Over the last day or so, some writer out there in the ether said he thought the Bush presidency felt like rule by an alien power.

Ann Coulter has always looked alien to me, but aside from that, the news about Brennan is very welcome.

The security and torture issues need to be fleshed out so the alien influence is understood and the unconstitutional practices corrected.

Another harsh note about this, one which rattles one of our most basic bilateral ties, has to do with the report that the NSA had a file on former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. According to the report, the little kids running this candy store got their jollies by picking over personal information about Blair, some Iraqi leaders, and our own troops. Reportedly, some underlings protested as to the legality of the practice but were told to keep doing what they were doing.

Huh?

There's a British television series called MI-5, which is about the UK domestic spy agency. In some episodes, which are now three to five years old, producers rendered CIA types here and there as borderline psychotics, seen by their MI-5 opposites as out of control, and possible risks to British interests.

Art imitates life.

Who are these people in our midst?

Obama didn't heed the netroots

in his FISA vote, why should he in his appointments?

I don't think it's a matter of needing the netroots. They don't.

I think it was the belief that the storm brewing in blogs, and the arguments and evidenced marshaled against Brennan, was likely to turn into a controversy they didn't want. I really doubt Obama -- before being inaugurated -- wants to be defending the idea that his chosen CIA Director had some involvement in renditions and was defending "enhanced interrogation techniques."

It's certainly possible that Brennan himself decided he didn't want to have to battle that controversy, get asked questions about this stuff on TV by Russ Feingold and others, etc. Who knows what exactly happened, but it seems clear that they thought - with good reason - there was enough against Brennan that it wasn't worth the fight.

And so I say again, if you wonder how it is that a large percentage of Americans could vote for the GOP nominee in a year when everything was seemingly against him, you need look no further than the left's bleeding heart approach to international bad guys.

I'd look further: "a large percentage of Americans who could vote for the GOP nominee" are, in no particular order, uninformed, afraid, exclusionarily religious, racist, frightened of homosexuals, militaristic, belligerent, anti-Muslim, apocalyptic. That's just for starters.

In a word, creepy.

[... snort ... bwa-ha-Ha-HA ... mmph ... Damn it, start again! ...]

Blue Gatorade on my PC, thanks to you!

(Is this sorta like my not REALLY DEEP-DOWN wanting Sarah to be run over by a snow machine...? Oh, it's really too bad I'm a lapsed Catholic cuz clearly I could use a session of confession right about now.)

While I can understand that there are those like you who are scared of the terrorists and need protection, said protection must be lawful. Torture violates US law; it is illegal. Until you and your ilk can emerge from your cowering long enough to pass laws that legalize torture, those that commit it or sanction it should be prosecuted to the fullest extension of the law.

There's the little detail that torture is against a variety of laws, domestic and international, and constitutional protections. What Elhiseum is advocating is the abrogation of law and constitutional rights whenever some father figure says "time to take off the kid gloves". Not a very good idea by anyone's measure.

Also, no one has yet ruled whether hypothetical thought experiments involving babies are equivalent to torture, but I tend to think that one day our society will have evolved far enough to stamp out this foul practice.

I hear that Benjamin Netanyahu is now the leading candidate for DNI and Paul Wolfowitz for CIA Director...

argh

Fortunately, I wasn't drinking, but my keyboard is now host to a lot of cookie crumbs.

... were popular because those movies f*&%ing rule! But just because escapist Crime/Action films expressed the public's frustration with urban crime at the time, doesn't mean that "liberal" policies led to increasing crime rates. Socioeconomics and urbanization caused most of the crime, and the mass media was responsible for the increased public perception of "danger in the streets". Though these movies can certainly be interpreted as arguing that cops need bigger guns and less restraint/oversight, that doesn't mean this makes for sound public policy.

A relief. Keep it up, Glenn.

Georgie had taken off the kid gloves in dealing with the aftermath of Katrina.

But he did exactly that, as has been documented---by trying to extend the power of the executive.

And that's why we soft citified liberals prefer that you creepy fascists keep your gloves on and your dicks in your pants.

As long as your name wasn't Louima or Diallo.

I really doubt Obama -- before being inaugurated -- wants to be defending the idea that his chosen CIA Director had some involvement in renditions and was defending "enhanced interrogation techniques."

It's certainly possible that Brennan himself decided he didn't want to have to battle that controversy, get asked questions about this stuff on TV by Russ Feingold and others, etc. Who knows what exactly happened, but it seems clear that they thought - with good reason - there was enough against Brennan that it wasn't worth the fight.

-- GlennGreenwald

Interesting also that the MSNBC reporter said that the Brennan situation, and having Brennan need to withdraw himself from consideration, was one of Obama's first "mis-steps" or "mis-cues" in the transition. I wonder, did he mean that Brennan's withdrawal is the "mis-step" (merely embarrassing) or that it was that Obama considered Brennan, who is controversial, at all? Or, is that a distinction without a difference?

The article almost seems redacted, but apparently "the government" can search your domicile in Nairobi even if you are a US citizen. Exactly which government or agency that is doing the searching and surveilling, and under what authority the US would be operating in foreign countries is not explained.

From the article:

"Joshua L. Dratel, a lawyer for Mr. el-Hage, said that the appellate decision “would seem to say that the government’s invocation of national security can trump a United States citizen’s constitutional rights across the board.”

Link at sig