Glenn, it would be very interesting for you to contact Kondracke and ask if those very same acts, "under orders and with patriotism", would be worthy of punishment if they had been unsuccessful and we had been attacked.

The Oxdown I linked in my previous comment is one by MadDog discussing Rules of Engagement (or the lack thereof). My diary should be linked at my name this time.

Aaaargh! The humanitarian crisis in Gaza just keeps getting worse. McClatchy is reporting this morning that IDF shot and killed a UN truck driver carrying a load of humanitarian supplies at a Gaza checkpoint. The shipment had already been agreed to by Israel. More details in an Oxdown diary linked at my name.

Aside to bop: We're expecting a baby spotted horse in the next couple of weeks. Hope I can share pictures with you.

Our pet has said several time that the superpowers are derived from Article II.

Meanwhile (h/t Emptywheel), Marisa Taylor has exposed more legal scholarship from John Yoo in a memo related to Bush's ability to start the Iraq war:

In one lengthy section, Yoo expounds on the meaning of the word “and” and concludes that it should not be construed as a conjunction.

Linked at my name.

Okay, "and" is one letter longer than Clinton's record wrangling over "is", but denying the part of speech is some pretty impressive pretzel logic.

Truly brave heroes such as Thomas Tamm, Matthew Diaz, and, I would add, Mark Klein have helped to lift, just a bit, the curtain behind which the Bush Administration has carried out its worst abuses. However, as Glenn points out in the post and as elaborated by multiple commenters in the thread, these actions come at a great personal price, generating huge legal debts in an environment bordering on blacklisting for future employment. Especially given that it is not unreasonable for some contemplating disclosure to wonder if they might actually "disappear", I am given hope by the claims of Seymour Hersh that many people wish to speak with him on January 20.

Here's to hoping that many more come forward at a time when they feel that they may face only legal and not physical consequences. I'd like to think that I would have the courage to come forward when Tamm, Diaz and Klein did. However, I don't think I would criticize those who have waited. Besides fear of physical reprisal, it also is entirely possible that they are waiting for new leadership at the Department of Justice in order to have the best possible chance of appropriate handling of the evidence they bring forward.

bmaz over at Emptywheel provides contact information for the Tamm defense fund:

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/12/15/the-thomas-tamm-legal-defense-fund/

Note first the FBI letter refers to "the unauthorized disclosure of classified information regarding the Presidentially-authorized NSA program". This isn't described as the Constitutionally-allowed or the legal program; it is merely Presidentially-authorized.

Next, we have the esteemed Speaker Pelosi. From her letter to Hayden in Glenn's link:

Therefore, I am concerned whether, and to what extent, the National Security Agency has received specific presidential authorization for the operations you are conducting. Until I understand better the legal analysis regarding the sufficiency of the authority which underlies your decision on the appropriate way to proceed on this matter, I will continue to be concerned.

The Speaker is "concerned" about the practice, that is, unless it has received "specific presidential authorization". That would appear to be the only requirement for what Pelosi deems to be the "legal analysis regarding the sufficiency of the authority which underlies" the actions. The Constitution, Federal statutes and the US Code of Federal Regulations are just so quaint.

Just wow.

Sorry, I just wanted to see what happens when the irresistible force of posting on UT Ron Paul threads hits the immovable objects of the entrenched positions on Israel threads.

[Ducking and running...]

But wait, there's more! Marcy's next post ferrets out a little nugget showing that they will have evidence of eavesdropping during the critical period after Comey refused to certify the program and Bush proceeded with only Gonzales' signature as counsel (before he was AG). This could put Bush himself in jail. Link at my name.

It would be nice to see something post-election from Johnsen

A couple of pages back, casual_observer (I think) posted a link to a Youtube of Johnsen that was from a presentation post-election that was just as hard-hitting as her pre-election statements.

Aside to Jebbie and Pedinska: just for tonight, I'm with you nuts.

especially in light of Feinstein and Rockefeller getting in a huff and casual_observer's astute observation that as Chief of Staff, Panetta was presumably exposed to intelligence briefings of the highest order. It also goes without saying that if Obama had to go this far afield to avoid the taint of torture complicity, then we might even hold out some hope for punishment of the guilty parties.

I had been rooting for Jami Miscik because there's evidence to suggest that the reason she's no longer with CIA is that she dared to say "no" to Cheney, just as Johnsen is being celebrated because she is claiming to have the courage to say "no" to Obama if the situation calls for it. Maybe Panetta will put Miscik at an upper level position and we can all be happy...

Ask and you shall receive.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2005/d20050310exe.pdf

And linked at my name.

Proof she’s a partisan? She was a political appointee under one Democrat and a nominee under another

That must be why she's on so many panels talking about how important it is for OLC to have the integrity to say "no" to the President.

Do try to keep up. There is a bit of information in the post and the threads that will add to the circumstances you cite.