to the litigant's claim, and 3) not otherwise available"?

Put another way: if you were on trial for a serious crime you didn't commit, and the only person who could exonerate you was a reporter's anonymous source, and that reporter was refusing to identify the source, do you think you'd feel the same way?

I also wanted to address your phrase "government functionary such as the courts" which I think belies a misunderstanding of the proper role of the courts. While the judiciary is of course one branch of the government, the courts are not intended to be "functionaries" of the government--that is, a functionary of the other two branches, executive and legislative.

The courts are intended to adjudicate cases between the government and citizens, and between citizens and other citizens, in a fair and impartial manner. Judges are human and fallible and sometimes political and often do things that piss us off and all that, but a core founding principal conceived of a "neutral, detached magistrate."

Um, make that "founding principle."

And Glenn - didn't intend to parrot your response to paulw. I didn't see your comment until after posting mine.

Thanks, that's the story I read yesterday. (NYT is the source of your link.)

Bringing up her drunk driving record? You're purposefully undermining her character with unrelated information. Shame on you, Glenn.

I have no doubt that if you were a criminal defendant and the principal witness against you...was a social worker who accused you of being a violent psychotic, then you would think that her own history of unstable behavior -- including the fact that she herself was on probation and twice had been convicted of driving under the influence in the last 18 months -- was quite relevant.

Glenn is right. Before trial, the prosecution is required to disclose to the defense their witnesses' criminal history and any other bad acts known to the prosecution that may reflect poorly on the witnesses' credibility.

I don't find GG's and WS's arguments to be incompatible. Prior to Vietnam (Korea?) this country was much more non-interventionist.

Although the point is debated, historical consensus is that the US was dragged reluctantly into WWII.

Not bad for a first try, Glenn, but this effort was far to 'civil' and not 'disobedient' enough for my taste. I expect much more disruptive behavior next time.

I won't be satisfied until I see a video that ends with Denver P.D. dragging you, kicking and screaming, towards a paddy wagon...then tossing you, with those little plastic ties on your wrists and ankles, into the back as you scream about the evisceration of the First Amendment and threaten them with a money bomb. I want to see Jane Hamsher kicking out the rear window of a squad car.

There's three mosre days to go. Let's get at it.

From another Salon article:

Carney confronted Mayor Palin at a City Council hearing, and was shocked by her response.

"I braced her about it," he said. "I told her it was against the law to make such a large expenditure without the council taking a vote. She said, 'I'm the mayor, I can do whatever I want until the courts tell me I can't.'"

"I'll never forget it -- it's one of the few times in my life I've been speechless," Carney added. "It would have been easier for her to finesse it. She had the votes on the council by then, she controlled it. But she just pushed forward. That's Sarah. She just has no respect for rules and regulations."

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/09/17/palin_mayor/index.html

WaMu made many bad loans to minorities and in particular hispanic "home buyers".

Do you have any hard data you could provide that a disproportionate share of WaMu's failed loans were made to "minorities and in particular" Hispanics? Because this sounds suspiciously like you are passing along idle hearsay.

Why the quotation marks around Hispanic "home buyers"? What are you trying to say with that?

No Republican near-lynch mob

So far we've seen angry GOP crowds at rallies, incited by the speakers' not subtle innuendo, screaming "Kill him!", "Traitor!", "Terrorist!" "Bomb him!" and "Off with his head!". It's gotten so bad that McCain himself has acknowledged as much by, incredibly, rehabilitating his own opponent and reassuring these yahoos that he's not "an Arab." And he gets angrily booed by his own supporters for doing so.

And you're coming here with a straight face and trying to say none of this bears any resemblance to a lynch mob?

Are you fucking kidding me? Stop wasting everybody's time here with your willfully ignorant nonsense.

LOL, One guy with a monkey doll is a "lynch mob"?

I think you folks are just pissed because this joker stole your trademark symbol for Bush

The above shows you are either incredibly stupid or one of the most intellectually dishonest debaters I have ever encountered. You are presented with a mountain of evidence; you demand more, and more is produced. When a single, addition item is produced, you pretend that single, addition item is the sole evidence being provided, and that you never saw the preceding mountain. You'd get kicked off the junior high debate team for that bullshit. Stop it.

Then, you try to pretend that calling a white guy a chimp is the same thing as calling a black guy a monkey. In the words of the great John McEnroe, "You CANNOT be serious!"