I want to see action, not speeches. There are a few dozen lawyers in the DoJ they could take immediate action on today and have them disbarred. Translated, someone from the ABA needs to get their ass in gear and get Yoo, Gonzales, Addington, Keisler, Bybee, and many others disbarred.

This action will severely cripple this administration’s “brains.” Most of their “better thinkers” are located in the DoJ. They are the ones that keep generating the legal mumbo jumbo that translates into talking points.

Additionally, someone in the ABA needs to file an amicus brief to strike down S 2453: the Sen Specter NSA “compromise” bill.

Until I see an Amicus brief from the legal community outlining your specific concerns with this Specter Bill — that it is unconstitutional in that it targets specific litigation — you’re sending a clear signal: You would rather blog and promote your books, than ensure the Constitution is protected.

How would a patriot act? [Hmmmm] He’d get off his rear end, into the law library and craft an Amicus to put your arguments before the last forum that can do something about this: Your Judicial Branch. [Emphasis mine]

You’re an officer of the court, and have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution, not your blog, and not your personal writing career. You’ve spent too much time coming up with excuses why your IP number does not does not match your roommate. It’s time to ask whether your talents are or are not going to be put to use where they count: In court, and ensuring this Specter Bill is struck down as unconstitutional.

So think through where we are with the NSA program(s). For the “terrorist surveillance” program that was originally acknowledged, it appears likely that it required NSA employees to wiretap phones of US citizens on US soil with:

a) no warrant;

b) no follow up to FISA court during the 3 day allowed warrantless wiretapping.

Each instance of that kind of activity subjects someone to a felony count and to a civil penalty.

The only justification for not using FISA that was given was that there was a lot of paperwork (Gonzales) or “hey, we just couldn’t, but not bc of it being a lot of paperwork” (Hayden). We’re still on terrorist surveillance here – trying to help out Hayden, someone asked if it was bc it was more datamining (that program was still being lied about at the time) and he said, nope, nope, very ‘targeted’ program our terrorist surveillance program. Of course, he also said “nope” to a probable cause and warrant requirement standard even existing in the 4th Amendment, so fwiw.

The rationale for violating FISA has been — if al-Qaeda is calling, we want to know. But, no one ever has mentioned i) why FISA would disallow warrants for surveillance of al-Qaeda phone calls and when in the WORLD such a thing has happened, especially post 9/11 or ii) why they would not proceed under the 3 day freebie and notify the FISA court towards the end of that freebie so as to insulate NSA personnel from criminal and civil charges.

The only reason is that no one really gave a d*mn about the people asked to break the law – just making a power grab for the President.

So now what do you do? If the cases go up and the program is found to be unconstitutional and illegal under FISA and American citizens are required to know, if not the reasons and methods for surveillance, the fact that they were surveilled in violation of the law and the constitution — you have people at NSA looking at lots of felony counts.

So then what? YOu then have a situation where prosecutors, working for Bush and who no longer have integrity, credibility or ideologic interest in enforcing a law that has thousands of felony violations. Hmmmm. Not a great thing for the system to deal with, is it? So then what – new prosecutors who shuffle in in 2008? Or deals cut prior to 2008 to try to keep anyone from being prosecuted post 2008? A huge mess as far as the tattered remnants left for our DOJ and our system of laws — to have blatant historic violations of laws with no federal prosecutions.

It also won’t stop the civil suits. Also, some have raised (I’m not sure I agree) that the “adequate” OLC opinions might insulate from criminal prosecution -despite the plain language of the Constitution and the Statutes. And DOJ is still waltzing with the Yoo inherent powers issue and promoting constituional sellouts to the bench. What a an absolute mess.

But — do you WANT prosecutions? In general, I’d have to say I don’t. Think about what NSA and the people who work there accomplish, the stress of the job, and the assurances they were receiving. OTOH, do I know enough to know?

Maybe there absolutely ARE people who should be prosecuted bc they have gone beyond “if al-Qaeda is calling” (I’m still talking front liners – Hayden and Gonzales et al have not only broken laws, but betrayed trusts on so many different levels from private and one on one to public and overarching, that there’s really not an appropriate response for them).

That is, after all, what oversight and warrants are supposed to prevent. But what kind of a catch 22 do you want people who are working on national security matters in sensitive times to have to address? So that is the conundrum that DOJ has left.

A nifty little trap where, to uphold the law, you have to harm a front line of people who shouldn’t be harmed. If I had to dig deep and find a little credit to give Specter, it would be that he knows, legally, the outcome. He also knows, from a standpoint of integrity of our Dept of Justice and assault upon our intel employees, how devasting that outcome can be – no matter how it goes. Prosecutions after 2008, massive deals to circumvent lawbreaking before 2008, etc.

He is possibly trying to find a way to just dodge the whole thing with “get by” legislation until the cabal is out of office, then play with an real response after that.

Which is also a wholly immoral and corrupt situation that requires Congress also sell out.

It’s why I get so d*mn pissed at the lawyers involved. There is a clear, easy, legal answer. That answer means you stick a knife in a lot of people who don’t deserve it, or you crater credibility of our Dept of Justice entirely (like that hasn’t already happened).

Bush doesn’t “get in trouble” and the lawyers who have sat safe and played “let’s get Mikey to do it” based on specious legal arguments, when they know that they don’t have to worry about any of it coming home to roost with any of THEM serving out for felonies – they don’t “get in trouble.”

The only trouble is for the institutions of this nation and the people who serve them.

There are other solutions though. Specter just doesn’t want to deal with them bc they involve using that horrific thing – the subpoena, that they gave up for Lent after the Clinton admin. And bucking Bush.

Still — it’s a huge mess that isn’t “solved” by just saying NOW let’s follow FISA.

rambling fwiw

Sorry, Babs O’Reilly. Rape “jokes” aren’t funny.

That is poetry.

Only in this case, it’s Specter giving Bush everything he ever wanted so that ‘centrists’ like Feinstein can then come along and offer a more “mainstream” gutting of the 4th amendment.

I just wrote Feinstein to tell her we already have laws on the books covering domestic spying, laws which George Bush chose to ignore and for which he should be held accountable.