I don’t think Somerby “nit picks” Olberman and Maddows’ shows any more than others’. Besides, he expects better than a mirror image of Rush and Coulter, and I’m glad he does. I agree with him that the segment of Olberman he highlighted there shows that “the liberal world is adopting this [“running on dumb”] culture.”

If Olberman wants to be taken seriously, he has to do seriously better than imitating Faux Noos. It just isn't good enough, imo.

So you're OK with Olberman misrepresenting what people say, and then, along with a like minded guest attacking this "strawman"? This advances the discussion how?

How about when he misrepresents what Obama says and attempts to uses that misrepresentation to portray Obama in a certain way?

Well, I'm not OK with that.

Whether Rush does it, or Olberman, that's not news, it's propaganda.

Wow. I'm only on page 7 of that ruling [I'm skimming] [thanks ondelette and RMP] and I've already read this phrase at least 5 times.

Doesn't seem like a good sign for the defendants. :-)

"[...] But it is hardly speculation to conclude that, if FBI agents used surveillance in an investigation of Al-Haramain, the surveillance included the subject of the investigation – Al-Haramain. That is not speculation; it is logic. [...]"

I'm sure it won't surprise you to know that I haven't the faintest idea what the difference between a "Decision" and a "Brief" is. I'm just reading at the link RMP offered before. Here it is...maybe someone can tell ME? ;-)

http://static1.firedoglake.com/28/files//2009/02/090226-al-haramainsbrief2-26-09.pdf

THAT's short and SWEET, isn't it?

I'm confused, if the Brief is so long and the Decision is so Brief.

"A federal grand jury in Peoria, Ill., has charged a Qatari national held in the U.S. with terrorism crimes, and the Justice Department said Friday it will ask the Supreme Court to dismiss the prisoner’s pending appeal, now set for a hearing April 27. [...]"

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/us-charges-al-marri-seeks-end-of-court-case/

but I'd like to respond to a few comments [one at a time which seems to be the only way I can manage...]

Pedinska wrote:

“If/when they show up (and they may have already since I'm so late getting here), we are going to be treated to another lesson from Altemeyer. But this time we'll be witnessing the left-wing authoritarians.”

This is what I’ve been going on [and on and on…ad nauseum] about. The “right wing” in “Right Wing Authoritarian” refers to a psychological trait, not a political ideology, although Republicans display both higher levels of the trait through a larger population.

From Altemeyer’s “The Authoritarians” [emphasis added]:

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

Although the “right-wing” in right-wing authoritarianism refers to a psychological trait that endorses submission to established authority (see chapter 1), not a political ideology, the RWA scale finds significantly different levels of this trait in politicians from the two parties. The Republicans scored almost 40 points higher than the Democrats on the average, on the 30-item scale. [ch. 6, pg.200]

Because they harbor so many authoritarian sentiments, Republican legislators naturally differed from Democrats overall on the matters above. But the differences were sharpest when you compared high RWA versus low RWA lawmakers, WHATEVER their party affiliation. Many high RWA Democrats, and some low RWA Republicans appeared in these samples. The problem, as I see it, does not arise from Republicans per se but from the right-wing authoritarians on both sides of the aisle. But the data make it quite clear that when you see a bunch of Republican lawmakers huddling, you’re probably looking at mainly high RWAs, whereas when (non southern) Democrats cluster, they’re probably a pretty unauthoritarian lot overall. [Pg.203]

DCLaw wrote:

Further, if President Obama is the DOJ's "client" in the traditional sense (an imperfect and dubious label in the government context), this is only further reason to put the responsibility for the DOJ's current behavior squarely on Obama.

IANAL, so take this for what it's worth, but on December 21, 2004 nineteen former Office of Legal Counsel Attorneys, including Johnsen and Lederman, wrote “Principles to Guide the Office of Legal Counsel” describing the history and function of this Department of Justice division.

http://www.acslaw.org/files/2004%20programs_OLC%20principles_white%20paper.pdf

The first Principle is:

When providing legal advice to guide contemplated executive branch action, OLC should provide an accurate and honest appraisal of applicable law, even if that advice will constrain the administration’s pursuit of desired policies. The advocacy model of lawyering, in which lawyers craft merely plausible legal arguments to support their clients’ desired actions, inadequately promotes the President’s constitutional obligation to ensure the legality of executive action.

"That said, not all government lawyers serve the same function."

Thanks for responding. I can imagine it gets pretty complicated.

The President's Lawyer is The White House Counsel, right?

Representing “the Government” is not the same as representing the “President”, right?

Do "The People" have a lawyer, too? Who is that?

If you ever dust off that tome, let me know. I’d [attempt] to read it.

"The executive has all the weapons, they are the "armed and armored" ones in this equation, and they are opposing us using those weapons, without "softness" or "yielding" of any apparent kind. We are the ones who should be using jujitsu, hopefully with the assistance of the courts. If this fails, the means left to us will be extremely limited."

I was thinking something similar earlier. It seems that the Executive Branch is attacking the Judicial Branch, which has to fight with one hand tied behind it's back because of "state secrets" [one of the powers-or weapons] of the Executive.

Sorry about the ankle...I can truly empathize, being suseptible to that sort of thing. OUCH! Hope it get's better soon.