I’ve been unhappy with Glenn’s response to Bush’s and apparently Obama’s arguments made for torture, and secrecy in government. I’m not unhappy in this way,

"...I think ultimately the govt owes it to us to protect us from killers as far as they can. We individuals cannot defend ourselves from terrorists bent on murder, the govt has to

…I think Glenn here thinks the law trumps all: if some terrorist kills my family he's screaming about their (the terrorist) constitutional rights while I am reaching for my AR-15..."

-serafin

The general defense of liberty as well as physical Americans is too often thought to come by means of force. If there are killers out there, the only defense from them has to be with a gun, well trained marksmen, big Aircraft carriers able to throw their weight around, MADD, etc. I do not agree. I’m of the ‘no peace without justice school.” Going around shooting up people’s weddings, their sons and daughters, grandparents, and pets, will not defend us. And without fail, our sloppy sheriff work always hangs the wrong varmint.

And so, I take serafin to be too quick to jump to the AR-15.

I also take this response to be too hasty in that no one has identified the real dangers out there for us. I thought bin Laden’s goal was to bankrupt the United States so it would have to leave Islamic countries. Seems we are pretty much giving him his victory on that score. And, the weapon he’s using is our penchant for bigger and ever more expensive weapons and armies. Sort of Islamic martial arts where the enemies strengths are used against him.

As for the fight for political rights, it is not a bad way to protect the innocent and the weak, if you can get away with it in the short run. I suspect Glenn would appeal to law enforcement, as well as the law, to protect serafin’s family, just as he would argue that anyone accused of a crime deserves a fair trial. So, I think it is uncalled for to imagine that he would let victims suffer while he was protecting thugs.

My concern about Glenn’s defense of the ‘rule of law’ has to do with who we take to be really dangerous to us. Is it the common thug who might harm serafin’s family looking for drugs or a way to buy them? Or, is it the class of oligarchs who are powerful enough to enlist whole nations to enrich themselves? Whereas the ‘rule of law’ might be appropriate to combat the petty criminals, I do not believe that it’s effective against people who themselves control the writing and enforcement of law.

There are several issues here. I have been told by people concerned about Israeli intelligence operatives working in the United States, that they are not always friendly. So, they are involved in getting better than average treatment for Israel from the U.S. Congress. But, they are also suspected of other efforts.

Here, in your piece, this U.S. Rep. is talking as though there's a lot of concern that Israeli agents about to be prosecuted for spying get off, or that they get help from this Congresswoman. So, here you quote,

"...Rep. Jane Harman , the California Democrat with a longtime involvement in intelligence issues, was overheard on an NSA wiretap telling a suspected Israeli agent that she would lobby the Justice Department to reduce espionage-related charges against two officials of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, the most powerful pro-Israel organization in Washington.

Harman was recorded saying she would “waddle into” the AIPAC case “if you think it’ll make a difference,”..."

I'm curious whether the suspected Israeli agent here could be further identified. Did Harmon understand that she was making deals with a suspected Israeli agent, or did she think she was asking just another American? Why would she think an Israeli agent would know more about whether her input would make any difference? Is she being deferential? Or does this person, for her, have a reputation that they know more about what would win hearts and minds with the Justice Department than she would?

The idea here is that this suspected agent seems to be a doer and a knower much more than they are a watcher and a sneaker.

Does the Justice Department have a shakey case against this agent, and as such, they cannot be more open about that person's identity? I suspect this is part of what's going on.

Would caving in on the 'state secrets' issue with regard to the Arab victims of the war on terror expose there being serious penetration by foreign governments, like Israel, into our Congress, Executive, and intelligence services? So, you can't open up our government to the public without revealing it ain't all our government anymore?