So reading this, it kind of seems to me like maybe, oh, NANCY PELOSI could be considered someone who might be targeted for an electoral challenge by a group interested in restoring accountability among congressional Democrats.

"But where would I find such a group? [Into camera] Why am I talking to you?" (With apologies to Mel Brooks and the late, great Harvey Corman, Blazing Saddles; it's such a great line, over the top though it may be).

Let's give these Democrats one last chance to try to invoke a "good faith" argument to the effect that they gave the President the benefit of a doubt at the time and did not independently commission their own review of the legality of these programs, but let's at least try to move them off a CYA dime and into a mode of doing what's right for America and the Constitution by addressing and putting a stop to the unconstitutional evil that is the Bush Administration. We definitely don't have time to impeach all the schmucks, but the Schmuck in Chief still could be called out.

As long as their are laws, there will be people thinking of ways to break them. No law will ever be "tamper" proof. What is needed are vigilant legislators who stand up for the rule of law, and re-draft legislation when it is clear that the vultures are getting the run of it. Unfortunately, those have been lacking. And in our two-party system, when the opposition colludes, there's really not much to stop them from ramming through tyrannical laws.

In those cases, it falls back to the basic principles of democracy, that a well-informed voting populace will be able to vote in politicians that take account of the nation's best interests as a whole.

Even THAT basic premise has failed us of late. The American population is, by-and-large, neither well-educated or well-informed.

So much for checks and balances

Since we have a compliant Supreme Court, it is clear that all three branches of govenment are compromised. There will be no investigation and no accountability in the near future. There now can be no doubt that we are in "1984" territory.

(Pelosi, Reid, Harmon, Rockefeller, etc.)

Who needs Republicans?

BBC NEWS

Warning over phone calls database

A central database holding details of everyone's phone calls and emails could be a "step too far for the British way of life", ministers have been warned.

Plans for such a database are rumoured to be in the Communications Data Bill.

But Information Commissioner Richard Thomas said "lines must be drawn" to defend "fundamental liberties".

He told the BBC he was not aware of such a database in any other democracy. He said there had also not been enough debate on the expanded DNA database.

In his annual report, Mr Thomas addressed speculation about plans for a government-run database holding telephone and internet communications of the entire British population.

'Full transparency'

He warned that while "targeted and duly authorised" interception of terrorist and other serious crime suspects' communications could be "invaluable" - there should be a full public debate on the justification for such a wide-ranging database.

"Do we really want the police, security services and other organs of the state to have access to more and more aspects of our private lives?" he said in the report.

We do have to stand up and say these are our fundamental liberties and our freedoms and lines have to be drawn somewhere

Richard Thomas

Information Commissioner

Later he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "I'm not saying it's right or wrong but I think there should be absolute full transparency."

He said it may make the work of the police simpler, but added: "We do have to stand up and say these are our fundamental liberties and our freedoms and lines have to be drawn somewhere, and there should be a full democratic debate about where exactly the lines should be drawn."

Speculation that the Home Office is considering collecting the information from phone companies and internet service providers has increased because the government has talked about "modifying procedures for acquiring communications data" in its proposed Communications Data Bill.

Internet revolution

Currently police and intelligence agencies can ask telecommunication providers for information on phone calls made, texts sent and internet sites visited.

The provider can query the request, which might then go to the interception commissioner and another watchdog - but under the new proposals, that right would be removed.

Among those who have raised concerns is the Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker, who has said he anticipates the government will try to silence concerns by accusing critics of being "soft on terrorism".

He argues that while technology has moved on "apace", the protections for the individual have not.

The Home Office did not deny any plans for a database and said: "The changes to the way we communicate, due particularly to the internet revolution, will increasingly undermine our current capabilities to obtain communications data - essential for counter-terrorism and investigation of crime purpose - and use it to protect the public."

It added that as a result there could be "serious consequences" for police and intelligence gathering.

"To ensure that the agencies can continue to use this valuable tool, the government is planning to bring forward the Communications Data Bill."

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7507627.stm

Just wanted to note that misspelling.

The Supreme Court is not "compliant" or a party to these abuses; as Glenn wrote in "How Would a Patriot Act?", even Alito strongly opposes the King George doctrine. The responsibility falls squarely on the people who covered up the wiretapping and voted to prevent the courts from ruling on it, that is to say, the representatives and senators you vote for. They are actively working to preclude any normal balance of powers.

I keep hearing that members of this administration should never travel abroad for fear of imprisonment for war crimes, but is there any realistic way an International Tribunal could at some point intervene to apply the Nuremberg Principles to the Bush administration's war crimes, regardless of what the US government wants or accepts, and enforce international law? It seems clear that the US government, regardless of party, is not going to intervene to stop the war crimes being committed in our name, and seeing how it's completely glossed over in Washington, it doesn't appear at all certain that it will end when Bush and Cheney are no longer in charge.