If Hilary Clinton is elected, Congressional oversight and limited executive power will come back into fashion in January '09. That will undo a smidgeon of damage.

I don't know if this adds much to the discussion, but last night my reasonably well-read, generally politically aware husband and I saw a trailer for a movie called "Rendition". He wondered how the title was connected to the events in the trailer. As we talked, I realized that he was not even aware of the program of extraordinary rendition or of the CIA black sites. I was shocked.

But I think his lack of awareness does lend support to the boiling the frog hypothesis -- there were few serious consequences as a result of Abu Ghraib so now it seems like that's "just what we do." And it becomes unremarkable and not worthy of outrage, or even attention.

1. revolt against remote, oppressive authority imposing laws restricting freedoms...

2. declare a representative form of gummint with a relatively progressive and complete guideline to maintain a self-correcting system of governance that benefits most people...

3. resist natural impulse of each branch of gummint to accumulate power; maintain transparency, oversight, and control of gummint institutions; and modify laws to comport with modern mores...

4. ensure that a free, unfettered, unintimidated, non-corporate media performs their fiduciary duty in keeping the citizenry informed of gummint/etc actions and policies...

5. immortal, immoral, super-rich, faceless, unaccountable, fictitious legal entities (ie korporations) work like termites 24/7/365 to undermine and subvert the above measures to accumulate power/money in excess of what is beneficial to society...

6. unchecked, unquestioned, unlimited korporate power/influence dominate the social agenda, corrupt gummint, evade or overturn legal safeguards, and otherwise dismantle civil/human rights for the 'goal' of a 'stable' (ie oppressed), 'peaceful' (ie quiet and compliant), 'profitable' (ie rich get richer), and 'safe' (ie no dissent) society, which puts a price on everything, and values nothing...

7. the sheeple stop their grazing and look up...

...to find they don't recognize 'their' (sic) country anymore

8. repeat as necessary... (police state permitting)

come the revolution, korporadoes will not be lionized...

art guerrilla

aka ann archy

eof

I am thoroughly sick and tired of leftist moonbats sanctimoniously fetishizing the Constitution, Geneva Conventions, etc. ad nauseum. Americans who give these matters any serious consideration agree that we must not leave any techniques off the table, when it comes to confronting terrorist threats whether foreign or domestic. They deserve whatever is coming to them.

You all own it, you are buying the farm and the only ones making the profit are the corporate charlatans. That is the current fiasco that is American Empire, warts and all.

For decades, instead of Americans performing their due diligence to oversee the levers of power, they preferred to watch TV and to sell off their soul to some charlatan who promised to do the job for them in Washington.

This is Darwinism at work. Congrats: You WILL inherit the Darwin Award.

In my view, the US will, unfortunately, have to eventually endure a massive civil war, likely to go nuclear, then the next false society will spring up, propped up again by charlatans and goons to resemble a real society.

I do not, at this point, see the frog waking and jumping out of the water. Sad. But what would it take to spur people from American Idol when the elites have already figured out how to boil us gradually?

Another article in the New York Times about torture and U.S. torture policy? More disclosures by unnamed souces - leakers! - relating to interrogation techniques? These leaks could result in killing Americans! Who are these leakers?!

Shouldn't we be expecting republican hysteria? I expect we'll be hearing some soon, at least something that sounds like it but is oddly devoid of the stridency and overreaction generally favored by republicans in these kinds of cases. Shouldn't republicans be demanding the subpoenaing of the NYT reporters? Isn't that what they generally scream for?

So what is Ted Olson, the doyen of the D.C. republican/conservative legal community, doing advocating an expansive shield law on the pages of the WaPo? Yes, he has many large, corporate media clients who presumably favor such a law, but in a case of potential conflict between his client's interests and the political interests of his republican friends Olson would generally restrict his advocacy to the courts, and not splash the republican disfavored argument on the editorial pages of the Post.

So why does he do it? I'm sure you see where I'm going with this. The Libby case is of course a perfect example of why republicans would suddenly like an expansive shield law. If, as in the Libby case, the press is serving more as a passive disseminator for governmental propaganda and disinformation than a probing and appropriately skeptical journalist, then those who have exploited this arrangement have much to be concerned about.

I may be wrong, but I can't really believe fear of criminal liability is the primary factor, notwithstanding Libby and potential liability for bush admin. officials who've been brazenly leaking classified material for years. I think they are primarily motivated by the fact that they now have, and will continue to have after losing the presidency, unmatched access to and influence in the mass media, far outstripping the democrats. They don't want this arrangement impaired by the potential that criminal prosecutions of leakers or public and political corruption cases will expose these arrangements and make the media more wary of participating, either for fear of an expensive involvement in litigation or the kind of humiliation suffered by the New York Times, Novak and various other journalists when they were revealed as little more than republican factotum.

I'll gladly don the tin foil hat if congressional republicans rise and up and filibuster this thing or emasculate it in committee. But indications are they won't, and that this bill shepherded by Spector and Lugar will sail through. While second tier admin. intelligence officials are making the predictable argument that such a shield law would threaten national security (for example, because it would make leaks of classified national security info harder to prosecute), the political types within the community like McConnell, who could be expected to be argue at Cheney's behest that such a law would "result in killing americans", are oddly silent.

I'm a first amendment guy, with monumental reservations about the constitutionality of government being able to discover reporters' sources by subpoena. I'm used to seeing conservatives on the other side, fighting aggressively against this kind of law as they have consistently since at least the days of Nixon; since Rehnquist and Burger et al joined in the Supreme Court opinion affirming the government's right to subpoena reporters in criminal cases. So what has changed?

A lot has changed. Yes, there are still instances like today's NYT article where journalists investigate and report things that make those in power uncomfortable. But the general arc of the relationship between power and press has been toward an appreciation of shared interests rather than confrontation. We are a long way from the days of the Pentagon Papers and Watergate. And it appears republicans have proposed a deal to the media: we'll stop blocking "shield laws" of the sort traditionally favored by democrats and the press, and the press will continue to cherish its access over its investigations; will continue to stock predominantly conservatives on the Sunday shows and in the nation's leading editorial pages; will maintain as their default "experts" with whom they consult the intellectual frauds at the Heritage foundation and AEI; and will generally continue behaving as geishas to the conservative samurai class.

Like I said, pass me the tin foil if republicans start screaming "you're killing Americans" in an effort to stop the shield law favored by Ted Olson and a suspiciously large number of senate republicans. We'll see what happens.