Or maybe a lawyers. totallyblase wrote: ". . . for the collaborators, quislings and sundry other criminals who have not been responsible for not only implementing these crimes . . . "

Huh?? Jaysus, I look and the mirror and I see Rummy looking back, except with better hair . . .

To add fuel to the flames of idiocy, totallyblase continues: "the pressure to do bad shit because you'd like like a pussy . . . "

Like like a pussy?? Iggy Pop went one better with Does Your Pussy Walk . . . .

Memo to totallyblase: ease back on the French Roast

We just HAVE to start a criminal investigation into what was done to allow things like this (as well as the torture etc) to happen. I don't care if it's Democrats or Republicans that are responsible - this was truly "bipartisan" in that very few representatives from either party seems to have lifted a finger to stop it.

If this administration declines to investigate this for fear of being seen as "partisan", I will never again support any politician. I stopped actively supporting Obama after his betrayal on FISA, and sadly I think he will do a similar 180 on this.

When the USDOJ says "prompt" they mean it!

They mean as soon as the SG (solicitor general) and the other DOJ lawyers can get around to it!

But be reasonable, your Jebsterness.

Habeas, shmabeas? They've got other, bigger, fish to fry, first, you know?

You know, stuff that really can't wait:cert. petition they filed this week:

In the Supreme Court of the United States
___

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PETITIONERS

v.

CBS CORPORATION, CBS BROADCASTING, INC.,
CBS TELEVISION STATIONS, INC., CBS STATIONS
GROUP OF TEXAS L.P., AND KUTV HOLDINGS, INC.
___

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
___

GREGORY G. GARRE
Solicitor General
Counsel of Record

GREGORY G. KATSAS
Assistant Attorney General

MALCOLM L. STEWART
Deputy Solicitor General

ERIC D. MILLER
Assistant to the Solicitor General

THOMAS M. BONDY
Attorney, Department of Justice
___

QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the Federal Communications Commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq., in determining that the most widely viewed broadcast of public nudity in television history fell within the federal prohibitions on broadcast indecency.

[...]

This case arises from the February 1, 2004, broadcast of the Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show. [...]

[...]

My take on this is that the DOJ will be "reviewing" this decision until at least January 20, 2009 and then will hand the problem over to the new administration.

Meanwhile, back at the rance, their request for moving these trials away from the district courts will command their full attention.

In the Supreme Court of the United States

___

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PETITIONERS

v.

CBS CORPORATION, CBS BROADCASTING, INC.,

CBS TELEVISION STATIONS, INC., CBS STATIONS

GROUP OF TEXAS L.P., AND KUTV HOLDINGS, INC.

___

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Well, you gotta admit that a 1/2 second glimpse of a boob on the toob is something that the Supremes will just have to get crackin on forthwith!

You betcha!

Morons.

Any insights on why? Do they have some sort of ideological belief that refuses to recognize copyright ownership or something?

I can't offer any insight into commondreams ideology but I can give you some insight into one of the technical/philosophical (technosophical?) argument against copyright.

Imagine if we invented a nano tech atom/molecule sewing/stiching machine. This machine would be capable of taking raw material, say a bucket of sand, break it down into a base atomic state and use those fundamental blocks to then stitch or sew something completely different, like an apple. We "scan" an apple once and from that blueprint we can turn sand into food.

The invention of this machine would become the beginning of the post-scarcity era. We only have to make one machine because we can use the machine to duplicate the machine...and so on, until everyone has a machine.

The end of scarcity. The end of starvation. The end of possessions. (cut to John Lennon at a grand piano)

The big ethical question in the post scarcity era--Is it moral to create artificial scarcity? Should we put people in jail for turning sand into apples in order to keep power consolidated in the hands of the Big Fruit Companies or the government?

The computer is the nano sewing machine of information.

Nano sewing machine == end of physical scarcity

Computer == end of information scarcity

The computer began the post information scarcity era. Is it moral to create artificial scarcity?

I support a seven year copyright*, so I am certainly not a true believer--at least until we have a nano sewing machine--but I think it is one hell of interesting moral question.

I could ramble on this topic for hours but I will close with one final observation. If you think about how large corporations would react to the invention of the nano sewing machine--the completely absurd and totalitarian laws that would be written by a corrupt government desperately trying to hold on to the status quo--you can imagine what it is like to live as a tech person in the world today.

*Seven years is my generous guess at the time it takes for the average copyrighted work to earn 99% of the total amount of money it will ever make. It is probably closer to three years. Disclaimer: I make/made a non trivial percentage of my money/income because of the current benefits afforded content producers under copyright laws. I have no doubt my beliefs are influenced by this.

From US Legal, Inc. - Definition of a Writ of Certiorari

"A writ of certiorari is an order a higher court issues in order to review the decision and proceedings in a lower court and determine whether there were any irregularities. When a court issues a writ or certiorari it is referred to as "granting certiorari", or 'cert.' When the U.S. Supreme Court orders a lower court to transmit records for a case for which it will hear on appeal, it is done through a writ of certiorari. Certiorari is the common method for cases to be heard before the U.S. Supreme Court since it has specific jurisdiction over a very limited range of disputes.

A supreme court has power to review the proceedings of all lower tribunals and to rule upon their authority to hear the case and and their decisions on questions of law. However, the lower court's determination on questions of fact will rarely be disturbed, although a state statute may authorize a higher court to do so.

The following is anexample of a state statute dealing with writs of certiorari:

"The justices of the Supreme Court shall have authority to issue writs of certiorari and to grant injunctions and stays of execution of judgment, subject to the limitations prescribed by this code and the Rules of Appellate Procedure, as judges of the circuit courts are authorized to grant the same."

If I read this correctly, what the DOJ is doing is asking the Supremes to review the case.

How many Justices have to agree to get this thing on the SCOTUS docket?