If only it were a civil suit with which Tamm was faced, maybe it would be possible to get some representative (Tim Ryan?) to introduce a bill to provide the same type of retroactive immunity for him as was provided for the telecoms.

Although I am sure that Tamm cannot afford the lobbying fees to Jay Rockefeller to get him to support it.

I wanted to offer one other thing in relation to yesterday's post too:

I am not here as a public official, but as a citizen of a troubled world who finds hope in a growing consensus that the generally accepted goals of society are peace, freedom, human rights, environmental quality, the alleviation of suffering, and the rule of law.

During the past decades, the international community, usually under the auspices of the United Nations, has struggled to negotiate global standards that can help us achieve these essential goals. They include: the abolition of land mines and chemical weapons; an end to the testing, proliferation, and further deployment of nuclear warheads; constraints on global warming; prohibition of the death penalty, at least for children; and an international criminal court to deter and to punish war crimes and genocide. Those agreements already adopted must be fully implemented, and others should be pursued aggressively.

We must also strive to correct the injustice of economic sanctions that seek to penalize abusive leaders but all too often inflict punishment on those who are already suffering from the abuse.

The unchanging principles of life predate modern times. I worship Jesus Christ, whom we Christians consider to be the Prince of Peace. As a Jew, he taught us to cross religious boundaries, in service and in love. He repeatedly reached out and embraced Roman conquerors, other Gentiles, and even the more despised Samaritans.

Despite theological differences, all great religions share common commitments that define our ideal secular relationships. I am convinced that Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, and others can embrace each other in a common effort to alleviate human suffering and to espouse peace.

But the present era is a challenging and disturbing time for those whose lives are shaped by religious faith based on kindness toward each other. We have been reminded that cruel and inhuman acts can be derived from distorted theological beliefs, as suicide bombers take the lives of innocent human beings, draped falsely in the cloak of God's will. With horrible brutality, neighbors have massacred neighbors in Europe, Asia, and Africa.

In order for us human beings to commit ourselves personally to the inhumanity of war, we find it necessary first to dehumanize our opponents, which is in itself a violation of the beliefs of all religions. Once we characterize our adversaries as beyond the scope of God's mercy and grace, their lives lose all value. We deny personal responsibility when we plant landmines and, days or years later, a stranger to us - often a child – is crippled or killed. From a great distance, we launch bombs or missiles with almost total impunity, and never want to know the number or identity of the victims.

...

Ladies and gentlemen:

War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other's children.

-Jimmy Carter, Nobel Lecture, December 10, 2002

Glenn: I have thought for a while that evidence gathered within a war zone would be difficult to utilize in a court of law. The Armed Forces of any nation are essentially operating (specific to a given set of Rules of Engagement) under the auspices of a kind of "open warrant" - to invade foreign lands, detain and utilize deadly force against enemy combatants (utlized in the dictionary sense, not whatever the hell Bush was trying to say with it), and otherwise act in contravention of whatever local statutes might say.

It is unrealistic and simple-minded to introduce the more formal ideas, concepts, and practices of warrants to the Army's, or the Marine's Rules of Engagement in a hot zone. Would we not need some "loosened" rules of evidence, for example, to allow for evidence obtained through a warrantless search of a Taliban cave-hideout in Shamal or Kabol? Or for information gleaned through Army Intelligence intercepts? My examples are probably not the best, but I think you can see where I am going with this.

There are many cases where specific Constitutional guarantees, as they are interpreted by domestic case law here in the US, would not apply at all to the conduct of American Service Men and Women the way they would apply to local law enforcement or the FBI in criminal proceedings as regards tainting evidence.

I guess my question is, with regards to the issues I am raising here, would not "looser rules of evidence" be appropriate?

Just to be clear, I am not, under any circumstances, condoning or advocating torture - which does include waterboarding, stress positions, and many of the other "enhanced interrogation techniques" which the US military and intelligence services have explicitly acknowledged utilizing. I want to see those who enagaged in the practice, and those who ordered the practice, of these techniques tried and convicted of crimes against the United States COde, the International Treaties of Torture, and humanity in general; especially as this was done in my name.

But there are legitimate threats and terrorists around the world plotting and executing plans of grand malice against the United States', and its allies', civilian populations. I don't want an Army interrogator waiting around for a defense lawyer in a war zone because he is worried about some type of criminal procedural type of poisoned tree. And while I certainly don't want him/her engaging in torture, neither do I want him/her to not interrogate/engage the enemy.

We do not need to sell our soul, or our humanity in order to fight effectively, courageously, and with a full committment to victory.