I have a question. Glenn makes the good point that what the Bushies did originally was illegal, but then got a compliant congress to retroactively legalize their behavior. Now the constitution forbids laws that retroactively criminalize legal behavior. So if the constitution forbids criminalizing legal behavior after the fact, how can it be constitutional to do the exact opposite? To retroactively legalize what was criminal behavior when the act was committed. It seems to me it should work both ways. Is there any case law on the subject?

That aside, someone brought up the hope that this will generate substantial media attention. It should but probably won't. Even if it did get big play on the "msm" news channels, lots of americans get their news from other sources. So its likely to be missed by a lot of people.

The problem with this case, and everything else that gets reported, is you don't know what to believe. Lou Dobb reports one thing. Another journalist reports something completely different. So how to determine who's telling the truth? My money is on the federal prosecutor's side. Prosecutors don't go after police unless they have really crossed the line. Prosecutors need good relations with police officers to make convictions. If they are perceived to be gunho for cops, cops won't trust them and they won't make convictions. Shooting an unarmed person that is running away from them and covering it up, is way over the line. On Sen. Fienstein I believe she thinks what these officers did was acceptable was because it was done to a "drug dealer". All she sees is the label, not the human being. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Fienstein a former prosecutor. Now if that is the case, it's really shocking that she would think it's ok to shoot an unarmed fleeing suspect.

Well Mona I think maybe you are right. Maybe it was Milton Friedman that was the disciple of Ayn Rand, not Leo Straus. I know they both taught at U. of Chicago. I read a lot of books and may of confused the two. However the rest of my post was right. Ayn Rand was a proponent of psychological egotism and wrote the book "The Virtues of Selfishness." So to say my whole post was wrong, is incorrect. As for the virtues of wikipedia, consider the source. Anyone can post anything on there. Sometimes the posters know what they are writing and are correct. Sometimes they have an agenda, like the posters from Fox news, and write bullshit. But thanks for the correction anyways, not withstanding the smug self-righteousness of it.

Thanks for that clip. It was priceless to see Orrin Hatch walk out of the interview because he didn't like how he was being questioned. There's a reason guys like Bill Bond never made it to the national level, they actually ask tough questions. They don't allow politicians to lie their asses off. Just once I'd love for a journalist to challenge Bush on one of his lies. Of course, that's never going to happen.

A poster asked why so many neocon authoritians came out of the U. of Chicago. The answer is Professor Leo Straus, father of the neo-con movement, who taught at U. of Chicago. Leo was a disciple of Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand was a proponent of psychological egotism. The belief that you should only act in your own self-interests. Ayn Rand published a book titled "The Virtues of Selfishness". The title alone should tell you all you need to know about her.

Well we can all take heart that the protect america act, which authorized warrantless wiretapping, will expire in 6 months. Surely the dems will find a backbone and stand up to the White House and refuse to reauthorize it. Oh I'm sorry, I was dreaming there. We all know what will happen. They dems will cave once again, but this time the law will become permanent. While some of the blame for this lies with the DINO blue dogs, because they vote with the repugs more then the real dems. The majority of the blame rest with the house and senate dem leadership. When we needed strong leaders to save our democracy, we got Reid and Pelosi. A couple of spineless wimps that concede defeat before any legislative fight even begins. When even dems buy into the idiotic belief, that if the terrorists strike again it will help the repugs. When that same thought is espoused by Hillary, one of the front runners for the dem prez nominee. It's hard not to lose all hope that our democracy can be saved.

I don't see anything wrong with FBI surveillance of Mrs. King. She voluntarily took on a very public role after her husband's death and thus had no reasonable expectation of privacy when on public speaking tours and when talking to other public figures like Rockefeller. The US government has a very valid interest in keeping track of what influential public figures are doing.

-- nabalzbbfr

All I can say is wow. So you think being a public figure means the gov't can surveil your every action? Even if you are committing no crime but merely exercising your constitutionally protected rights? I truly hope you are being sarcastic or something. Not even the most mentally impaired right-winger could actually believe what you wrote. If you do actually believe it, which is a truly scary thought, you are a fascist. What you are advocating is A FASCIST POLICE STATE. If you can't see that, well brother you are truly beyond help.