No posts by GG in 48 hours. Argh! I'm going through withdrawal.

Agreed.

I forgot. The Lady who lost hundreds of thousands of dollars, homes, and a Laundromat in Waynesboro, Pa., is an American citizen. She is Asian/American. She never knew who her father was. She lived 6-km from My Lai.

I've been guest in her village.

I'm still requesting Justice.

If in a dragnet within the administratively claimed eavesdropping powers, criminal information was dug up about a separate crime unrelated to terrorism (bank robbery, murder, drug related etc), could such evidence be used in a criminal court or does the exclusionary principle apply?

I believe there was language added to the this version of FISA which now includes information relative to criminal (as opposed to national security) activity as fair game where previously, the information had to be national security related to be utilized in a court.

If that's true, it's one of the most egregious aspects of the whole makeover and, I might add, one of the least discussed.

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong on this.

Thanks for your analysis. Incidentally, this was exactly my point:

If witchcraft is a crime under 18 USC, then the president can pardon it; if not, not.

Are we also agreed that military service is not an automatic qualifier for national leadership (as Senator McCain and proxies appear to believe)?
— Iokannan in the Well

Quite. The only qualifications for president is that the individual be over 35 years of age and a native citizen of the US.

Still, after major wars the people have regularly turned to victorious generals or field commanders for leadership. After the Revolutionary War to George Washington; after the War of 1812, William Henry Harrison (Old Tippecanoe); after the Mexican War, Zachary Taylor; after the Civil War, Ulysses Grant; after the Spanish-American War, Theodore Roosevelt; after WW II, Dwight Eisenhower. Some of these were good presidents, some not so good (Harrison wasn't president long enough to be able to tell). But a successful military career does add a certain luster to a candidate for president. Lack of one, however, is hardly a disqualification for the office.

In any case, I agree with Clark's comment that getting shot down and being a POW is not a necessary qualification for being president. But I can also see Obama's point: McCain's military service is simply off limits. The man served his country honorably and his military service should not be a campaign issue or held against him in any way.

e,i,e,i.o. (me)

The lawyer who wrote two very complicated Master Sales "Agreements" was the solicitor for the Republican Attorney General.

Things change.

The solicitor ?

No ask. crimes.

A lawyer. I researched his back round. A FBI agent named Sonny knows what I'm saying, and the fCrrok was involved in "legal quarrels" involving other bank deals that were 13-millions in mich "chicken" feed No. Crooks.

The lawyer who tricked Kim Doan, the naive buyer, into a fradulent, and a terrible predator lending, real estate scheme, was filthy wealthy.

He moved to sunny Florida. It's a pile of correspondence that still makes me despondent. Thanks for the memories, anyway.

I'll scoot. Nice hospitality.

I feel like scoops of blueberry's in yogurt.

To the best of my knowledge, Glenn Greenwald has not commented on Olbermann's latest Special Comment.

It should be noted, however, that it's pretty evident that the only reason Olbermann even had a Special Comment last night was due to Glenn's article regarding his previous comments in regard to Obama's (latest) position on FISA. Previously, Olbermann was totally against the revisions to FISA which are contained in this bill, including the immunity provisions. Last week, however, Olbermann changed his position to mirror that of Obama, which is to oppose immunity but announce support for the bill regardless of whether immunity was removed or not. Now, Olbermann is, as you have stated, gently suggesting that unless Obama is prepared to prosecute criminally, those who broke the law - regardless of civil immunity - he should vote against the FISA revision bill in toto. That gentle pursuasion is the direct result of activity such as Glenn Greenwald (and others) who have raised a stink since last week's capitulation.

It would appear to me that you wish people should allow contrary positions on important issues to go unnoticed as long as that position is taken by someone who is considered as one of the good guys. That is contrary to everything Glenn Greenwald has spoken about for the last century. His point is that citizens (and the news media) should learn to be able to criticize even those politicians and issues they usually support and do so with the same gusto they would utilize had they not supported the politician or issue. IOW, they should report what has happened in an accurate manner and as honestly as possible regardless of the political fall out.

If that's not your position, please feel free to correct me.

The man served his country honorably and his military service should not be a campaign issue or held against him in any way.

Any claim by any candidate is automatically a campaign issue. Especially if it's demonstrably false or overblown.

Hardly universal. How about the German soldiers of World War II? Why would I celebrate anyone who is willing gun-fodder for an out-of-control military-industrial complex?

You will doubtless recall that no less a paragon of American virtue than Ronald Reagan placed a commemorative wreath at Kolmeshöhe Cemetery near Bitburg in 1985 despite the fact that among the German war dead there there were a number of Waffen SS graves. The act was controversial, but part of a healing process.

In any case, the cannon fodder is generally not willing, but compelled. Ask Art James. Indeed, Reichsmarschall Hermann Goering spoke to this exact issue:

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm

So the cannon fodder have little say about the matter.

Just like religion should be respected except when it should be disrespected, the same holds with military service. I think John Q. Public understands this, because not going to Vietnam did not really hurt Bush, Cheney, Clinton; it was an avoidable war and no real stigma attached to those who avoided it.
— macgupta

True, but now you are arguing the opposite point — not that military service should be respected, but that lack of military should not be disrespected.