This is f***ing NOT a subject to be joking about, you stupid f***ing Idiot!

J @ 50

Articles over at Information clearing house good reads,

“On Track for U.S. collapse”

“Iran has evidence US Backing Terroist”

“Us differs with UN nuclear chief on Iran”

Would really like to know what information Valerie Plame Wilson has access to that trumps what Iaea El Baradei has on Iran,

Valerie said on Keith Olberman that she has “no doubt” that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program. El Baradei has said “no hard evidence” to back up such claims.

When Valerie was at the CIA she likely had access to internal Iranian documents and recordings of private conversations among Iran’s rulers. Their intent was probably quite clear. El Baradei has access to no such information and has to infer from what he is inspecting, unless someone on the inside chooses to give him hard evidence.

Big diffference between intent and “hard evidence” El Baradei was spot on about Iraq.

Kind of reminds me of God telling Moses on Mt. Nebo that the land where the Israelites were going was “spitting out” its current inhabitants for being so vile.

If we keep following BushCo policies, that’s what planet earth is going to do with us: spit us out.

UE Rationale – Bush and Cheney claim that under certain circumstances…

- President acting as CIC in time of War
- Declared State of National Emergency

…the Constitution envisions the emergence of a 4th Branch, aka the Unitary Executive, that is all-powerful and un-checked outside itself.

That’s the rationale in a nutshell that is presumably contained in the 4-page ‘order’ that empowered Bush to direct the Telecoms, in secret, to cooperate with Warrantless Domestic Spying outside of FISA – a clear-cut circumvention of Legislative Oversight.

Since the UE Rationale hasn’t had its day in Court, Bush has also successfully managed to avoid Judicial Review while exercising his self-proclaimed ‘Above the Law’ powers.

The right answer here is for Congress to Finally draw the line on supporting Bush without first getting a Binding Independent Legal Review of his reasoning for the so-called 4th Branch – Bush’s Lawlessness has piled up so high that he’s lost the Public Trust – his actions seem out of All Proportion to the needs of the Country and don’t, imvho, represent US as a People very well.

Bush is artificially maintaining “War Status” and “National Emergency Status” just to keep his “grabbed on a pre-text” unlimited powers, which conveniently include immunity from the Rule of Law for him and his designates.

It’s long since past time that Bush should have relinquished his ‘emergency’ powers and volunteered his actions, taken in the name of national security, for review by the People he’s is supposedly acting in the name of to ‘protect.’

realworld @ 22

Sort of on topic from downstairs. Christy, do you understand how the State Dept can grant immunity? I’ve been trying to figure out that one. Congress can, DOJ can, but State? Who’s next? Education?

NPR piece this morning said State Dept. had NO authority to grant immunity, and that everyone will be questioned again by the FBI. That’s going to make it legally very interesting (IANAL).

Indeed Christy. I tried to find some references for “confessions” obtained by non-Police government officials. There are some cases of this but usually in non-coercive situations where the statements were given freely (as in an undercover agent).

If the “officer” from the State Department wasn’t clear that the “immunity” he was offering didn’t relate to criminal charges, it might be viewed as coercion- the statement would not have been provided without the offer,and the official IS a Government officer.

This isn’t settled law. And often it’s the judge or jury that has to decide within the context. If the DOS interviewer said something like…”Your cooperation will be viewed as positive in reviewing whether you receive administrative sanctions or not”, and “I’m not here for a criminal investigation” THAT would go a long way to making the statements legally allowable in court.

If they implied that they were involved in a criminal investigation then it would be a lot more coercive and an offer of immunity might taint the willingness not to remain silent.