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?

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/

No, it's Imaginary Johnson.

-- Pedinska

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

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.

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........

I hope your name is not "Gary Smith"

No, it's Imaginary Johnson.

“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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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