I commented just a few days ago about BoB Edwards' interview with Steve Wax, the lawyer for Brandon Mayfield, whose home was broken into by federal agents under the Patriot Act provisions. Wax has a new book out, "Kafka Comes to America", that talks about both the Mayfield experience and his representation of Guantanamo detainees.

More evidence, if any were needed, of the current administration's lawlessness, and the consequences to real, law-abiding people.

Wax' description of the feds breaking into Mayfield's home is about 4 minutes into the audio.

http://www.bobedwards.info/ftopic759.html

I was so excited when Pelosi became the first female Speaker of the House. It seemed like such an historic moment.

She has been the biggest disappointment in (nearly) eight years of escalating disappointments.

In her case, it all began with, "Impeachment is off the table." I guess that should have told us what to expect.

Shame on her and all the other Democratic enablers!

And thank you, Glenn, for your tireless efforts on behalf of preserving what is good about America.

Someone should ask Pelosi how should we feel if it was her child or grandchild in that Gitmo video.

For someone who has built a rep on bringing health insurance to children, how does she feel about the apparent withholding of medical treatment for that boy?

"No one goes into law-abiding homes" ----voice from a different planet.

Apparently this particular sage was plugging his ears and singing, "Frere Jacques" when the egregious case of Brandon Mayfield, here in Portland, was aired, resulting in a humiliating multimillion dollar settlement for him from the government. This man, and his family, whose "crime" was being Muslim, had their home ransacked repeatedly, computers rifled, phones tapped, all without any sort of warrant or evidence of wrongdoing.

Mayfield happened to be white, and a lawyer, living a quiet life in suburbia, which is the only reason he ever received any redress.

Honestly, Shooter, when you make your nincompoopish blanket statements to argue your indefensible positions, use the Google.

Others less addlepated do.

Perhaps Hillary now knows about the complicity of certain democrats in breaking these laws, I would think she likely does. Also, during the primaries it became pretty apparent to me that Pelosi was backing Obama. So two questions come to mind, did Hillary vote properly now on FISA knowing and not caring what happens to Pelosi, Rockefeller, et al? Did Obama also know about their lawbreaking (also likely that he did), and work out a deal with them? It doesn't actually look good for either candidate to me, even though I supported HRC, and I suspect the answer to both questions is yes. It explains a lot that came somewhat as a surprise.

--Ron

TRK, there is absolutely no hope in responding with that sort of wonderful, fact-filled comment to a zombie. The Undead simply wants to crawl from his grave and gnaw on your ankle. Confronting him with a factual argument is simply ineffective, as he staggers up main street, moaning and groaning, looking for living victims.

Olmstead, which I assume you are citing, is not good law anymore. Try moving a few of decades forward and look at Katz where the SCOTUS reversed the earlier decision. Or, look at the FISA laws IN PLACE when the telecoms/executive branch decided to act. You have no idea what you are talking about, but are arrogant enough to post anyway.

* And the framers certainly didn't worry about anyone overhearing spoken conversations. For that matter neither did the Supreme Court in 1928, when it declared wiretaps needed no warrants from anyone.

Someone linked this NYT Op-Ed:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/opinion/13rich.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

"The Real-Life ‘24’ of Summer 2008"

I don't know if this was in the links in your blog post or not.

"Thank goodness sincerity of belief has nothing to do with the rule of law."

Agreed. Unfortunately, the law now says it wa legal. Question is, is that law illegal, or just very disgraceful?

I'm not arguing against them facing any legal jeopardy that they should face under the laws on the books at the time. Though I'm not sure if being aware of a crime is prosecutable, but it might have been.

I'm simply saying I think they believed in what they were doing morally if not legally. Which is shameful, but makes them less of the cowering simps Glenn sometimes makes them out to be. Not that there aren't some cowering simps who do have principles but are cowering simps about them.

If they were courageous at all (Rockefeller, Harman, etc.), they would come out and defend their conduct under the law as it stood (and get clobbered), but they're not, so they changed the law. But I thnk they're continuing to be sincerely wrong all the way through.

On Ex post facto: post facto prosecutions are unconstitutional if the conduct is made illegal after the fact. Apparently retroactively making conduct legal is legally permissible, however cowardly and corrupt in this case, since that is apparently exactly what is taking place. I am not a lawyer, but if there wasn't a prior way to make that stick in theory, i don't how just passing the law would get it done.

In other words, is there a special exception taking place that allows retroactive lawbreaking to be legally coherent in these cases where it wouldn't otherwise be? If yes, where is that in the laws (MCA & FISA update)? Or if I robbed Fort Knox today, and I could convince Congress and the Prez to make that legal retroactively to yesterday sometime next week, could they go ahead and do that too? I think they could. But I could be wrong.

Pedinska don't like sushi. Perhaps You and Jim Montague can take me out to lunch for that bump, so we forget about the bruises.

Jim Montague can buy. He elicits hope.

If Jim was in circuit court he'd be eating sushi.

Glenn can organize a trial and jot down a big grocery list.

Salon readers need some snacks. We can't eat blog scrolls.