It would be an important debate/process for Americans to see go forward.

-- Mike NYWI

Well you see, as has been conclusively pointed out in Glenn's posts and in comments, this stuff is not debatable. That is why they are running from it and covering it up in any way that they are able.

Infuckingcredible! To paraphrase Lily Tomlin, No matter how cynical I get, it's impossible to keep up.

RS Hunter

Oregon

Forgive me if I am wrong, social studies was many years ago, but aren't 'ex post facto' laws illegal? If even I remember that from fifth grade, how can they imagine that the Supreme Court won't overturn these laws the same way they overturned the others?

My understanding of this, from conversations here, is that ex post facto only really applies if the reversal is from legal to illegal. I.e. a person cannot be prosecuted later (when/if the law changes) for doing something done before it was against the law.

Since this situation is the opposite of that described above, it's more likely that the Supreme Court would reverse it based on the obvious Constitutional issue that it guts the 4th amendment.

It sounds to me like most of the villains of Glenn's piece were sincere in their belief that the programs they were briefed on were maybe legal and defninitely necessary. It sounds like they would to this day defend their actions, and that their actions in seeking openly to change the law retroactive to their lawbreaking speak cearly to their continued belief that their actions were justified. If they had any courage from that conviction, they would let investigations go forward and let the chips fall. It would be an important debate/process for Americans to see go forward.

9-11 happens and then the nearly universal knee-jerk flag, country, patriotism, rah-rah.....Then all of a sudden these dems are sitting in on lawless, anti-American meetings. Then they either sit their and gulp or come out before the news cameras attacking the President of the United States.

I'll have to admit that I'm pleased and proud that the consummate snark master, Arne, has taken on two of my pet names for two of the most ridiculed trolls in attendance here at UT, Tibby and Elephantdung. If I am not mistaken, I coined both of those nicks.

Credit where credit is due. My hat's off to ya.

And thanks fer the "Bad Fiddler". That was awful (in both senses of the word). Hell, even I play better than that....

Cheers,

I know you are a cat crazy Lady.

You manicure the cat claws.

Each cat paw nail is sharp.

You paint a different color on each cat's sharp paw nail.

Your cats make visitors sneeze though. Achondroplasia.

Cats have little feet and big heads with prickly whiskers.

But why not declaw them cats?

Richard can back scratch you.

For me, one of the truly disheartening things about witnessing the FISA debacle in both the House and Senate was seeing the sheer enormity of apparent complicity among members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. It was especially disheartening to see the Democrats—the “opposition party”—so eagerly and nearly universally enabling the criminality of the Bush administration. The only possible explanation for that I can conceive is that Congress is fundamentally complicit in those crimes and is brazenly and transparently attempting to cover their own asses.

Since we know Speaker Pelosi was briefed on, and probably signed off on, many of the twisted justifications for lawlessness, isn’t there a way to force her to recuse herself from the impeachment debate or face impeachment herself?

We find ourselves—our Constitutional Democracy—at the edge of a precipice; plunging over it seems ever more inevitable.

And they should all be "held accountable" as Nancy Pelosi so famously claims Congress is doing in relation to Bush & his henchmen. It sure would be nice to see a war crimes court set up, in the next dministration; and see all the co-conspirators and enablers prosecuted for aiding and abetting the destruction of the government of the United States of America and its Constitution. Nuremburg would have nothing on that...

Harman, Hoyer, Rockefeller, and Pelosi are perfect examples of what I call "Fox News Democrats." These creatures are chosen, or choose, to go on that network and offer tepid "opposition" to the minutia of Republican policies, all the while endorsing and legitimizing the central premises; i.e., that any usurpations of the law and constitution are "necessary" to "keep us safe."

Like Lieberman, they are worse than Republicans, for the shameful "bipartisan consensus" they lend to each outrage, no matter how grave. What they accomplish is twofold: narrowing to parameters of the debate, and rendering such niceties as upholding one's oath of office a "fringe" position.

Harman did, in fact, have a credible but underfunded primary opponent in 2006, who may have gained enough name recognition then to mount a more formidable battle next time, and her despicable behavior of late might just be the spark that lights the fire. And think how humiliating it would be for Pelosi if Cindy Sheehan is able to turn her reelection into a squeaker.

Not only are these people not Democrats, they don't even play them on TV convincingly.

It was pretty obvious that there was some covering of butts in this legislation, but I question the legality of the laws they are passing. Forgive me if I am wrong, social studies was many years ago, but aren't 'ex post facto' laws illegal? If even I remember that from fifth grade, how can they imagine that the Supreme Court won't overturn these laws the same way they overturned the others? Do they really think that they can escape from all of this with no consequences? It's seems rather ostrich-like.

I have been e-mailing the Obama campaign almost every day about his reversal on that bill and I keep getting the same variations on the theme of "But I had to, this bill is better than the other choices we had" which makes me very angry. I will keep e-mailing him until I get a somewhat more honest reply, though I doubt that I will get one that actually says "I felt that throwing my Democratic party members into the same cell with Bush and Cheney would really hurt my chances to become President or to get anything passed by either party while I was President." But a girl can hope, right?