Towards the end of your analysis you touch briefly on, what to me has always been a central possibility, the topic of how the information was being used. “But what has always been uninvestigated is whether these surveillance powers were systematically abused for purely political ends.”

Given that the “opposition” party so completely disregarded, at the time and continues to disregard, the mounting evidence of criminal wrong-doing, one has to consider what the motivation would be. There is a theorem that postulates that the simplest solution is usually the correct solution (I forget what it’s called), but in this case, the simplest solution requires a bit of tin foil hattery. Let’s face it, politicians aren’t really thinking about a “ruling class” or anyone else for that matter. They think about themselves first and foremost.

I know it probably sounds a little crazy, but you hint at it here. How possible is it that Dick Cheney has secreted away (in his man-sized safe) dossier’s on some important legislators. We already know that at least one member of Congress had her communications monitored, and when it was politically expedient, the contents were leaked. This was a fairly minor case, but I wonder if it might not have been the proverbial “shot across the bow” to remind these politicians who held the aces? (Dick playing to Jack to remind everyone he holds Aces and Wild Cards.)

Again, I realize I could easily sound like a conspiracy nut-case, but is it really that far-fetched given what we know? Politicians act in their own self-interests and to protect themselves. We know that the communications of members of Congress were monitored, and we know at least a little embarrassing information was collected. It’s not a terribly far reach to arrive at a fairly simple explanation for the Democrats’ refusal to be clamoring for investigations.

Sorry, but I feel a real need to mention this yet again. Why are we allowing Congress NOT to repeal that Use of Force Authorization many Dems were conned into voting for that allowed Bush to invade Iraq? That resolution is the genesis of many of the horrible abuses of executive power that we are all upset about now. The same ones Obama is defending from the Bush era. I don't understand why there hasn't been more of an organized movement to force Congress to repeal that Resolution. And not sure why Congress wouldn't want to do this if they felt they were a real third branch of government and not just an appendage of the White House.

If Congress doesn't want to repeal this authorization, I sure would like to know why and what's stopping them. Is it because Obama wants to keep this in place so he doesn't have to give up any of Bush's powers?

Thank you, Glenn, for taking on the Michael Goldfarb's of the world who believe a wartime President has near dictatorial powers. First we must set aside the troublesome notion that our President can increase his or her powers by self-declaring a state of war exists with a small band of stateless criminals and/or religious fanatics. Call me naive, but I believe the president has very few powers, irrespective of whether the nation is or is not at war and even those powers are very explicitly constrained by the Bill of Rights. I find nothing in the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, or the contemporaneous statements of the founding fathers that even remotely suggests that our Presidents would have powers approaching those of monarchs or dictators. To have otherwise would be to re-establish the monarchial powers held by King George III which were so rightly denounced and rejected in the Declaration of Independence. "He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power."

...the only meaningful avenues for disclosure and accountability: a Congressional investigation armed with subpoena power and/or a judicial adjudication of the legality of these acts.

Just drop the "or" and you're there -- "and" is the ONLY option.

My suggestion is to draft Justice Souter to lead a literal tribunal. He is really the only public figure with both the gravitas and visibility to provide the necessary legitimacy. This is a unique circumstance (a war criminal president) that demands a unique remedy.

He could range widely. Appointing authoritative associates for military, intelligence, legislative, and even legal/judicial "reviews" of conduct and wider complicity (even a look at the tragedy of impeachophobia). All very public.

And yes, he could even lead a 3 judge oversight panel that includes the "partisan figleaves" (O'Connor ugh, or Posner, and of course any "retired" Dem of substance) who could have their dissents noted.

You would be the ideal ball-carrier for this (you do "have Obama's ear"). But first, take on board Elizabeth de la Vega's advice on Serious DC Special Prosecutors (otherwise known as Sandy-Eyed Umpires).

--

He was the President of the United States and he did what he wanted to do. That's what presidents do. Sure, he may have subverted the Constitution and ignored federal laws and defied his oath of office, but he WAS the President. If the President wants to smash babies heads with a ballpein hammer, you can bet that he wants to do it because he has knowledge that we don't have and he sees the big picture. Sure, it hurts when it's YOUR baby but it's for the common good and not just to make profits for his backers and cronies. Have faith in the system and back our leaders. They know what's best for us even when it seems like they're just stacking up soldier's corpses for a profit. They are the federal government and god bless them one and all. And if they are filling their pockets and offshore accounts (in dummy corporations and names of relatives) with stimulus money, hey, there IS a reason. Remember, if you knew what they know you'd do as they do. They just can't tell us or there would be a panic and a day of reckoning. They are doing it all for us. They're swell guys.