Does all this constitute "proof positive" (or whatever the appropriate legal jargon is) that genuine, actionable violations of US Statute were committed?

If so, can anyone elaborate upon the next step that might be taken (beyond the Administration trying to cover it all up and stonewall for the next year or so)?

The lack of oversight on the NSLs is no oversight. Bad faith is the font of the current administration's standard operating procedure. Power remains the end to justify whatever means.

For all the laudatory notes on FISA, that act still remains the place where NSLs first came into this murky legal world. The legal bars and requirement sink lower and lower.

It's a sad world where the supposed protectors of the law and the people they serve are more worried about protecting themselves and not getting caught.

Here we have another interesting chapter in the saga of Glenn Greenwald and the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009775

A question for all of the well-informed progressives at Salon: What is the worst-case example of how anyone's rights were trampled in the disputed use of these NSL's? I am asking for the most sympathetic case of jackbooted FBI agents abusing someone through the faulty issuance one of the thousands of NSL's at issue here.

I really don't know. The Wall Street Journal indicates that the IG report found no such cases. Mr. Greenwald mentions no such cases.

Anybody?

after the one you highlighted.

We fully recognize that Congress's ability to conduct oversight is hampered by a failure to provide accurate information

It's as if the realization that they actually answer to Congress just dawned on them overnight. Maybe the fact that Scooter Libby faces jail time over a similar inabilty to provide accurate information, adds a little bit to the realization that were dealing with reality now and that playtime is over.

This speaks for itself (again and again). Thanks for reiterating it. Is it all just a game? Republicans are rooting for their team, I guess, win or lose.

So what is the penalty for this, especially if done under oath? And why would there ever be a penalty for perjury, if one could just "retract" a false statement?

It is inconceivable that these false assurances were made in good faith.

They were made in the “good faith” that Republicans would permanently control Congress, and that there never would be any oversight or accountability.

They were made in the “good faith” that they could get away with it.

That’s why they didn’t make the slightest effort to determine whether the assurances given to Congress were true. As long as Republicans controlled Congress, it didn’t matter if it was true because no one would ever know any differently.

Specter would give a speech giving the “appearance” of Congressional oversight, saying the right things but never following up, never actually demanding accountability.

Private briefings would have been given to Republican Chair of the Intelligence Committee Pat Roberts who would have assured the public that everything was in order.

They had “good faith” in their own propaganda and Karl Rove’s “numbers” that told them that they would maintain control of Congress and none of this corruption would ever see the light of day.

That’s what they had “faith” in, and it wasn’t good. It was corrupt and anti-democratic.

Elephantman

Unfortunately for your case, no specific examples need be supplied. The abuse and misuse of NSLs is a facilitator for other actions, whether or not such actions have yet been taken. In addition, the secrecy of this administration in their extra-legal actions means that we may never know what they have accomplished through such means.

Counterfactually, what did they accomplish. They have had these powers for several years now, and, if there were true terrorists that they could find through the use of these powers, our legal systems should be full of terrorists that have been caught through their use. Except for a small handful of cases (which probably do not represent a significant increase over previous administrations), that has not happened.

NSL<>subpoena; they should just be done away with. If law enforcement feels they are more efficient, they should know that efficiency does not equal accuracy, which is what they truly need.

With every uncovering of corrupt, illegal and unconstitutional actions by this administration, and every lie, deception and misleading statement used to hide and further its goals, we move closer and closer to something resembling a cheap tyranny more than a republic.

Even so, our Senators seem only to feign outrage and allow the desecrations to our most sacred priciples to continue. Where is the action that will be required to right this perilously listing ship of state? What is Congress, the body we expect to protect us in an instance like this, afraid of? What will it take to shake them from their torpor?

Rather than list the reasons he should be, I would ask for one good reason why Gonzalez should not be impeached. It's way past time our representatives stood up and did what is required of them to save our nation. I ask you, Glenn, how would a patriot act in times like these?

The bush white house is at it again. Leading the way in how a corrupt government looks and acts when there is no oversight by congress. The great corruption in the nations capitol is most serious indeed and there is a necessity to clean this mess up or we face more and bigger criminal acts soon to come.

One can only wonder at some of the things they are doing that we know nothing about at all.

The criminals in this government should be put in jail as soon as possible but i feel confident in saying that nothing will come of any of this. When the congress is as corrupt as the administrative branch we are in dire straits.

Alberto Gonzales should be fired now for the criminal acts going on and then prosecuted.

If any of these things were happening outside of government by individuals the U.S. would be all over them prosecuting them to the fullest extent of the law.

I personally do not need these peoples protection from foreign threats against my life, but I could use a little protection from the corruption and terror of this government.

When a government tortures people for information that government has become despotic.