They have usually been anonymous with their posting.  Essentially libertarian, they rarely have any political statement, but have finally spoken out about the recent illegal domestic spying by the U.S. to call it a "crystal clear felony".

If anybody tries claiming, like some 10 other diaries have, that the White House was abusing the law for "technical reasons", i.e. ESCHELON/CARNIVORE, Cryptome knows for sure that the claim is full of hokum and they have the documents to prove it.

These guys have been an essential resource for things like this and could use some respect.

There's an awful New Yorker movie review in last week's issue about "The Power of Nightmares", an amazing documentary about the rise of extremist Islam paralleling with the rise of neo-conservatism.  It's an amazing movie and all should see it.

But the blurb trashes the movie for disparaging Leo Strauss.  Saying that Strauss was "troubled by Hitler's rise to power", like that's reason enough to like Strauss.  But Strauss believed in fascism!  He believed what they believed.  See here:

Somewhere between Watergate and now, Woodward convinced himself that shoe-leather journalism doesn't exist.  That a reporter is nothing but his sources.  That good journalism is nothing but being the closest microhphone to the speaker.  In that sense he's nothing different than James Guckert.

All of these pitiful excuses mean nothing to me without an apology that says "we should not have voted for this war".  If, like Bob Kerrey on the Colbert Report, you want to call out Bush for never admitting he's wrong, you better start with the mea culpas right quick.

Let's go through some of these excuses:

Churches are prohibited from intervening in political campaigns, but I thought that meant advertising.  Is all political speech banned form a church?  And if so, I've seen tons of clips of stadium church preachers with pro-administration speech.  Shouldn't they be on the chopping block next?

OK....well EVEN IF it was all the intelligence community's fault (CIA, DIA...etc..), where is their frog march???

He may soon be a prisoner in U.S. custody.  He certainly has information pertaining to somebody leaking classified information which could endanger anti-terrorism efforts, thus still keeping it within the realm of Cheney's provision.

So whaddya say we take the bamboo chutes, pliers, and iron maidens to this guy and find out what he has to say?

thanks to three blind mice over at metafilter

Curious to note that all of the high profile supposed foilings, like the Lackawanna and Detroit terror cells, are completely left off, finally acknowledging that those incidents were a bunch of nothing.

Only three of the plots were about U.S. soil, as if they are taking credit for British work.  

Anybody know where to find this list?  

So why do conservatives all of a sudden care about Miers?

Either way it will look bad and the WH can see it coming.  Question is, what will they do to direct the news away from this?

There's been a lot of suspicion that it was an attempted terrorist act, but so far there has been no evidence outside the circumstantial fact that he had Muslim roommates.

What seemed really suspicious is that the Whitehouse, which is now in fearmongering mode, hadn't picked up on this story even if it has nothing to do with terrorism.  Why aren't they screaming "Hide in the Duct Tape Hut!!" right now?  Why talk about emails from Zawahiri when they could be talking about a potential threat inside our own borders?

What I've got so far:

Bush 2008: Why Switch Horsemen Mid-Apocalypse
Drunken frat boy drives country into ditch.
Preemptive impeachment.
Draft Richard Perle.

Also looking for good posters that could be printed up and put on signs like the Grover Norquist one if anybody has any particularly good ones to point out.  Thanks!

I'm not a legal expert in any sense, so I may be assuming too much, but it does seem that Bush's actions, and failures to act, have failed to assist victims in need.  

There is also a Federal good Samaritan act passed in 1996 that could apply as well:

Proving "knowledge of possible harm" and the "failure to act" parts seem like they've already been shown in multiple other diaries.  Anybody have any legal advice on this?

I wonder how much of this is either "mistaken identity" on the part of the U.S. or Pakistan.  We've put so much faith in Pakistan into the hunt for al Qaeda that they could just jerk us around with October surprises all year round.  

And will this story actually make it into the U.S. press or just get ignored?  Me think Bush's poll numbers probably hit a new low right before the capture.