“A large percentage of the Gitmo detainees are innocents as well . . .”

Not to put too fine a point to your comment but according to Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (and many other like-minded documents) they are all innocent “until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.” Not that the US Administration would stoop to adhering to international standards, agreements or treaties much less its own constitution.

I hope your name is not "Gary Smith"

No, it's Imaginary Johnson.

Thank you for connecting the dots THAT you have connected........The GREATER task is connecting the dots of the enabling event (911) to the lawless behavior, cover-up and obfuscation that followed......The destruction of evidence which is ongoing.....911 interrogation tapes WITH-HELD from 911 Commission and DESTROYED by CIA Chief?? See http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1210/p03s03-usju.html ....How about the 911 air traffic controller tapes?? DESTROYED See http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/07/national/07TAPE.html?ex =1399262400&en=607776ecdf0538fb&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND Want more EVIDENCE of cover-up?? http://www.newsgarden.org/columns/anthrax/coverup.shtml Thank You for your work here at Salon. It is obvious by now that the print media is in the BAG........

Tesler and his partners Junnier and Smith had gotten a no-knock warrant, claiming that there was a kilo of cocaine in the house, but they lied about whether they had confirmed the information from their informant.

Exactly what happened to my relative. Someone who had a beef with him lied to the cops and they didn't bother to inform the warrant-signing judge about any of the 'exculpatory' stuff. They executed an illegal no-knock warrant and he was killed defending his family from what he thought were the people who'd been calling his home threatening his family.

We can only hope there will be justice in our case too.

But according to Imaginary Johnson, this is all just a figment of my imagination.

No, it's Imaginary Johnson.

-- Pedinska

Hey, wait a minute, was that a dirty joke?

Hey Glenn Greenwald,

Fuck you.

Sincerely,

Jim Webb, Netroots darling

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/07/15/jim-webb-is-a-very-serious-person-you-little-blogger-not-so-much/

Given the magnitude of the crimes that Pelosi at least enabled, and probably approved, the critical importance of her support for Obama during the primary, and Obama's sudden decision to help Pelosi and the administration coverup their deeds, why isn't the msm at least asking a few softball questions about what Obama knew about Pelosi's involvement in torture, and when he knew it? Was there a quid pro quo for her support, yes or no?

I've been wondering why no one has discussed this angle, at least with a fact supported non-conspiracy minded angle. Political opportunism never quite explained why the Democrats caved on this issue.

Presently, we just don't know (and possible never will) what Pelosi, Reid, Rockefeller, Harman and other Democratic leaders knew, said, and approved about these programs, so we are left to speculate. But the fact that they were given information about the program, never raised any objections, and have now successfully covered up the entire program, it's hard to come to any conclusion but that they were covering their own asses to avoid possible scandal, resignations, indictments, or even jail time.

It also provides a more compelling explanation why Obama ultimately went along with the FISA betrayal. It's not hard to guess that Congressional leaders convinced him that if the truth was revealed during his administration, it would be a major scandal that would bring down Congressional Democratic leadership with resignations and possible indictments during his Administration.

If I'm Obama and I'm looking to be President, and I have a full agenda of domestic and foreign policy objectives that require Congressional action, the last thing I want is Congress to be paralyzed with scandal and corruption charges. Better to hide the Democratic mess now by voting for retroactive immunity, take my lumps with the base, knowing that I'll still be elected, (figuring that I can fix the mess later on if necessary) and have a clear field so I can focus on my own agenda. The fact that the Fourth Amendment is eviscerated in the process? Unfortunate collateral damage in the name of the greater cause of my Administration.

Obviously, there's no proof that this is what Obama was thinking, but it makes a whole lote more sense than a lot of the accusations that this was a calculated gamble to move to the "middle." Obama is not dumb, and one would have to be exceptionally stupid to believe that voting for the FISA bill would sit well with young voters and independents who are the most likely to sit home on election day, much less attract independent and "centrist" voters. No one except Bush and the Telecoms liked this bill, and it was painfully obvious to see what was the politically astute vote to win more votes in November. A "yea" vote for FISA wasn't it.

I'd like to be proven wrong, but I just don't see any other angle to explain Obama's behavior here.

Casual_Observer:

I know, I know. In fact, I often find myself wondering why some "honor" certain comments with a response. But sometimes it's just too hard to resist...

Pedinska

That's hitting below the belt (But I like it!)

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?

But they'll only do it if your last name is Bush or Cheney.

Can you tell me why we should not label you a concern troll? I think we should. But I could be wrong.

of all these grinning criminal scumbags signing their own "Get Out of Jail Free" card are revolting beyond belief.

* No one "goes in to law-abiding homes"

Of course not, silly. They need to be able to do things without warrants or probable cause because ... well, they just do....

Didja read Glenn's post back a couple of days ago? Click my sig for the link, and "search in page" for "Nixon" or "Mitchell"....

There's a reason for warrants and probable cause ... and that's to make sure that the folks they're listening to are the folks they should be listening to. Of course, such a concept is perhaps above your intellectual capacity to understand.....

Cheers,