Yup. Of course the Democratic leadership is complicit. We've known that for years. Nothing else explains their behavior so well.

At least the Democratic nominee for president isn't as stained as Pelosi and Rockefeller.

That we know of.

So far.

Hopefully all of our favorite bloggers will start hyping up that the "impeachment is off the table" is a "worser" thing than anything else. Bush can AND WILL issue pre-emptive pardons to everyone and their uncle at the end of his term. The only way to stop this is to file for impeachment. He may not be found guilty (impeached) but he cannot issue pardons while under impeachment.

No impeachment? Nothing happens to any of these criminals, except for possible international war crimes type stuff.

Am I right or am I off base?

To allow the dirty laundry to aired in 2009 verses burying most issues in 2008 along with convenient impeachment sounds to me like a real choice for the democrats if they have any reptile blood running in the veins (which they should as politicians). There's got to be something they're not complicit in - an odd blow job or yes there is, they were duped into the WMD as they were not in position to lie about something they did not know. I think they need to think very seriously as to how to end the Bush presidency without getting tainted and infected next year. If they trade the embarrassment factor against letting the Bush regime walk, they will not be able to wash the blood off their hands.

Don't Rockefeller, Harman and any other legislator who knew about official criminality have to worry, not just about political embarrassment if the idea that these actions were criminal ever gains widespread acceptance, but that they would be prosecuted as accessories to these crimes? They had legislative immunity. They had no excuse to fail to immediately file criminal referrals once they became aware of these crimes. If need be, to escape legal sanctions for revealing classified information necessary to publicize information about these crimes, they could have resorted to the absolute protection accorded directly by the Constitution to statements made by legislators in debate. They merely wrote letters to themselves about these crimes that they kept private, letters which do nothing but establish that they knew these administration actions to be criminal, and that they therefore knew their own inaction in the face of these crimes to be likewise criminal. I'm not a lawyer, but I know mens rea when I see it.

There is no need any longer to wonder why Pelosi declared impeachment "off the table".

The bug-eyed dingbat was/is protecting herself.

Ah, yes, Olmstead v. United States. A very interesting case indeed. Especially since there weren't any wiretap laws on the books at that time. The majority ruled in that case that the Fourth Amendment only protects physical places from search.

And that commie, Islamofascist Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority has extended 4th Am protection to other searches conducted by ever-increasing technological advancement, in Kyllo v. U.S., re: heat-measuring devices aimed at a home without a warrant:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-8508.ZO.html

Court Backs Bush on Military Detentions

By ADAM LIPTAK

Published: July 16, 2008

President Bush has the legal power to order the indefinite military detentions of civilians captured in the United States, the federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., ruled on Tuesday in a fractured 5-to-4 decision...

The Fourth Circuit is notoriously pro-military and pro-Bush. That's one of the reasons they moved some of the early U.S. detainees down there (and defeated a court case in N.Y. in the early going after 9/11/2001 on the basis of geographical jurisdiction).

But the Fourth Circuit couldn't ignore Boumediene and had to grant some kind of meaningful review....

Cheers,

Not only are you withholding financial support from Obama, but you're actually helping to stimulate the economy, which might help Bush's case... I mean, McCain's.

You, too, Cocktailhag. And I guess my dental bill counts, too, hmmm?

My "Democratic" state senator, Max Baucus, is afraid of his own shadow. And he saw his shadow on this bill and went right to the far right. Here's his explanation:

Dear Greg:

Thank you for contacting me regarding my recent votes on the FISA Amendments Act of 2007. I appreciate hearing from you on this critically important issue.

As you know, I voted in favor of the FISA Amendments Act of 2007. This bill holds the Administration more accountable, despite including retroactive immunity for telecom companies that I voted against. I want to take this opportunity to share with you my reasoning on this complex issue. I believe it is absolutely essential that our national authorities have the tools they need to fight terrorism. Because terrorists are organized around transnational affiliations like religious or ideological affinities, their activities are difficult to detect and their attacks are difficult to prevent. We need both better intelligence and better technology to understand the strategies of terrorist networks and their plans.

However, when our methods run counter to the fundamental ideals of liberty on which our country is founded, there is cause for concern. That line, I believe, was crossed when President Bush authorized the surveillance of communications between Americans and foreign nationals without first obtaining a court warrant, as required by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Additional disclosures of a program to monitor domestic phone records by the National Security Agency in May of 2006 raised even more questions.

In July of 2007, Congress quickly passed the Protect America Act which altered some of the FISA oversight requirements. I voted against this bill out of concern for the American people. In short, I believe this bill did not go far enough to keep intelligence agencies from infringing upon the privacy of innocent Americans.

The Protect America Act was set to expire in December of 2007, and was briefly extended into early 2008. This bill was meant to be temporary, to allow time for my Senate colleagues and me to improve the legal framework and insure greater accountability of the Administration's electronic surveillance, while updating the law to take into account new threats and improved technology.

The new legislation allows for targeted surveillance of potential terrorists, while specifically protecting the privacy of individuals incidental to warranted investigations. The legislation improves the judicial oversight over electronic surveillance by mandating extensive court review and approval of all surveillance warrants. The new bill, The FISA Amendments Act of 2007, is superior to Protect America Act in these regards. The legislation also expands these protections to Americans living outside the United States - protections that were not provided for in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.

Despite these improvements, the bill was not perfect. I supported several amendments that I believe would have made the bill better, but each failed to receive the necessary votes on the floor. Principal amongst these was an amendment to withhold retroactive immunity from telecom companies that may have illegally assisted the Administration's initial wiretapping program. I supported this amendment to strike retroactive immunity; however, that amendment failed.

While I believe that telecoms ought to be held accountable, my vote ensures that Montanans' right to privacy will be better protected than before when the Protect America Act was law. Given the Administration's previous behavior when guidelines were old and unclear, I believe we need a bill that strictly defines the powers of the Administration regarding electronic surveillance. This bill does that.

Thanks again for contacting me. I appreciate your time and efforts to bring attention to this issue. Please feel free to contact me in the future regarding this or any other matter of importance to you.

With best personal regards, I am

Senator Max Baucus