Is it not clear that Bush and his neo-fascist enablers could care less what the Patriot Act, the US Court of Appeals, or Glenn Greenwald have to say about their criminal acts? They will simply file an appeal to the appeal, launch a smear attack against the judges, and move on to their next victim. Many will stand up and say they shouldn't do these things, but no one will actually stand in their way.

We may be skeptical and informed enough to see through the puerile, terror-mongering propaganda used to justify this kind of despotism, but we've been completely suckered into our designated role of mouse-potato letter writers. We're standing on the sidelines furiously quoting the rulebook to the referees, while the thugs are smearing blood all over the playing field.

The part of the Hollywood myth we hold dear is the notion that since we're the ones wearing the white hats, there must be some dramatic plot twist at the end that will enable us to vanquish the evil-doers. And of course, it will be played strictly by the rules, require no morally ambiguous acts, and involve a few modest, self-effacing moments of heroism. The last things it should require are any sort of personal sacrifice, legal jeopardy, or jail time.

The reality is that it will take the sacrifice of people who are willing to put themselves on the line to block and disrupt the lawless actions of a corrupt and criminal government. It will require many acts of defiant conscience and civil disobediance before the deadly enterprise of war profiteering can no longer proceed with business as usual. It's either that, or resigned and bitter complacency.

We've been up against this wall before, and the words that need to be spoken have been said over and over again. The ones that I recall most vividly are those of Mario Savio from 1964:

"There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part, you can't even passively take part, and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop! And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!"

Persuasion and force are not the only tactics available for activists to influence social and political change. But what it requires is personal sacrifice, and that's a step few modern Americans have been willing to take.

As many have concluded, even massive lawful demonstrations make little impact when the corporate media refuses to publicize them. Taking it a step further, with unlawful disruption of access to public or private facilities, imposes unwilling sacrifices on uninvolved bystanders, which often provokes counter-productive public backlash.

What has worked in the past is systematic civil disobedience, backed up with a commitment to pursue each case through the legal system with a willingness to do real jail time. The most effective acts were targeted specifically at the agents and enforcers of immoral government policies rather than arbitrary symbolic protests. Their purpose was not simply to create publicity, but to actually impede the government's ability to carry out its unlawful acts.

Of course, persuasion played a major role in framing the context of these direct acts of civil disobedience. In my experience, this was must passionately expressed by Mario Savio in 1963:

"There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part, you can't even passively take part, and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop! And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all."

What did Scooter Libby say after Prez Bush commuted his prison sentence?

Mein Fuhrer, I can walk!!

http://www.correntewire.com/mein_fuhrer_i_can_walk

The Bush cabal's escalating Al Qaeda propaganda has completely muddied the already brakish water. What tangible evidence do we actually have of confirmed Al Qaeda activities? I'm inclined to be highly skeptical of claims made either by anonymous insurgent groups or the US government or military. Al Qaeda has become an all too useful cover story for militants on both sides of this conflict.

Is there really more substance than myth to the Al Qaeda legend? The fact that both Bin Laden and the organization he is claimed to head remain elusive after six years of pursuit is frankly unbelievable. If they actually do still exist, the connections to the Saudi and Pakistani regimes are blatantly obvious. What would stop the CIA from tracking them down with black ops in those countries, other than high-level government protection and the complicity of the US administration?

If Al Qaeda are not in fact a false flag operation or surreptitious allies of the Bush cabal, they are the most cooperative enemies the neo-cons could ever pray to God for.

Glenn wrote:

"... it is hard to argue that [Democrats] actually favor [warrantless eavesdropping] as a group generally. They seem to oppose it, but something restrains them from really preventing its enactment. That is why political fear is the most likely explanation (rather than a belief in these programs)."

I think you may be overlooking a more plausible explanation. In the world of business, white collar professionals are rarely subjected to overt intimidation. They are instead paid to say and do the things their corporate supervisors expect of them. There is ample evidence that congressional representatives are generously compensated for the political services they render. If they have anything to fear, it more likely would be termination of a vital source of income.