leaking the name of a covert cia agent ? no problem

suspending habeas corpus ? why not ?

illegal wiretapping ? so ?

waterboarding ? what's that ?

revealing evidence of governmental lawbreaking? saddle up the posse !!!

livin' in the USA...

I stopped off and browsed at Borders.

This post reminds me of Dead End alley Avenue.

It's The Soap Box Pundit's Comedy Performance.

GOPS spew agitation, cowardliness, delusion, and lies.

`

What bad jokes! Krystal/Bennett etc., "journalist"/gibbers.

Gamblers in Nevada Casinos may one day in a afterlife be obligated to pay a debt to society in rolls of copper pennies.

`

I'm not preaching today. I'm never sure. Look for curb-pennies?

I think I saw bunches of 'goofs' on a front-page porn-mag? heh.

It appeared the lowly goo's were curling dumbbells for muscles.

I don't view pornography. Yesterday at the magazine rack? GOPS!

This would be a prime time to legislate retroactive immunity to Risen and all unnamed sources that "supposedly helped Risen disclose illegal and unethical activities by the US government".

If immunity is good enough for felonious telecom companies, then it is certainly good enough from whistleblowers and reporters.

Seriously, these same guys who are so riled up about journalists revealing secrets were determined that Scooter Libby should be freed, even though he leaked the name of an agent in the CIA's Counter-Proliferation department! Oh, I forgot--Scooter is a Great American Whose Motives Are Pure and Whose Roots Are Entangled with Other Freedom-Loving Patriots Like AT&T.... never mind. I give up.

From one of the links in Glenn's post:

Lucy A. Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said the Risen subpoena was bad news for journalists but could inspire the Senate to pass a shield measure. The House approved legislation last year that would protect news reporters, under most circumstances, from being legally compelled to reveal sources who requested confidentiality.

"It absolutely shows the need for this legislation," Dalglish said.

Lucy Dalglish must not be talking about the US Senate that I'm familiar with. The US Senate that I've been disgusted by after watching them fail time and again to act in the peoples' best interest, rather than in the interest and demands of the Administration?

Less than a year to go. (Will we make it?)

Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and Attorney General Michael Mukasey have emphasized their belief that the telecommunication providers who assisted the Bush Administration with the Terrorist Surveillance Program should have liability protection, and Mr. Mukasey and Mr. McConnell know that current court cases involving the allegedly defunct Terrorist Surveillance Program have foundered due to the inability of plaintiffs to obtain information necessary to establish their right to sue the Federal Government and/or the owners of the information technology through which the Federal Government obtains intelligence. Resolution of this prominent defect in FISA is not addressed by pending FISA legislation, but it is a defect that will be exacerbated by any expansion of the Federal Government's surveillance powers. On January 22, 2008, Senator Edward Kennedy and Senator Arlen Specter intoduced separate legislation that would give more direction to courts to allow litigation to proceed and simultaneously protect "state secrets", but in the meantime, due to excessively restrictive interpretations of the "state secrets" privilege by various courts, lawsuits against telecommunication providers are the only possible (though still very difficult) avenue for plaintiffs to discover if their electronic communications have been monitored illegally by our protectors.

Although legitimate national security concerns certainly exist, it is far too easy for the Federal Government to obstruct litigation through the process of withholding information from plaintiffs by alleging that release of such information would endanger the national security. It should be obvious, but obviously it is not obvious, that the Federal Government often alleges that revelation of certain information will endanger the national security in situations where revelation of such information would cause only embarrassment. Officially, the Supreme Court did not recognize the "state secrets" privilege until the landmark 1953 decision in UNITED STATES v. REYNOLDS, and it should not surprise anyone that (despite the tortured logic in a Federal Appeals Court decision in 2005 concerning this case) the Federal Government had invoked the "state secrets" privilege fraudulently because there was no justifiable national security issue involved in this case. Also, it should not surprise anyone that the Bush Administration has asserted the "state secrets" privilege improperly and with regularity to obstruct justice. A good example is the use of the "state secrets" privilege to suppress evidence in the case of Sibel Edmonds, who was fired by the F.B.I. for reporting security breaches and other official misconduct in the Bureau's translator services division.

A naive person might reason that a common-law rule of evidence (which is neither mentioned in, nor implied by, the language in our Constitution) could not be used as a basis for obstructing those rights which are delineated in our Constitution. However, the "state secrets" privilege is an extra-constitutional construct, which can be used and has been used to nullify the Bill of Rights. Contrary to procedures outlined by the Supreme Court related to evaluation of the "state secrets" privilege, many judges (including the judge who presided over the case of Sibel Edmonds) do not thoroughly examine the evidence in question to determine whether the assertion of the "state secrets" privilege by the Government is valid, and many judges (including the judge who presided over the case of Sibel Edmonds) do not rigorously analyze whether a lawsuit might succeed in the absence of the evidence which is subject to suppression. If Congress were to grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications providers, and if the Federal Government were to withhold information (which currently is being done) from the courts on the basis that such information would endanger the national security, the Senate Intelligence Committee provision limiting the scope of the immunity would operate as a sham.

Because the Federal Government can shield itself effectively from judicial review, the Federal Government has no meaningful restraint on the abuse of surveillance powers. Mr. McConnell laments that "those in the private sector who stand by us in times of national security emergencies deserve thanks, not lawsuits", but the myth of telecommunication providers as victims in this soap opera is a falsehood wrapped in sentimental twaddle, and this is evident to anyone who thinks for a moment about the vast array of legal resources employed by corporations when they are litigating against Federal and State agencies or when they are lobbying Congress to reduce taxes and eliminate regulations. In his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on January 30, 2008, Mr. Mukasey used the "state secrets" privilege as the basis for his argument that litigation involving the telecommunication providers should not be allowed to proceed regardless of whether the telecommunication providers may have violated FISA, and Mr. Mukasey simultaneously dismissed any possibility that that the telecommunication providers may have violated the law. It would seem that courts are unnecessary for as long as we have Mr. Mukasey available to make summary judgments about all allegations of illegal activity.