There is something even more disturbing to me in the Hollywood analogy. Chefs, Nannys and personal assistants are the servants of celebrities. Officers of the United States are NOT servants of the president any more than they are the servants of congress. Yes, they serve at the pleasure of the president (as people are so fond of saying these days) but they serve the United States government not the president.

Office holders even executive office holders should not be the president’s minions.

Like everything else in the federal government, the federal bureaucracy is coming to be seen as a site of executive dominion. I feel that the president should act more as a HR manager for the civil administration rather than its lord and master. He has the power to hire (usually pending the approval of congress) and fire. He also has the constitutional power to require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer of each of the executive departments upon any subject relating to their duties.

Everyone should know that that Matt Miller is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). For those of you who know what the CFR is about -- just enough said! For those who are not familiar with the CFR, Bilderbergs and other such groups -- it's time to find out NOW!

Let all of those ex-cabinet and other workers, cronies, etc. blab! That is the only way some Americans are ever going to find out what is happening on the inside. Of course the blabbers-turned-writers will only tell you what won't get them killed so don't expect a complete tell all book.

The case Glen cited has nothing to do with an agreement not to publish.

"...he actually wants to vest presidents -- or at least the new President -- with the formal legal power to block publication of these books in the first place:..."

Bullshit.

"And that's all I have to say about that."

Forest Gump

So you argue that the corrupt cop should go overseas and enforce its own laws on others?

And where does it end? In some countries, my wife's normal habit of dress would be illegal. Shall she be held to every standard in the world?

My granny use to say that we should clean up our own house before we tell the neighbor how to keep house. Madison said we should not go overseas looking for monsters to slay: I suppose he knew we had plenty of monsters here.

Actually, you should see something right about that. It is the obligation of all nations to prosecute torture regardless of where it occurs, if the country in which it occurs does not do so.

There is a great irony in the fact that the administration doing the prosecuting is itself one that should be investigated. And there is an implicit use of selective prosecutions to try to frame the crime for which one can be prosecuted under the Torture Act. Those things are also present in the second case the administration has begun, that of Jon Burge of Chicago, which is completely within U.S. jurisdiction for a U.S. crime.

But one of the means by which the Bush administration lawyers argued for the special powers to torture (John Yoo's memo states this explicitly) was that there was no case law for the Torture Act so they were going to define what it meant for themselves.

The President was hired by the taxpayers, and the taxpayers have every right to know what the hell he's doing and saying (barring anything, of course, of a genuine national security nature).

So I have no right to know what my government is doing about security?

Perhaps you mean that there are some things that need to be kept secret. Let's not put too much behind that veil.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/30/AR2008103004700_pf.html or click sig

"Jurors in U.S. Convict Son Of Ex-Liberian President Taylor"

According to a Washington Post report, on Oct. 30, 2008, a federal jury in Miami convicted Charles Taylor's son, Chuckie, of torture. Chuckie will be sentenced in January for torture, conspiracy, and firearms violations. He will, no doubt, spend the rest of his life in an American prison. These crimes did not occur in the US, nor did they happen to US citizens. Seems the US now claims global jurisdiction.

While Chuckie's trial was underway, the Bush regime was torturing people around the world itself. The USA was also sending men and boys to other countries to be tortured.

The Washington Post informs us that Chuckie's conviction is "the first test of an American law that gives prosecutors the power to bring charges for acts of torture committed in foreign lands." In other words, U.S. law against torture applies to the entire world except the United States. No country can torture except the U.S. Our laws don't apply to our government thugs, only to every other nation on planet earth.

Do you see something wrong with this picture?

We all owe a huge debt to the ACLU, the EFF, and all the others who have so ably and diligently engaged in this matter on our behalf - filling the vaccum left by an absence of federal legislators with integrity and moral courage.

Just wanted to acknowledge the truth of this. It's obvious, sure, but it's still critical to note and repeat, again and again (and again, if necessary--which, I'm sorry to say, it is).

[This is mostly an off-topic comment that belongs in the preceding thread (I read the Grossman interview transcript after the comments there had closed). It does relate though to the important ongoing discussion in this thread about the insidious abuse of Executive Branch and Congressional secrecy, and the attendant repudiation of democratic legislative process inherent in the latter.]

Thanks to both Glenn and Harvey for the thorough and clear recap of our 'last best hope' against implementation of FAA immunity. Journalists (and Members of Congress and their staff) should read the Grossman transcript for a very good, shorthand overview of the genuinely disgraceful, standards-spurning implications of the FAA, and of the status of its ominously-portentous consequences. See also EFF's incisive final (11/20) briefing on the matter ahead of 12/2's oral argument:

http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/plaintiffsreply112008_0.pdf

The earlier, more comprehensive briefs are here (under "Post-Immunity Litigation"):

http://www.eff.org/cases/att

We all owe a huge debt to the ACLU, the EFF, and all the others who have so ably and diligently engaged in this matter on our behalf - filling the vaccum left by an absence of federal legislators with integrity and moral courage.

And in fact, Judge Walker himself, at the oral arguments on Tuesday, posed that question directly to the government's lawyer, and asked whether it wouldn't be prudent for the court to simply wait until there's a change in administration to ensure that in fact the new government, the new administration, wishes its Attorney General to stand by this certification that was made by Attorney General Mukasey. We hope that Attorney General Holder will do that, and that President-elect Obama will mandate that.

- Harvey Grossman, ACLU

The first thing I would say to this is that, if past is prologue, the Republicans in the Senate - led by Kit Bond - will make this very question (whether Holder will withdraw Mukasey's FAA certifications) a litmus test for confirmation of an Obama Attorney General nominee. Discussions about this may have already been secretly conducted between the Obama transition team and the Senate Republicans (while they were vetting Holder over the Rich pardon, as publicly acknowledged). Or perhaps the oral arguments last week will have concentrated Bond's mind about the feasibility of such a withdrawal, making this a new, unexpected hurdle to confirmation for Holder.

So I expect the explicit question to be raised in the Judiciary Committee of Holder (unless there is already a secret understanding, in which case we'll have only Feingold perhaps to rely on to ask the question about a foregone conclusion), and a filibuster to follow if Holder doesn't endorse the status quo [with Joe Lieberman's filibuster-siding vote cancelling out Arlen Specter's cloture vote, should the latter dare to buck his caucus despite not doing so in July when he knew he should; so 60 votes for cloture, and thus for confirmation of Holder as AG - given Democratic support for FISA immunity in July - may be unreachable if Holder either waffles or firmly commits to withdrawing those certifications]. That's the reality of the power of 41 in the Senate, when exercised with a will never seen for any public agenda of the incoherent, amorphous "Democratic Party" of Harry Reid's unprincipled caucus.

But then I wonder: How does a voluntary withdrawal of certifications under the FAA by a new AG solve the real problem here? Granted, it's far better than a loss on the merits in court, but how inferior to a win on the merits in court it would be (the chances of which seem more than 50/50 assuming honest judging). Aren't these issues of enough moment to ignore the political winds - unlike the Congress this summer - and to push ahead based on the actions already taken and the precedents already set by Congress's enactment of the FAA? Meaning, I guess, that I don't really understand the rationale or motivation for Judge Walker to artificially delay his ruling, regardless of what the parties in the case may feel about a delay until a new AG is consulted.

Meanwhile, the many unresolved problems continue, as for example in the case (with Jonathan Turley's welcome involvement I see) just highlighted by RMP, that led to a successful terrorism conviction in 2005, possibly because of unrevealed warrantless NSA domestic spying:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/08/washington/08nsa.html?_r=1&hp

Regarding the current thread:

...even laws which Congress enacts are proposed, negotiated and written behind closed doors with lobbyists and operatives. By the time these bills are even known to the public, let alone openly "debated," their outcome is a foregone conclusion. - Glenn

Actually, this is not how it's done, and it's not acccurate. The thing is, all of us have access to the bills that are introduced in either chamber. They are developed, often, in the ways characterized above, but they go through a process in which the public can participate. Many bills never even make it to committee. Many in committee never reach the house or senate floor, but they certainly do NOT go from secret meetings in dark, smokey rooms immediately to a floor vote. - Retzilian

Oh? Then can you tell me where - online or elsewhere - we can find the Detroit Three bridge-loan legislation which the Senate is scheduled to take up starting Monday? As I noted in my last comment, Barney Frank made it clear Friday, that in fact that as-yet-unwritten bill was to be effectively shaped in "secret meetings in dark, smokey rooms" by - quote - the "Principals" before being introduced in secret caucus meetings as a done deal ready for floor action ASAP... What and where is that "public process" you speak of? Because the same private process seems to be in the offing for any economic stimulus package this expiring (in more ways than one) Congress may soon be passing on orders from Pelosi's and Reid's Party Field Marshalls, "legislating" be damned.