... before these "American leaders" who admit that they violated the law but claim to have done it for good reason begin openly calling for the abolition of the exclusionary rule that acts as remedy against police who violate the law or the Constitution in the war against drugs or crime. After all, they always claim to have done it for good reasons, to protect and serve us, to guard against truly bad people, to discharge their heavy responsibility to protect the country, because we were at war.

The truth is the devil nearly always appears in drag and the police (or the CIA or the FBI) need policing to ensure that in fighting a supposed "good" fight, they don't give in to the inevitable urge to use unlawful tactics in enforcing the law. The exclusionary rule provides a strong incentive against this and represents a judicial acknowledgment that the officer's good or bad motivations are largely irrelevant in determining whether unlawful acts against alleged criminals have consequences for the State.

How long before this rule, like the Geneva Conventions, is called quaint, or until a prosecutor, emulating Dick Cheney, brings a bold appeal challenging the exclusionary rule as an outdated remnant of pre-Sept. 11 thinking? The fact that Dick will have no more Supreme Court picks is one of the best outcomes of this election, but I still wonder how long it will be until the claims about the law not applying to elected officials or military officers begin being made on behalf of the domestic police.

This is a disgusting choice for many reasons. First, Warren is clearly from the group McCain once called "agents of intolerance." While Warren comes off as more mild than someone like Falwell or Dobson, he has also claimed that any differences are ones of tone rather than substance.

Second,the commercials he created on behalf of Prop 8 certainly aren't what I thought Obama stood for.

Worst, however, is his willingness to read Romans 13 to justify Hannity's dream of "taking out" Ahmadinejad:

"HANNITY: I think we need to take him out... Am I advocating something dark, evil or something righteous?

WARREN: Well, actually, the Bible says that evil cannot be negotiated with. It has to just be stopped. And I believe…

HANNITY: By force?

WARREN: Well, if necessary. In fact, that is the legitimate role of government. The Bible says that God puts government on earth to punish evildoers. Not good-doers. Evildoers."

Obama's choice, made just two weeks after Warren's comments, reminds me of that scene in "Braveheart" where Wallace removes the helmet of his enemy to reveal the face of the person he thought he was fighting on behalf of. Remember how he just sits down, shocked that he's been duped? That's how I feel.

Hopefully this will have wide repercussions and Obama will learn that the cost of moves like this isn't worth paying as his base won't stand for these supposed "bipartisan" moves toward those whom your supporters rebelled against in the first place.

I suggest going to his website, which invite stories, and telling them stories that begin "once upon a time I believed in a politician who claimed to be different and then he sold me out by..."

Maybe he will listen to us rather than this supposed Christian who appears to believe the Beatitudes have become quaint.

... Terri Gross interviewed law professor Lawrence Lessig (who's already suspicious, being a lawyer!) who stated that the First Amendment "was created for the blogs." He went on to explain that the "pamphlet press" was deemed essential to the important discourse the founders observed and attempted to protect. Terri Gross, like a good NPR employee, expressed her fear that blogs were usurping newspapers, finally stating, "I like newspapers."

I would have liked to ask Terri if she liked the role they played in the lead up to the Iraq invasion or the use of black sites. I agree that newspapers play an essential role that blogs likely cannot duplicate, but to pretend that this modern "pamphlet press" hasn't assumed an equally valuable one is likely, whether she realizes it or not, borne out of a fear of loss of turf rather than truth.

(link at sig)