What are these right-wing nutzoids thinking? Unleash the dogs of war, and civilized people do many heinous and uncivilized things. It has ever been thus, and American troops are not genetically programmed to be immune from the phenomenon.

I recently finished a bio of Charles Lindbergh who, altho he had been an isolationist prior to Pearl Harbor, flew some 50 very dangerous combat missions in the South Pacific. (As a civilian with the connivance of the brass-- a petulant FDR wouldn't restore Lindbergh's commission.) While doing so, he saw a Japanese soldier tied to a pole; he had been beheaded. Lindbergh's diaries further reveal that he witnessed tortured bodies of Japanese soldiers tossed in a bomb crater with garbage dumped on them.

By virtually all accounts, the Japanese were infinitely worse in their treatment of allied soldiers. But we were not always paragons of humanity, either. War does that to people. One of many reasons to avoid it whenever possible.

You could be right, and both Greenwald and Lederman are much more astute lawyers than I've ever been. Gonzales' FU attitude toward Congress recently would suggest he believes he's immunized from perjury findings, even tho it is clear to me that's what he did( or the corollary infraction for lying to Congress even when not other oath).

I really is a very hard charge to prove -- the first Hiss trial ended up in a hung jury 8-4 for conviction. The lawyer in that first trial said his strategy could never get better than a hung jury and but that he could have secured that every single time; Hiss, howevr, wanted acquittal, and went for it at the second trial with a different lawyer, and got convicted. But it was very much an up in the air proposition for years until independent proof came out in the 90s supporting the conviction. Perjury is just damn difficult to prove.

But still, it is SO CLEAR the guy lied, I want to see his ass in a sling; that may, as you say however, not be the politically wise move.

I was about to remind everyone that Specter didn't put Gonzales under oath in February of '06 - and I see that JaO has also brought that to AL's attention, who in turn has edited his post accordingly. It is still, however, a crime to lie to Congress I believe, tho offhand I do not recall how that crime is denominated.

Not if I can help it. ;)

As "because we don't trust government officials" seems to me to be all about consequences.

Well, I am not a consequentialist, certainly when it comes to political speech, including hate speech. I believe in the inherent value of the right to express opinions freely. In addition, however, I also share Glenn's well-placed mistrust in allowing the state to determine what should constitute a true/false or good/bad idea.

I'm very reluctant to abandon my support for this, tho I understand and agree that the abuse of anonymous sources to spread government propaganda is a cancer on the body politic. But realistically, such a shield going to be more important in protecting whistle-blowers reporting govt criminality and misconduct. What cause of action could be undertaken that would entail, say, compelling the NYT to reveal Michael Gordon's endless pro-government, anon sources? As opposed to protecting the Mark Felts of this world? Yeah, there is Judith Miller, but how often is that the case v. a Mark Felt?

It seems to me this promiscuous reliance on anon sources when unwarranted is a lapse in journalistic ethics and competence, rather than a reason to oppose a federal shield law for journalists.

The 'whistle blower' is better off to send information anonymously to the officials that can make use of it. As in the 'Pelican Brief'*, you must protect yourself if you go after the king.

And who should Mark Felt or Daniel Ellsberg have told in the Nixon Administration? Going to the media is not seldom the best thing to do.

Mona's animosity toward what she considers the evils of the left is no secret, not least because she announces it straightaway when it arises in the course of a debate. When it does, I think it's legitimate to respond; when it doesn't, it's really none of my business.

More to the point, I've repeatedly and publicly said I was just plain wrong in supporting the Iraq war and Bush in '04. To my bemusement, former allies think I changed my mind starting in '05 in order to cynically curry favor with the left, when it is also obvious the left still has issues with me, and I continue to argue with them on some issues. In any event, having "seen the light," I'm back where I belong with the Reason/Cato libertarians, who were right about Bush and the war all along. (And I had to take some teasing and eat crow when I re-emerged at Reason's Hit 'n Run board, but they've been pretty good about it and ultimately dispensed absolution.)

Er, Paul R., thanks, I think? ;)