Letters to the Editor
-
Ondolette
Your cited section reads like a "get out of jail free" card in the game Monopoly(TM) (of power--if you can get it). Apparently Bush doesn't want to use his commutation/pardon power too often.
-
Guilty Pleasure
Maybe Klein attracts attention because he is a pompous, thin-skinned little prick who goes up like a rocket when caught being a tool. It IS fun to watch.
As to perjury charges against Fredo, I'm sure Glenn and the rest of the legal beagles are correct about the risks of a weak case. But might not a perjury investigation be an effective means of revealing what those "other activites" were? I'm betting that Cheney has files on congressional and media people that would make J. Edgar Hoover blush or soil his sarong in excitement.
Selah.
-
Radio Embargo
You're printing the text of Bush's embargoed radio address?
Given the fact that he signed an Executive Order Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq ( http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html ) last week, he could say that your early disclosure of the text of his message is "undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq," and your assets could be seized without judicial review.
That's what it's come to in this country.
-
@Svensker
It allows them to collect information about "foreign targets" that resides on U.S. servers.
Interestingly, there are provisions that say that, for instance, the names of all Americans who visited a website, and when, is no longer surveillance information if at least some of the intended targets (web site audience) reside in foreign countries.
Also, previously, if the intelligence gathering collected unintentionally gathered data on U.S. persons and communications between parties in the U.S., it had to be destroyed unless it contained a death or serious bodily harm threat. Now it can be retained if it ‘contains significant foreign intelligence information’.
Oh, and anyone operating a server that has information on it that anyone appointed by the president, with or without confirmation by the Senate deems to be "foreign intelligence", can now be designated an "agent of a foreign power" and surveilled on just the Attorney General's say so for a year without court approval. The Attorney General no longer has to certify, if the probe is challenged by a court, that the purpose and program for which it was started was approved of by the President. Any foreign intelligence information can now be used in court, and without divulging to the "target" how it was acquired. The Attorney General can also essentially order the court not to pursue a "State Secret".
-
Um, that "embargoed" part got my attention, too
Perhaps I am misunderstanding what the term means...?
Or has Mr. Greenwald just thrown some tea overboard?
-
@ Ondo, Jebbie, Glenn and others . . .
1) Hmm. Well, I've read all of your responses, and I'm still not convinced.
For one thing -- reluctant as I am to disagree with somebody as sharp and well-informed as Glenn on such matters -- it looks to me like the perjury case the Dems are raising now is much stronger than Glenn is allowing.
In other words, I understand the logic of your argument (don't pick a losing battle that will only distract the country from a more important battle that we can actually win) but dispute some of the underlying factual conclusions.
Also, it seems to me that people like Schumer and Whitehouse (Whitehouse for president!, by the way. I love that guy.) should be digging in hard at every opportunity. How long have we been hearing the Republican talking point "no credible allegation of wrongdoing?" So, I say to the Dems: allege some wrongdoing. Allege it all over the place. And while you're investigating all of the wrongdoing you've credibly alleged, credibly allege a lot more.
I just want to go on record (for, you know, my resume as a prognosticator. What if I decide, someday, to go into the pundit biz?) as saying that the Gonzo perjury flap of the last couple of days is going to be better news than Glenn and others seem to think right now. (Froomkin seems to see it my way, b/t/w.)
(As a postscript: remember what finally did in Al Capone?)
2) Jebbie, I'll have to disagree with a lot of what you said, although explaining exactly why would take more time than I've got here. The short version of my response is that A) Getting rid of Gonzales IS, in fact, very important, and B) The Dems are, in fact, running out of time to do the work that desperately needs to be done.
When Bush finally leaves office, the Democrat who replaces him is going to have to preside over the beginning of a long and very difficult restoration. Restoring the rule of law may be impossible if Bush and his cronies are able to escape accountability for their crimes while in office.
As somebody -- was it Cindy Sheehan? -- pointed out the other day: under the system envisioned by the framers, it isn't the "option" of the Congress to impeach and prosecute a rogue executive, or a criminal Attorney General; it is their responsibility. It's their duty!
Also, Jebbie, you couldn't possibly argue that Gonzales "can't help Bush any longer because he's politically weakened" if you'd watched the last several Congressional hearings where Gonzales has testified. He isn't just helpful to Bush; he is indispensable.
3) Glenn, I'd like to hear your take, as a constitutional litigator, on Congress's inherent contempt powers. Am I correct to be exasperated to the point of insanity by Congress's reluctance to start darkly muttering about the Sergeant-at-Arms?
-
Clarification.
"Jebbie, I'll have to disagree with a lot of what you said, although explaining exactly why would take more time than I've got here."
. . . just because I've already been avoiding work for hours. (I didn't mean it like: "It would take a million years to respond because what you said was so asinine.")
-
As a postscript: remember what finally did in Al Capone?
They knew what Al Capone was doing, though.
-
Klein's "precints"
I never read Klein's blog so I'm not familiar enough with his phrasing and choice of words to make any definitive connection, but besides the other more overt points, I thought Klein's use of the word "precint" was an obvious tell, as I believe Glenn had used that word just the other day refering to various right-wing sites. It may be that Klein and others often use that particular word in that particular way, but it did catch my attention.
As far as this not being "overwhelmingly important", well no in the great scheme of things, it's not. But let me offer this: I have heard it speculated many times over the last few years that the reason the Bush administration gets away with so much deceit is because people have become desensitized by the sheer volume of their lies. For me and I'm sure many others, this torrent has had the opposite effect - we have become hypersensitized. If you're walking down the street and someone brushes you with their coat or purse, it is hardly even conciously noted, but if you have just been bumped into five times in two blocks, the brush of a coat becomes quite an affront.