We're All Journalists Now

At GigaOM, "Freedom of the press applies to everyone — yes, even bloggers" (via Glenn Reynolds):

In the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, released just a few weeks ago, the judges pointed out that the First Amendment’s protection for freedom of the press “encompasses a range of conduct related to the gathering and dissemination of information,” and that citizens have the right to investigate government affairs and share what they learn with others. Judge Kermit Lipez also specifically noted that these protections don’t just apply to professional journalists. He said in his decision:

[C]hanges in technology and society have made the lines between private citizen and journalist exceedingly difficult to draw. The proliferation of electronic devices with video-recording capability means that many of our images of current events come from bystanders [and] and news stories are now just as likely to be broken by a blogger at her computer as a reporter at a major newspaper. Such developments make clear why the news-gathering protections of the First Amendment cannot turn on professional credentials or status.

We couldn’t have put it any better ourselves (although we have tried a number of times). The advent of social news-distribution tools like Twitter and Facebook, not to mention blogs and YouTube and other web services and social networks, have powered what Om has called a “democratization of distribution” that makes virtually anyone into a publisher.

RTWT at the link.

RELATED: From Carol Rose, "Victory for liberty and the right to videotape public officials."

Humberto Leal, Mexican Citizen, Executed in Texas

At New York Times, "Mexican Citizen Is Executed as Justices Refuse to Step In."

More at Memeorandum.

Dominique Strauss-Kahn Sexual Assault Prosecution Collapses: Accuser's Credibility Destroyed

Interesting story at New York Times, "One Revelation After Another Undercut Srauss-Kahn Accuser's Credibility." (At Memeorandum.)

This isn't something I followed closely. These are serious allegations, but that Strauss-Kahn's a socialist made it amusing, especially in that he was expected to be the next Socialist Party candidate for the French presidency.

And more at this Nightline report, which has some strong statements from the plaintiff's attorney:

Also at Telegraph UK, "Dominique Strauss-Kahn walks free after maid rape case crumbles."

BONUS: At Legal Insurrection, "Strauss-Kahn and credibility problems."

Bush White House Sought CIA Probe for 'Damaging Personal Information' on Leftist Professor Juan Cole?

Wow.

Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

Honestly, though, arrest him if there's evidence of aiding and abetting terrorism. But don't just smear the guy using the CIA. Sounds like something from the Nixon years.

At New York Times, "Ex-Spy Alleges Bush White House Sought to Discredit Critic":

WASHINGTON — A former senior C.I.A. official says that officials in the Bush White House sought damaging personal information on a prominent American critic of the Iraq war in order to discredit him.

Glenn L. Carle, a former Central Intelligence Agency officer who was a top counterterrorism official during the administration of President George W. Bush, said the White House at least twice asked intelligence officials to gather sensitive information on Juan Cole, a University of Michigan professor who writes an influential blog that criticized the war.

In an interview, Mr. Carle said his supervisor at the National Intelligence Council told him in 2005 that White House officials wanted “to get” Professor Cole, and made clear that he wanted Mr. Carle to collect information about him, an effort Mr. Carle rebuffed. Months later, Mr. Carle said, he confronted a C.I.A. official after learning of another attempt to collect information about Professor Cole. Mr. Carle said he contended at the time that such actions would have been unlawful.

It is not clear whether the White House received any damaging material about Professor Cole or whether the C.I.A. or other intelligence agencies ever provided any information or spied on him. Mr. Carle said that a memorandum written by his supervisor included derogatory details about Professor Cole, but that it may have been deleted before reaching the White House. Mr. Carle also said he did not know the origins of that information or who at the White House had requested it.

Intelligence officials disputed Mr. Carle’s account, saying that White House officials did ask about Professor Cole in 2006, but only to find out why he had been invited to C.I.A.-sponsored conferences on the Middle East. The officials said that the White House did not ask for sensitive personal information, and that the agency did not provide it.

“We’ve thoroughly researched our records, and any allegation that the C.I.A. provided private or derogatory information on Professor Cole to anyone is simply wrong,” said George Little, an agency spokesman.

More at that link at top.

And what the heck? Check over at Juan Cole's, the freak: "Ret’d. CIA Official Alleges Bush White House Used Agency to “Get” Cole," and "Cole on Goodman & CIA Surveillance."

And, "Repeal the PATRIOT Act is the Lesson of Bush White House Spying."

Nope, not going that far. Patriot Act does not authorize CIA spying domestically. It simply allows coordination of intelligence gathering activities. Longstanding bureaucratic norms would still drive domestic surveillance operations, and frankly, the legacy of the 1960s and 1970s still contributes to a culture of legal safeguards that obviously make cases of spying --- like that alleged against Professor Juan Cole --- beyond the pale. Bust him if he's a treasonous dirtbag. Otherwise, let him spew his bilious hatred. No doubt he's earned some enemies on that basis alone.

Newt Gingrich Glittered!

Boy, he's getting it from all sides, metaphorically speaking, of course:

And of course, the extremists at Rachel Maddow's are down with that. Amazing thing is Gingrich is such a GOP loser. He must have REALLY built up some resentments. Seriously. Good thing these guys weren't leather-clad bomb-throwers. No doubt there's some gay Weather Underground-wannabes out there. And Gingrich is fail on the security. Sheesh.

Also, at KARE11-TV Minneapolis, "Gingrich hit with glitter at Minneapolis event." And KSMP-TV Fox 9, "Protestor Hits Gingrich, Wife with Glitter before Speech."

Gay Rights Militants to Push for Same-Sex Marriage Following DADT Victory

I knew this was going to happen. Indeed, one of the reasons I haven't extensively engaged the debate on gays in the military is because while supportive, the overall agenda dovetails with the militant same-sex marriage movement to which I'm opposed. Aggressive lobbying for it would be basically helping the other side, and I draw the line at gay marriage, which is against both nature and moral right. This is something that's been discussed here many times. And just today I added an important update on the debate, "Real Marriage is the Union of Husband and Wife." And now with the DADT repeal, we'll be seeing not just a flurry of activity in the militant gay community, but a campaign of gay marriage cheerleading in the left's Democratic-Media-Industrial-Complex. We have this at the New York Times tonight, for example, "One Battle Won, Activists Shift Sights" (via Memeorandum).



And also at this morning's Los Angles Times, "Gains Outweigh Setbacks in a Landmark Year for Gay Rights":

Today the military, tomorrow the marriage altar?



In an era when gay Americans have seen stunning progress and many setbacks in the quest for equality under the law, many believe 2010 will go down in history as a watershed that will lead inexorably to more legal rights.



Saturday's vote in the Senate to allow the repeal of the federal law banning gays from openly serving in the military is "one of the greatest, if not the greatest, victory in the history of the movement for gay and lesbian equality," said Aaron Belkin, director of the Palm Center, a UC Santa Barbara think tank that studies the issue of gays in the military. "Going back thousands of years, the marker of a first-class citizen has always been someone who's been allowed to serve in the military."



Most countries that allow gay marriage, he added, lifted their military bans on gays first.



Still, the wrangling in the halls of Congress, in courts and at ballot boxes about how gays are treated shows no sign of abating anytime soon.



"All social justice movements are two steps forward, three steps back," said Fred Sainz, spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay rights group. "It's always been a lot of highs and sometimes more lows, but the highs tend to be more momentous than the lows."



Social conservatives, though disappointed with the Senate vote, disagree that there is a link between the military and marriage.



"It's a tragic day for America," said Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies at the Family Research Council. "But I don't think this will really affect the marriage issue very much. It's been rejected by voters in 31 states."



Indeed, the most important victories for gays have been won this year in the courts and Congress, rather than through the electorate.

RTWT.



RELATED: At Sense of Events, "What Makes Marriage, Marriage?"



And from the gay militant commentary: Pam's House Blend, Towleroad and, AMERICAblog Gay.

TSA: Keeping Us Safe

The contrarian view, from Gabriel Schoenfeld, at Opinion Journal, "Body scans and intrusive searches are unpleasant but necessary":

Since 9/11, al Qaeda has not succeeded in launching another terrorist spectacular in the United States. But it has succeeded in provoking a spectacular debate about aviation security. Several weeks ago—and even earlier at some airports—the Transportation Security Agency (TSA) initiated full-body scans and enhanced pat-downs, including inspections of private parts, that in some quarters are fueling outrage.

So is the flying public rightly angered? The media have documented a string of monstrous cases in which prosthetic breasts have been exposed and urostomy bags worn by bladder-cancer patients have been disconnected, with humiliating consequences.

These incidents certainly demand better training for security personnel. But they do not invalidate the need for intrusive screening.

Do read the rest. I'm mostly with Schoenfeld, although his argument sounds eerily similar to Secretary Napolitano's. And some folks aren't digging on her too much:

Added: Before I go all in for Schoenfeld's argument, I'd need to take a good look at Israel's airport security procedures. Absolutely prohibiting any profiling whatsoever sounds ridiculous, although, again, I'm with him on the basic point of necessity.

National Opt-Outapalooza!

The National Opt Out Day homepage is here, and there's commentary at Memeorandum. And Voting Female's got a roundup, featuring this aggressive Speedo protester at Salt Lake City International Airport below. Plus, at London's Daily Mail, "From bikinis to Speedos to racy underwear, the passengers who claim they WANT to be 'transparent to the TSA'."

The odd stories will lead the news, but how's that opt out thingy working out otherwise?

Fox News has a report, "Many Opting Out of “National Opt Out Day”; TSA Warns Of Possible Impact On Holiday Travel." And at ABC News, "TSA Opt Out Day: Thanksgiving Travelers Quiet So Far: Airport Travelers Share Their Experiences With the Transportation Security Administration." And video from ABC, "TSA Chief's Airports Update." And the chief's at USA Today, "Why We Need TSA's Security Measures."

Recall my previous entry: "How Far on TSA Opposition?" I'd go for the body scanners since I'm worried that one of the al Qaeda freaks is actually gonna get through — and, yeah, I know the response that searches and scanners don't work, blah, blah, but until we profile Muslims ...

That said, check the additional commentary from Jazz Shaw at Hot Air, "Double Standards and the TSA Screeds." And from Glenn Reynolds, "TIME TO GET THE PUBLIC INVOLVED IN AIRPORT SECURITY CHOICES." He links to his Popular Mechanics piece out today, "The TSA, the Law and Democracy: The People's Security," with this key passage:

Today's airport security is widely regarded as a waste of time—the TSA has never caught a terrorist that we know of—and many regard it as what security expert Bruce Schneier calls "security theater," something aimed at giving the appearance of safety, as opposed to its reality.

Even if that's a bit too harsh, it's clear that American security policy is aimed at keeping objects off of planes. For the Israelis, on the other hand, profiling isn't a bug but a feature. Israeli Arabs can breeze through security, while Americans with odd stamps on their passports—as globe-hopping correspondent Michael Totten recently noted—face extensive questioning. The Israelis focus on the person, looking for signs of nervousness, stories that don't hang together and other evidence of nefarious intent. This makes sense. Ultimately, it's people, not objects, who pose the danger.

Yid With Lid has more on that: "These Are The Reasons Why Israel's Airline Security Doesn't Need To Touch Our Junk." Or your breasts: "Woman: TSA Agents Singled Me Out For My Breasts."

And the polling is changing on all of this. While Gallup reports wide public support for TSA screening procedures, WaPo indicates that half of all Americans think agressive pat-downs go too far. And LAT reports on a Zogby poll that says "61% oppose new airport security measures."

And the radicals at The Nation have offered a novel defense of Janetalia Napolitano, "The Washington Lobbyists and Koch-Funded Libertarians Behind the TSA Scandal":

So now let's take one more look at the TSA hysteria, and re-evaluate if we should continue to simply accept the surface narrative, or consider what we might learn by looking beneath the surface. Because everywhere you look, the alleged victims' stories often turn out to be false or highly suspicious, promoted by lobbyists posing as "ordinary guys," and everywhere the cast of characters is always the same: drawn from the cult-ish fringes of the libertarian movement, with trails leading straight to the billionaire Koch brothers' network of libertarian think-tanks and advocacy groups. The tea party must really be freaking out the commies, since radical leftists and radical libertarians have long been on the same side. I'll believe folks at The Nation when they come out aggressively against the Ground Zero Mega Mosque, or in favor of the Afghanistand deployment.

And I guess this is one of those extremely rare times where I agree with Glenn Greenwald: "Anatomy of a journalistic smear job."

RELATED: "As Anger Over Body Scanners Grows, Their Developer Comes to Their Defense."

*****

Added: "Travelers’ Reports: Better Than Expected."

PJTV: Don't Touch My Junk

Via Glenn Reynolds:

And at Grandpa John's, "The Gadsden Airport Flag."

RELATED: "Leader of TSA offers pat-downs to senators" (at Memeorandum).

Leaked Body Scans

At Gizmodo:

At the heart of the controversy over "body scanners" is a promise: The images of our naked bodies will never be public. U.S. Marshals in a Florida Federal courthouse saved 35,000 images on their scanner. These are those images.



A Gizmodo investigation has revealed 100 of the photographs saved by the Gen 2 millimeter wave scanner from Brijot Imaging Systems, Inc., obtained by a FOIA request after it was recently revealed that U.S. Marshals operating the machine in the Orlando, Florida courthouse had improperly-perhaps illegally-saved images of the scans of public servants and private citizens.



We understand that it will be controversial to release these photographs. But identifying features have been eliminated. And fortunately for those who walked through the scanner in Florida last year, this mismanaged machine used the less embarrassing imaging technique.

More at the link, and Jawa Report, "We Look Forward To Seeing Your 'Next' Vacation Photos!" (via Memeorandum). Plus, Ann Althouse, "John Tyner, the Young Man Who Resisted the TSA's Groin-Grope, Will Now Be Probed."



PREVIOUSLY:



* "'If You Touch My Junk': Man Ejected From San Diego Airport for Refusing Security Check."



* "Janet Napolitano Defends TSA Full-Body Scans and Pat Downs."



* "Free John Tyner!"

Free John Tyner!

See the story at San Diego Union-Tribune, "TSA to Investigate Body Scan Resister." And at the video, the most compelling discussion is toward the end, with Shepard Smith and attorney Seth Berenzweig:

And previously: "Janet Napolitano Defends TSA Full-Body Scans and Pat Downs."

'Everybody Draw Mohammed' Cartoonist Goes Into Hiding

That's Molly Norris of Seattle.



The story's at WaPo, "'Draw Muhammad' Cartoonist Changes Name, Goes Into Hiding at FBI's Insistence." Also, at Seattle Weekly, "On the Advice of the FBI, Cartoonist Molly Norris Disappears From View."



Morris was placed on an "execution hit list" by fanatical Islamist Anwar al-Awlaki. I understand her fears. But I'm sick to my stomach (and my heart) that it's come to this. Anyone speaking out is subject to a fatwa. (I'm sure a lot of my leftist enemies would cheer that.)



Ann Althouse is sympathetic, if not a bit amused by Morris' plight. But she adds:

There's a big Metafilter thread about it, which I'm reading after writing that. A surprising number of people are blaming Norris for bringing the death threats on herself.

The Coming Prop 8 Show Trial

Some folks might remember Diana West's phenomenal post on gay marriage totalitarianism from November 2008, "The Stage Is Being Set." As Diana writes there, on the campaign of intimidation and harassment against El Coyote's co-owner Marjorie Christoffersen:

The mainstream media have so far failed to get across the intensity of the ordeal that supporters of Prop 8 may now be subject to--something I realized on coming across this extraordinary blog account of a meeting at the legendary restaurant El Coyote in Hollywood, not far from where I grew up in Laurel Canyon. The meeting was between the elderly Mormon owner, who donated $100 to support Prop 8, and Prop 8 opponents, who are threatening a boycott, and it is as soul- grinding as something out of Soviet show trial history.

It's worth reading the whole thing.

I remind readers of this to highlight how the radical left's campaign of intimidation has now moved all the way to the U.S. federal court system. Michelle Malkin has the details, "The Anti-Prop. 8 Mob Strikes Again":

Yesterday, liberal California Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker issued an unprecedented ruling that will put the trial involving a challenge to the Prop. 8 same-sex marriage ban on YouTube ....

I generally support more sunshine in all government proceedings. But the judge’s unusual method of securing video coverage is extremely troubling. This isn’t a sincere educational effort to provide transparency to the public. It’s a flagrant attempt at making Prop. 8 a show trial — and intimidating Prop. 8 backers who will be called to testify.

Ed Whelan at Bench Memos lays out Walker’s agenda thoroughly. Start here, then go here, and here. Writes Whelan: “Walker is rushing to override longstanding prohibitions on televised coverage of federal trials so that he can authorize televised coverage of the Proposition 8 trial. Televised coverage would generate much greater publicity for ringmaster Walker’s circus. And, whether Walker desires the effect or is somehow blind to it, televised coverage would surely also heighten the prospect that witnesses and attorneys supporting Proposition 8 would face harassment, intimidation, and abuse. In his eagerness to stack the deck against Proposition 8 and its defenders, Walker has resorted to procedural shenanigans and outright illegality.”

Former federal district judge Paul Cassell weighs in: “Without getting into the merits of Proposition 8 or the legal challenges to it, I agree with Whelan that it seems highly unusual for a judge to authorize televised proceedings for this particular case as part of some new “pilot” project to see how televised proceedings work. Surely if there were going to be a test run of a new idea, it should be in a more run-of-the-mill case rather than this particular highly controversial one. Moreover, it does appear that public comment process has been completely short-circuited.”

More at the link.

Glenn Greenwald's Absolute Tyranny

I've got a new anonymous commenter, "Suzie Q," who left a response to my entry this morning, "Obama Connects al Qaeda to Jet Plot, But Fails to Connect Global Jihad." Ms. Susie Q asks:

So, how many liberties are conservatives willing to surrender to big government?? Because the conservative position is not to surrender liberties to big government. However, mention "al Qaeda" - and conservatives do a flip flop. That's why the whole thing is such a flop in the first place to a real conservative ....

Actually, no, Susie Q. These "real" conservatives you mention are folks like Daniel Larison who purport to be conservatives while allying with the left in destroying the nation. Nope, there's really little difference between these "true" conservatives (with burning hatred of neocons) and hard left extremists. For example, Glenn Greenwald, a regular writer at the misnamed American Conservative, addresses this same point today, by coincidence, regarding how much liberty conservatives are willing to give up for security. Greenwald excoriates the right's "pathology of fear" as his post, "The Degrading Effects of Terrorism Fears." And while Greenwald is often credited by those on the right for a modicum of consistency (since he's now attacking the Obama administration), I give Greenwald nothing but scorn. A blowhard and windbag, even his legal "expertise" can't save him from this disastrous America-bashing screed:

This is what inevitably happens to a citizenry that is fed a steady diet of fear and terror for years. It regresses into pure childhood. The 5-year-old laying awake in bed, frightened by monsters in the closet, who then crawls into his parents' bed to feel Protected and Safe, is the same as a citizenry planted in front of the television, petrified by endless imagery of scary Muslim monsters, who then collectively crawl to Government and demand that they take more power and control in order to keep them Protected and Safe. A citizenry drowning in fear and fixated on Safety to the exclusion of other competing values can only be degraded and depraved. John Adams, in his 1776 Thoughts on Government, put it this way:

Fear is the foundation of most governments; but it is so sordid and brutal a passion, and renders men in whose breasts it predominates so stupid and miserable, that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution which is founded on it.

As Adams noted, political leaders possess an inherent interest in maximizing fear levels, as that is what maximizes their power ....

What makes all of this most ironic is that the American Founding was predicated on exactly the opposite mindset. The Constitution is grounded in the premise that there are other values and priorities more important than mere Safety. Even though they knew that doing so would help murderers and other dangerous and vile criminals evade capture, the Framers banned the Government from searching homes without probable cause, prohibited compelled self-incrimination, double jeopardy and convictions based on hearsay, and outlawed cruel and unusual punishment. That's because certain values -- privacy, due process, limiting the potential for abuse of government power -- were more important than mere survival and safety. A central calculation of the Constitution was that we insist upon privacy, liberty and restraints on government power even when doing so means we live with less safety and a heightened risk of danger and death. And, of course, the Revolutionary War against the then-greatest empire on earth was waged by people who risked their lives and their fortunes in pursuit of liberty, precisely because there are other values that outweigh mere survival and safety.

Now, as fancy as that sounds, it's pure leftist drivel -- which is why both radicals and "paleoconservatives" eat it up. Even a cursory understanding of the nation's founding rebuts this simplistic -- indeed, devious -- proposition that liberty ALWAYS supercedes security. No doubt one could search around and find quotes from the founding generation to back one's arguments, but few sources would be more authoritative than Alexander Hamilton, author of some of the most important essays of the Federalist Papers. Here's Hamilton outlining the powers of the executive as facilitating the presevation not just of liberty, but ultimately of security and national survival. From Federalist #71:

THERE is an idea, which is not without its advocates, that a vigorous Executive is inconsistent with the genius of republican government. The enlightened well-wishers to this species of government must at least hope that the supposition is destitute of foundation; since they can never admit its truth, without at the same time admitting the condemnation of their own principles. Energy in the Executive is a leading character in the definition of good government. It is essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks; it is not less essential to the steady administration of the laws; to the protection of property against those irregular and high-handed combinations which sometimes interrupt the ordinary course of justice; to the security of liberty against the enterprises and assaults of ambition, of faction, and of anarchy ....

There are preconditions to both security and liberty, and thus Glenn Greenwald's absolutism is both wrong and immoral -- and certainly not conservative. (In fact, Greenwald and his allies are not unlike the extremists of France in 1792 who took absolute liberté to its ultimate solution of the gallows.) Not only do strong national instutions, in the case of a vigorous executive, serve the interests of basic survival, but they are even more fundamental to the classical political philosophy of constitutional governement. As John Locke understood, whose writing formed a leading theoretical foundation for our constitutional regime, the absence of order in the state of nature formed the chief threat to the rights and liberties of men. To create a state (a government with sovereign legal authority over its the people) was to enter into a contract for the preservation of society, and hence the acquistion of security. Locke even modifies the more aggressive social contract theories of folks like Thomas Hobbes. Without a "common power" in centralized government, no person's security can be safeguarded from both external and internal threats, and thus liberty would be purely extinguished as an artifact of the negation of freedom in the left's "progressive" tyranny.

How Ezra Levant Beat Canada's "Human Rights" Censors

From Reason Magazine, Ezra Levant, "The Internet Saved My Tongue: How I Beat Canada's 'Human Rights' Censors":

Early on the morning of February 13, 2006, nearly 40,000 copies of the Western Standard rolled off the presses in Edmonton, Alberta. Tucked inside that week’s issue of Canada’s only national conservative magazine, on pages 15 and 16, was a story about the international controversy over a Danish newspaper that had printed a dozen satirical cartoons featuring the prophet Muhammad. Our article, which was illustrated by eight of the cartoons, would soon trigger a three year government investigation of whether I, as the Western Standard’s publisher, had violated the rights of Canadian Muslims by “discriminating” against their religion.

The investigation vividly illustrated how Canada’s provincial and national human rights commissions (HRCs), created in the 1970s to police discrimination in employment, housing, and the provision of goods and services, have been hijacked as weapons against speech that offends members of minority groups. My eventual victory over this censorious assault suggests that Western governments will find it increasingly difficult in the age of the Internet to continue undermining human rights in the name of defending them.

A phenomenal story, unreal in some respects. Read the whole thing, here.

Speaking about his dealings with the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission, Levant laments, "the right to not be offended trumps freedom of speech in Alberta."

Bush Won Legal Fights in War on Terror

President Bush prevailed on most of the domestic legal and political battles over the administration's policies on the war on terrorism following September 11, 2001. The Los Angeles Times reports:

George W. Bush will end his presidency in retreat, forced to compromise on several fronts. Free-market economics have given way to massive government bailouts, and an assertive, unilateral foreign policy has yielded to one more attuned to world opinion. But in his defense of the war on terrorism, Bush has succeeded in beating back nearly all legal challenges -- including those to some of his most controversial policies.

Among them are a domestic surveillance program to intercept international phone calls, the rounding up of Muslim men for questioning after the Sept. 11 attacks, the holding of suspects in military custody in this country without filing charges, harsh interrogations -- some have called it torture -- of suspects arrested abroad, and the detention of foreign captives at a military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Because of the administration's successful defense of such policies, they not only will be a part of Bush's legacy but will be around for his successors. Even if Barack Obama rejects or sharply modifies Bush's positions, the precedents will remain for future chief executives.

Soon after Sept. 11, Bush said that as commander in chief he had the "inherent" power to act boldly in the nation's defense, regardless of whether Congress or the courts agreed.

His claim has been much criticized. It also has not been accepted by Congress or endorsed by the Supreme Court. The justices have said the president must act according to the law, not in spite of it.

Nonetheless, Bush's anti-terrorism policies have not been blocked by the courts or Congress. When the Supreme Court struck down Bush's use of special military trials at Guantanamo on grounds that he had no legal basis for creating them, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act to authorize the trials.

When critics claimed the National Security Agency was violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act by intercepting calls without a warrant, Congress passed a law to authorize such wiretapping. The same measure also granted legal immunity to telephone companies that had cooperated with the administration.

Bush's tenure has been particularly frustrating for civil libertarians. They had believed that when the government violated the Constitution, someone could go to court and challenge it. But it's not clear that truism is still true.

Bush's lawyers have succeeded not by proving the constitutionality of the policies but by using procedural barriers to prevent lawsuits from going forward.

When the American Civil Liberties Union sued over the warrantless wiretapping, Bush's lawyers said the plaintiffs had no standing because they could not prove that their phones had been tapped. The government also refused to answer questions about whether the plaintiffs had been tapped, pleading national security.

When civil libertarians sued on behalf of men who said they had been wrongly abducted and tortured by the CIA, Bush's lawyers argued that the cases involved "state secrets." The courts agreed and dismissed the lawsuits.

"It has been a sad story," said Melissa Goodman, an ACLU lawyer. "The government has thrown up roadblocks. . . . We have never gotten judges to rule whether their acts have violated the Constitution or whether torture is unconstitutional."

I say good for the administration!

See also my recent essays on the administration's counterterror policies, "Enhanced Interrogation's in the Charts Again," and "Lawfare" and Bush Administration War Crimes Trials."

Photo Credit: "The military prison at Guantanamo may be the exception to Bush’s string of legal successes. The Supreme Court struck down his policies regarding the holding and trying of prisoners there. But the administration has resisted changes," Los Angeles Times.

Obama's Assault on the Second Amendment

Via Cap'n Bob:

There is so much at stake in the coming weeks for these constitutionally-guaranteed rights. Keep this in mind as you look at this nice portrait of my favorite pistol - and be sure to vote with this in mind.

See also, "NRA Plans a Wider Ad Assault on Barack Obama in Battleground States;" "Obama and the Attempt to Destroy the Second Amendment;" and "Obama's Second Amendment & 'Clinging to Your Guns'."