The American government's foolishness has substantial legal and financial consequences for American citizens. One question is what happens when the Framer's vision is not realized:
[T]he system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.
We need to discuss reforms to the Constitutional framework when, even after a vote for change, the same fools perpetuate mischief.
Court May Open Door To More FOIAs on Alleged FISA Violations
There appears to be a possible doorway for more information about the alleged FISA violations: There may be some documents released. However, EFF is not happy with the WH delays in providing emails on WH-telecom discussions related to immunity.
As a matter of law, it's not established that the Congress-Executive can exercise judicial power and affect the outcome of ongoing litigation against the telecoms.
It will be interesting to see how the new emails open the door to new FOIAs. American civilians and the states need to know the details of the real deal between the telecoms and the US government. It's premature to pretend there's no problem or "more important" issues.
Secretary Janet Napolitano said law-enforcement authorities are tracking terrorists with al-Qaeda leanings in the U.S.Instead of tracking them, why not arrest them and deport them? Because they're not here. DHS-IC-law enforcement don't know where they are. American DHS enjoys a climate of "suspicion" to justify their loosely supervised intrusions.
This is more of a question than a comment: War crimes have no statute of limitations (StOL). There are still in the 21st Century prosecutions for Nazi-related offenses over 60 years ago in WWII.
Today, the US government says that some POWs may not be prosecuted for "war crimes," but that they'll leave open the option to prosecute one released Afghan for "other" things.
This seems absurd. There's a limit to whwat the US can do. Indeed, if the US govenment isn't going to prosecute some of the POWs for war crimes, how does the US propose to prosecute POWs for non-war crimes, and still meet the StOL requirements?
The rendition program is considered by the government a state secret, yet not enough of a secret that DOJ would properly protect all information related to that activity. The US government disclosed investigations and other evidence over matters which are supposedly "state secrets."
The government's claim of "privilege" fails when the government discloses -- or inadvertently confirms the veracity of -- evidence connected with that supposed secret.
The DOJ investigation is not so much an effort to intimidate defense counsel, but creates new lines of evidence for defense counsel to review in court US government-disclosed state secrets.
The US government wants to scuttle the POW trials, and prevent the public from knowing the full scope of the US government involvement in other rendition-like activities against American citizens.
American military personnel carry hand-held translation devices. This explains why there may be some confusing responses from civilians on the ground.
We need to call the DOJ's bluff. An FBI agent has (apparently) disclosed sensitive, national security information about internal vulnerabilities of the United States. Why did this agent believe this disclosure would not be examined by DOJ OPR or the enemies of the US on internal security?
One question is whether the FBI agent is inciting others to violence. Here's a good chance for Congress to test the POGO manual on overisight. At a minimum, we should hear whether a grand jury has or has not been empaneled.
We'd like to call attention to this article at Jurist: Discussing Nuremberg and legal counsel responsibility.
President's Alleged Resource Allocation Decision To Not Spend Time on Geneva
The White House fired US Attorneys for "not" doing something. Indeed, the White House "knew" they were firing US Attorneys, without spending time on Geneva oversight, as they had a legal duty.
There was no "confusion" about the laws of war, but a decision to ignore it. That is an alleged subsequent war crime, and an alleged breach of legal counsel duties to enforce the laws of war.
We've been skimming over the HJC document dump on the US Attorney firings, and Rove-Harriet Statements. We've noticed that some of the public discussion on various factoids seem, in our view, sort of trivial, but interesting.
We've stumped on a few things, but thought we'd ask a general question:
Recent events after the Gates arrest at Harvard suggest there's a larger problem with police-public interactions.
Wednesday will be your opportunity to work with others around the globe to interview American police officers, solicit their reactions, and share your results.
The goal here is not to provoke the police to arrest you, but to discuss with them their views on the events, and how they would prefer things to happen.
