Can you imagine trying gather and sanitize enough Dubya memorabilia for the Bush Liebrary? In fact, it will be such a liebrary, they may as well call it the Georgy Forgery.

What are the rules for classification? Is there not some body outside of the Executive Branch that can review these things? I understand the need for secrecy, but there needs to be a powerful check on this power because it's obviously and frustratingly easy to abuse.

Unbelievable. To try and litigate a case under that sort of pressure from opposing counsel blows my mind.

It would be great if the ABA would keep a list of all DOJ Attorneys under the Bush Administration and black ball them after this. But that probably won't happen; Partners at Kirkland, Sidley, Jones Day, Piper, etc. read articles like this and think "Dang, that's some mighty fine adversarial skills theys larnin' under W. Bush's DOJ. We gotta hire us some of that in 2009!"

Can't wait until the "Bob Jones School of Law" model for litigating becomes standard practice in the US.

The Race to the Bottom countinues to pick up speed...

And a note to "they" from me. Fuck you. You realize once Obama is president you're all fucked. And "Just following orders" doesn't work as a defense.

Don't be so STOOPID anymore. There is only a laughably small difference between the two parties. The FIX is in, Obama in IN on it. Grow up.

If you pea-ple (as in PEA brained) had any clue, you would have voted in a third party or at least tried to force impeachment of the criminal in the White House these past seven years.

Instead GOOD is on the run and hiding while EVIL is allowed to reign. Such a God.

Stalin lives.

If the following has already been attempted, I would like to know the results.

An avenue of legal maneuvering would be for the plaintiff lawyers to request Top-Secret clearance from the appropriate governmental agency. I am assuming that one or more of the lawyers can pass such scrutinization. The judge can also request such clearance. The plaintiff lawyers can argue that such a clearance is mandatory if they are to represent their client to the best of their ability. Any restriction of this right would be counter to the legacy of U.S.A. jurisprudence. There are tens of thousands of civilians who possess Top-Secret clearance, including many who are not employees of the U.S.A. government.

If nothing else, such a request would be interesting, given that there is no clear set precedent already in place.

So much EVIL has become arrayed against the WHOLE of the populace of this nation?

It staggers the mind that this 'official' chicanery seems to be so effortless and smooth. And so completely difficult to defeat even by Washington insiders.

Now I understand that when people said what happened in Nazi Germany could never happen here was completely inaccurate. It is happening in front of our faces.

What bothers me is that the American people are so dunned and kept in the dark on this whole affair that we are losing what we supposedly cherish and we do not even KNOW it.

Why is such EVIL allowed to continue working tirelessly against the whole of the nation?!? This I want the answer to.. Don't people in the FBI and CIA have any shame or guilt? Hey, all the FUTURE blood that comes from these events they are propagating against America is FOREVER on their hands.

Doesn't the sign on the door say Department of JUSTICE?

For 7 years, the Bush team has been picking lawyers and placing judges on the basis of political loyalty, not competence.

Remember what Al Lewis said: We get the politicians we deserve.

Smash it against the hardest, densest, most impervious substance known to man: George Bush's head.

I, too, was thinking "Alice in Wonderland" until I came to this passage:

During the emergency hearing, DOJ attorney Anthony Coppolino demanded that the Document be turned over to the FBI for storage in a top-secret repository called a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility, or SCIF.

Isn't there a second "I" missing from SCIF?

March 2010: The Obama Justice Department orders all documents sealed under the Bush Unitary Executive theory reviewed. In doing so they cite Obama's authority under the Bush precedent of the Unitary Executive...

Bush attorneys argue Obama has no such power. They use the argument that the Unitary Executive does not exist in the Constitution, thus the Obama order is illegal.

it makes perfect sense to me to quote a film critic, Roger Ebert, for making one of the most sensible arguments I've read about this sort of abuse of legal power in his review of Sophie Scholl: the Final Days:

"Are the policeman Robert Mohr and the judge Roland Freisler (Andre Hennicke) evil men? Yes, absolutely, but they are doing their duty. I learn from Anthony Lane in The New Yorker that Mohr's widow received a state pension after the war. The police and the court are shown to follow the law, and in the law resides either good or evil, depending on what the law says and how it is enforced. That is why it is crucial that a constitution guarantee rights and freedoms, and why it is dangerous for any government to ignore it. There should be no higher priority."

No, Dictator Bush needs to be IMPEACHED. Then he needs to be shipped to Iraq and MADE to answer for his CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY. He is a War Criminal and a COWARD.

JT

http://www.FireME.To/udi

As absurd and laughable as this story is, the fact is that if every American were required to read it the reaction of most of them would be, yeah there is something not quite right about it but those Arabs who were wiretapped were probably doing something that wasn't in the interests of the US so we shouldn't get too exited about their supposed rights being violated.

Reminds me of the recent story where a man shot 2 guys who were trying to break into his neighbours house. Shot them in the back as they were trying to flee after the police were called. And he wasn't charged because it was self defense!

Or Condi Rice who was proud that the US had invaded Iraq to overthrow Saddam. Never mind that overthrowing a foreign leader through an invasion is against the UN Charter and international law.

As far as most Americans go, the innocent have rights and the guilty sort of have rights except when we decide they shouldn't, because, well, they are guilty.