Now THIS is just plain CRIMINAL!

From Human Events

CONGRESS WORKS TO REPEAL OBAMACARE… FOR THEMSELVES

Is anyone truly surprised by this news, outside of a few dead-end Obama voters? There’s no way Congress was going to be part of the “train wreck” it inflicted upon the rest of America, to borrow retiring Democrat senator (and ObamaCare author) Max Baucus’ memorable phrase. The most urgent item on the American agenda is the full repeal of ObamaCare, but the political class is more interested in repealing it for themselves, as reported by Politico:

Congressional leaders in both parties are engaged in high-level, confidential talks about exempting lawmakers and Capitol Hill aides from the insurance exchanges they are mandated to join as part of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, sources in both parties said.

The talks — which involve Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), the Obama administration and other top lawmakers — are extraordinarily sensitive, with both sides acutely aware of the potential for political fallout from giving carve-outs from the hugely controversial law to 535 lawmakers and thousands of their aides. Discussions have stretched out for months, sources said.

As has been suggested here before, perhaps it really is time a bill was passed to start stringing these Capital Hill sleazeballs up from the lampposts! Unlike their predecessors of yore, these filthy creatures don’t give a damn about the country they have been elected to serve, not at all; These corrupt lowlifes are only in it for themselves, and to hell with we, the people.

The whole story is here.

After all, if those fat, lazy, complacent politicians on the Hill weren’t so anxious to get in their usual slothful weekend, we wouldn’t be seeing this

The Senate has reached a deal that will allow a vote on a measure to keep the government funded and possibly prevent a weekend of work on the budget.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announced the deal on amendments to the government-funding measure on Wednesday afternoon, ending a stalemate in the Senate that had thrown off the upper chamber’s schedule.

Votes on several amendments will start at 2:15 p.m. Wednesday, and the Senate is expected to approve the funding measure that afternoon. The Senate will then immediately begin considering the Senate Democratic budget.
A “vote-a-rama” featuring dozens of amendments is expected on the budget, meaning delaying a final vote on the funding measure could have left the Senate scheduled to vote on the budget Saturday or even Sunday. The Senate is scheduled to begin a recess after it concludes work on Friday.

The deal announced Wednesday doesn’t eliminate the possibility of weekend votes, but it does make it more likely that the Senate could complete work on the budget sometime on Friday. The Senate had been set to vote on the funding measure as late as Thursday afternoon. With the deal, a final vote will occur Wednesday afternoon.

Let ‘em start doing what we pay them to do…

When I first arrived in America, politicians here were still considered (mostly) moral role models. They were, after all, men and women elected as much for their perceived charactar as for their politics, because back then there was still a morality based outlook here in the United States. That is, sexual deviations of one kind and another were still considered just that… deviations.

Now, they are considerd to be “the norm”; The Boy Scouts of America are on the verge of allowing homosexual scout leaders (thank you, Democrats), same sex marriage is being legalized in various states (hat tip, Democrats), a recent president’s extramarital oral sexcapades were seen as “no problem” by his voting constituency (Democrats, go figure), a (Democrat) governor of New York, who had previously feathered his political cap by crusading against organized prostitution as state attorney general turned out to have his own preferred client status, complete with code number, among the same prostitute community and now we have apparently strong allegations that yet another Democrat has his finger in the forbidden fruit pie.

In a little-noticed email published online Wednesday by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a young Dominican woman wrote nine months ago that she slept with 59-year-old New Jersey Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez at a series of sex parties organized by Dr. Salomon Melgen, a longtime Menendez campaign donor.

“That senator also likes the youngest and newest girls,” the woman wrote on April 21, 2002, according to an English translation provided to The Daily Caller by a native Spanish speaker.

No wonder all the immoral legislation comes from the left side of the aisle; That’s where all the smut happens. Today’sDemocratic Party is a veritable anything goes orgy, and they legislate accordingly, not only to protect and legally justify their own illicit interests, but to attract the votes of their kindred spirits, pedophiles, homosexuals, bestiality afficionados, who knows what all else…

TheDC is not disclosing the woman’s name because she may have been a minor when her alleged sexual encounters with Menendez occurred. Four different Spanish speakers who reviewed TheDC’s translation of her letter all said her Spanish writing indicated someone who was very young and unsophisticated.

CREW chose to publish her name, despite her concerns for her safety. (RELATED: Emails show FBI investigating Sen. Bob Menendez for sleeping with underage Dominican prostitutes)

“I do not want to have problems with those people,” she wrote, adding that she believed “I can trust you, that you will help us, and that nothing bad will happen to the other young girls, to me, or to my family.”

“The thing that worries me the most is that if they know that I spoke with someone they will find me,” she added.

The young woman wrote that she was recruited as an escort from an adult escort service called the Doll Palace, and that the code word “chocolate” would summon her and other girls to Melgen’s sex parties. She offered specific recollections of Melgen’s preferred pimp, the homes where she slept with his house guests for money, and the phone number her calls would come from.

Want to go to a steamy sex party? Just call your local Democrat politician….

What a shameful path we in America have embarked upon, when we (at least, those who vote consistently, without reservation, for politicians of one of our two main political parties) disregard the moral fiber of those we elect to represent us in our local, state and federal governments…

John Stossel certainly gets it, it’s too bad all those career politicians we keep reelecting to govern the country are clueless.

We spend too much time waiting for orders — and money — from Washington.

The collapse of the housing bubble gave politicians a license to do what they wanted to do all along: spend. The usual checks on extravagance, weak as they are, were washed away. Budgets? We’ll worry about that later. Inflation? We’ll worry about that later.

As I point out in my brand new book, “No, We Can’t: Why Government Fails — and Individuals Succeed,”
a true free market doesn’t require much. It’s not like an orchestra in need of a conductor. What it needs is property rights, so no one can take your stuff. Then people trade property to their mutual advantage. Resources move around without the need for a central, coercive government telling people which resources should go where — or telling them that they must get permission to do what they think is advantageous.

Italics mine.

Superbly put, and exactly what America’s founding fathers would have said.

This formula brought a new nation, in less than two centuries, to the forefront of the world in terms of inventiveness, riches and power.

You got something good, you stick with it, right?

Unfortunately, our politicians can’t seem to grasp this concept, so they’ve gone a different route.

You have to wonder if one day, enough of them will wake up and return us to what works.

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m not going to hold my breath waiting…

…What have we here?

On November 8, 2006, Nancy Pelosi, on the precipice of becoming the third most important public official in our government, uttered the now infamous words that will prove to define her tenure as Speaker of the House:

“The American people voted to restore integrity and honesty in Washington, D.C., and the Democrats intend to lead the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history…”

When you read that today knowing what’s happened in the last three years, you might not know whether to laugh or feel appalled. You have your garden variety scandals at the hands of Eric Massa, Charlie Rangel & Maxine Waters, but what’s more, the complete disregard for the voters’ voices by the very people who promised to lead an honest and transparent Congress: Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Congressional Democrats’ actions have been devastating to our economy, healthcare, and most important, the civil discourse in the United States. You thought you couldn’t take anymore head-scratching, face-palming comments from the very people whose salaries you pay? You are sadly mistaken.

Read on.

Meanwhile, Rep. John Shadegg is once again trying to persuade his fellow representatives to do the right thing.

A Republican congressman says all bills introduced in Congress should include a statement setting forth the specific constitutional authority under which a law is being enacted.

Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.) says his Enumerated Powers Act will force Congress to re-examine the role of the national government and curb its “ever-expanding reach.”

“For too long, the federal government has operated without Constitutional restraint, creating ineffective and costly programs and massive deficits year after year,” Shadegg writes on AmericaSpeakingOut, a Republican Web site that seeks ideas from the American people.

Shadegg says the trend of Congress overstepping its role has gotten “alarmingly worse” in the past 18 months.

As CNSNews.com has reported, some lawmakers apparently do not consider the Constitution in writing legislation.

In the debate over health care, for example, CNSNews.com asked various members of Congress — including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — “Where does the Constitution authorize Congress to force individuals buy health insurance?”

Pelosi’s response — “Are you serious? Are you serious?” — was one of many nonplussed answers CNSNews.com received.

Indeed, who would expect today’s Democrats, especially under the perverse, corrupt and treasonous leadership of Komrade Pelosi, to even consider applying the appropriate Constitutional authority to any bill? If the party presently holding the majority in Congress were held to Constitutional requirements, all we’d hear from that side of the aisle would be crickets chirping.

The question is, when the GOP regains its majority or at least wins enough seats for more even voting power this November, will they be willing to adopt Shadegg’s proposal as a requisite to voting on all bills in Congress?

It was their lackluster performance that lost them the majority in the 2006 elections, so…

Time, as they say, will tell. Time, however, is something our beloved republic, as we know it, seems to have developed a paucity of.

Liberals always accuse conservatives of “playing politics” when we point out the unconstitutionality of so much of their legislation.

Does this mean that if John Q. Citizen breaks the law and a cop arrests him for it, he can accuse the cop of “playing politics”?

Same difference.

The more I read, see and hear about the way things are going in our society, the greater my belief that the worst blight on the face of America, I mean, the most puss-filled, festering sore, is our politicians.

Worse than the slimy, ever-hungry union bosses, worse than liberal trial lawyers, worse than crack heads who mug eighty year old ladies for their egg money, worse than the smelliest substance at the bottom of a septic tank.

These parasites, who, if they had any consciences at all, would serve one term in office and then call it a day, going back to the private sector and earning honest livings.

Instead, they choose politics as a career path — and most of these, what was that phrase Seth likes to use — toilet cakes are no more qualified to decide on what’s best for the country or to lead the nation than the above mentioned crack addict or, for that matter, the smelly substance at the bottom of said septic tank.

They virtually steal, as in embezzle, rob, pickpocket, whatever, our hard earned tax dollars and throw them at whatever earmark has arisen that will help one of their colleagues get reelected, basically using the lucre they take from us to campaign for their friends.

When they’ve exhausted our money, they raise taxes on luxury and other items, raise property taxes, increase fines and other penalties and borrow money via bonds and other instruments upon which we, the taxpayers, will eventually have to pay not only the principal, but interest as well.

AND… they “borrow” money from escrow accounts whose purpose is to pay pensions and other obligated monies.

And they break us. That’s right, US. That tax money is still OUR money, even though it is in what is supposed to be the politicians’ “safekeeping”, until such times as some needs to be spent “prudently” in the interests of ALL the taxpayers.

But that’s not happening, because these slugs we continue to reelect continue to leech away at our tax dollars.

Meanwhile, they also vote themselves first class benefits, perks and retirement pensions.

Having vented, let me proceed.

From the Daily Worker Oops. Pravda Waitaminnit, I mean The New York Times:

Many states are acknowledging this year that they have promised pensions they cannot afford and are cutting once-sacrosanct benefits, to appease taxpayers and attack budget deficits.

Illinois raised its retirement age to 67, the highest of any state, and capped public pensions at $106,800 a year. Arizona, New York, Missouri and Mississippi will make people work more years to earn pensions. Virginia is requiring employees to pay into the state pension fund for the first time. New Jersey will not give anyone pension credit unless they work at least 32 hours a week.

“We can’t afford to deny reality or delay action any longer,” said Gov. Pat Quinn of Illinois, adding that his state’s pension cuts, enacted in March, will save some $300 million in the first year alone.

But there is a catch: Nearly all of the cuts so far apply only to workers not yet hired. Though heralded as breakthrough reforms by state officials, the cuts phase in so slowly they are unlikely to save the weakest funds and keep them from running out of money.

Some new rules may even hasten the demise of the funds they were meant to protect.

Lawmakers wanted to avoid legal battles or fights with unions, whose members can be influential voters. So they are allowing most public workers across the country to keep building up their pensions at the same rate as ever. The tens of thousands of workers now on Illinois’s payrolls, for instance, will still get to retire at 60 — and some will as young as 55.

When the politicians start cutting like that, even though they’re mostly cutting the pensions of future employees, it means they’ve already overspent to the point that they don’t really have what they need to keep their current obligations.

It means they’re getting ready to begin spending money they don’t have, writing checks based on zero equity. The kind of thing these same politicians would put you and I in jail for.

One striking exception is Colorado, which has imposed cuts on its current workers, not just future hires, and even on people who have already retired. The retirees have sued to block the reduction.

Other states with shrinking funds and deep fiscal distress may be pushed in this direction and tempted to follow Colorado’s example in the coming years. Though most state officials believe they are legally bound to shield current workers from pension cuts, a Colorado victory could embolden them to be more aggressive.

Colorado pruned a 3.5 percent annual pension increase to 2 percent, concluding that was the fastest way to revive its pension fund, which was projected to run out of money by 2029. The cut may sound small, but it produces big results because it goes into effect immediately. State plans vary widely, but many have other costly features, like subsidized early-retirement benefits, which could likewise be trimmed for existing workers.

Despite its pension reform, Illinois is still in deep trouble. That vaunted $300 million in immediate savings? The state produced it by giving itself credit now for the much smaller checks it will send retirees many years in the future — people who must first be hired and then, for full benefits, work until age 67.

By recognizing those far-off savings right away, Illinois is letting itself put less money into its pension fund now, starting with $300 million this year.

That saves the state money, but it also weakens the pension fund, actually a family of funds, raising the risk of a collapse long before the real savings start to materialize.

“We’re within a few years of having some of the pension funds run out of money,” said R. Eden Martin, president of the Commercial Club of Chicago, a business group that has been warning of a “financial implosion” for several years. “Funding for the schools is going to be cut radically. Funding for Medicaid. As these things all mount up, there’s going to be a lot of outrage.”

The rest is here.

But you see, while these politicians, and here I’m not singling out either party, stick it up the collective kazoo of all of us, they don’t concern themselves with what’s happening on the next guy’s watch or what’s going to happen in the course of the next two, three or ten generations. Oh, no, they’ll sweep whatever “inconveniences” come along under a rug for their successors to “deal with”.

These politicians are, to be blunt, criminals. They are guilty of grand larceny, among other things, and they are only there because a few million irresponsible, ignorant people elect them without first bothering to actually scrutinize them.

People will spend more time analyzing the Past Performances of a horse they’re considering wagering on to bet a few bucks than they will the Past Performances of a politician who may just screw up our entire society, economically and in every other way conceivable, as they now have.

How often do we see a body of politicians who have screwed the pooch vote to lower their own pay, health care or pensions accordingly?

“Crickets chirping”

Chuck here. It’s been awhile, most of which found me cruising the coast of Mexico in my 52 foot maritime home.

So, while Seth expounded upon the primaries yesterday, I want to get in a few things as well, along with some links and quotes from same.

Personally, I was pretty pleased to see that voters of both the Democrat and Republican persuasions registered their discontent with the job too many Obama/Pelosi sector and lackluster GOP incumbents have been doing. It’s time to get on these peoples’ backs, big time, and, since they insist on paying scant attention to the will of the people, forcing unwanted bills down our throats, force some righteous voter indignation down their gullets.

Larry Elder writes

The storyline goes like this: Recent elections find voters in an angry, “anti-incumbent” mood.

TIME magazine wrote: “This is how it goes in 2010 at the ballot box: old orders are upended, political lions become roadkill, chosen successors get left behind and the outsider, riding a wave of discontent, becomes the new front runner.”

The Associated Press wrote: “It’s an anti-Washington, anti-establishment year. And candidates with ties to either better beware. Any doubt about just how toxic the political environment is for congressional incumbents and candidates hand-picked by national Republican and Democratic leaders disappeared late Tuesday.”

No. Voters said: “It’s not the incumbents, stupid. It’s how they voted. It’s what they stand for.” No incumbent who voted against the Bush/Obama bank bailouts, the “stimulus” package, and ObamaCare lost his or her job.

Voters hate the bank bailouts. They hate the government takeover of car companies. They do not believe that the $800-billion stimulus package stimulated anything but bigger government. They reject ObamaCare and think it’s costly and likely to worsen healthcare. Incumbents who voted for these things now face the music.

There’s no way anyone can say that the American people aren’t exercising our right to express our discontent at the polls, that’s for damn sure!

Voters see this administration as a bunch of leftist, redistribute-the-wealth, we-know-better-how-to-spend-your-money-and-run-your-lives-and-manage-your-businesses, smug busybodies. They see an administration that raised the debt and deficit in a year and a half to European-like levels that threaten present and future prosperity. They see an administration that believes fighting global warming takes precedence over jobs and productivity.

Tax revenues have plummeted, while government continues to grow. Banks and other companies that made bad bets or failed to effectively compete are propped up through bailouts that encourage future risky behavior.

People have been out of work for long periods of time. Homeowners are paying on homes worth less than their mortgages. There is a lot of hurt and pain and fear in the streets.

Bring it on home, Larry!

We Are All Socialists Now,” said Newsweek in a cover story last year. “No,” say the voters. “We are not.”

From the Washington Times

With voters across the country embracing “outsiders” — from “tea party” candidate Rand Paul in Kentucky on the right to Pennsylvania Rep. Joe Sestak on the left — incumbents in both parties face a long, hot summer of trying to save their jobs.

From Sen. John McCain of Arizona to Rep. Charles B. Rangel of New York, high-profile lawmakers in both parties are girding to fend off the anti-establishment anger voters displayed in Tuesday’s hotly contested primaries.

The rest of this one here.

If only these bastions of self centered careerism would stop and think back to the days when politicians thought as much about the wellbeing of the American people as they now do about their precious careers, we’d be voting for, as Seth puts it, “The best candidate for the job, instead of the lesser of two or more evils”.

If only these tin-pot whores of politics would dredge up some distant memories of the Constitution and how it applies to the performance of their duties as elected representatives of the people.

If only We, the People could somehow be brought together to vote out all the trash that now profligates on Capital Hill and usher in a crop of politicians who’ll agree to pass an amendment limiting Congress to a single six year term, do away with that stupid retirement plan they voted for themselves sometime back and restrict themselves to the same health care plans they have imposed upon the rest of us.

Yeah, yeah, fat chance. I guess it takes the lowliest of whores to provide a pool for political candidates. Unfortunately, they’re the only ones we’ve got.

So we’ve gotta keep at ‘em, keep voting out the excrementally afflicted, first diluting the Democrat majority to the point that they no longer feel the need to “improve upon” the rules and regs established by the founding fathers, instead sticking by them, and force them under the weight of our each and every vote to do as We, their Employers tell them.

Last, argumentative and very not least, here’s Ann Coulter’s two cents on the subject of the primaries.

Chuck out.

We hear more and more about the pushing of the Value Added Tax by the kommies in our midst, who thing every working (or spending) American is a mere cash sponge to be wrung out without mercy in order to finance the ever-increasing monetary demands of a socialist country.

Recently, progressives have made noise about introducing a value-added tax (VAT) in the United States. The VAT is an indirect tax — that is, Americans wouldn’t pay the tax directly to government, but would pay it to businesses as part of the retail price of things we buy, and businesses would then remit the tax to Uncle Sam.

A VAT is set at a fixed rate — say, 10 or 15 percent — added to the price of a good at every step of production, with a deduction allowed for the amount of VAT paid during earlier stages of production. The more steps there are in transforming raw materials into complex consumer goods, the higher the resulting consumer price as a result of those multiple layers of taxation.

Many countries have VATs, including Canada, Mexico, and the European Union. One might say that a VAT is an emblem signifying that a country’s government consumes a large percentage of its GDP, for VATs seem to go hand-in-hand with big-budget nanny states.

The reason for this phenomenon is simple: Any government that seeks to be all things to all people, and therefore seeks to spend ubiquitously, must inevitably seek to tax ubiquitously. Such governments have insatiable appetites for revenue. Because VATs are cash cows, diverting huge sums of money from consumers to government, they are favorites of big-spending governments.

Unfortunately, though, VATs have significant negative economic consequences.

Because they inflate consumer prices, quantities demanded fall. Most often, the marginal buyers who can no longer afford to pay the higher price are poorer citizens. When government policy raises
prices, the first victims are poor people.

The second victims of a VAT are the workers who will lose their jobs as a result of falling demand for the newly higher-priced goods.

Many affluent Americans may not curtail their consumption, but because more of their money is diverted to the government treasury, their savings must correspondingly decline. This results in decreased capital accumulation, which, in turn, slows business expansion, development, and formation. It also slows the growth rate of labor productivity, hence retarding economic progress for workers.

Read on.

These leftists, who have no respect for the Constitution nor for the intentions of our founding fathers, and who certainly despise the very principles that define the United States of America, would love to watch our nation come apart, sinking into an abyss of socialism…

…and as a bit of lagniappe, let’s finish with an excellent and unrelated column by Wesley Pruden.

Yesterday being Veterans Day, I opted to let this one go until today, as it was a day for lounging around aboard my boat with a few other ‘Nam vets, imbibing heavily, reminiscing and both praying for our brethren who are at war today and honoring those we served with who never made it home.

************

John Stossel wrote a column, published yesterday, that I think summed everything up in simple, to the point, “no muss, no fuss” manner where the government’s health care bill, fresh from the leftists in the House of representatives (representative of who is anybody’s guess) is concerned.

As an American, I am embarrassed that the U.S. House of Representatives has 220 members who actually believe the government can successfully centrally plan the medical and insurance industries.

I’m embarrassed that my representatives think that government can subsidize the consumption of medical care without increasing the budget deficit or interfering with free choice.

It’s a triumph of mindless wishful thinking over logic and experience.

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

The 1,990-page bill is breathtaking in its bone-headed audacity. The notion that a small group of politicians can know enough to design something so complex and so personal is astounding. That they were advised by “experts” means nothing since no one is expert enough to do that. There are too many tradeoffs faced by unique individuals with infinitely varying needs.

Government cannot do simple things efficiently. The bureaucrats struggle to count votes correctly.

They give subsidized loans to “homeowners” who turn out to be 4-year-olds. Yet congressmen want government to manage our medicine and insurance.

And we once thought that the United States Government would always have adult leadership.

Read the rest here.

Who knows what’s next?

No, they really don’t, these members of the current majority festering in Congress. Anytime any opportunity arises where they have the chance to sabotage our economy, our freedom of speech or our security in the name of liberal quagmirism, they’re wide awake and on it with a vengeance.

The Senate rejected a move Thursday to block the Obama administration from using ordinary federal courts to prosecute those alleged to have plotted the Sept. 11 attacks.

On a 54-45 vote, the Senate tabled an amendment from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) that would have left military commissions as the only option for prosecuting Sept. 11 suspects.

All 40 Republicans supported the amendment, along with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and four Democrats: Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.)

Graham said the measure, offered as an amendment to the annual appropriations bill for the Commerce and Justice Departments, was needed to head off what he said were plans by the Obama administration to send Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others allegedly involved in the Sept. 11 plot to trials before civilian courts in the U.S.

Of course, we were expecting something like that, the left having discussed it for a long time, often with comparisons of the gulag and Nazi death camps when referring to the Camp Delta incarceration facility at Guantanamo Bay, the feeble argument that these Butchers For Allah are mere felons, not captured prisoners in a war between civilizations we did not start, but to now see that they’ve actually done it, well, is nevertheless disconcerting.

The more sensible among our leaders, mostly Republicans, were, rightly, completely for the bill.

“These people are not criminals. They’re warriors — and they need to be dealt with in a legal system that recognizes that,” Graham said. “Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, did not rob a liquor store.”

“The attacks of 9/11 were not a crime. They were a war crime,” Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said.

Some Democrats flatly disagreed, arguing that military trials could play into the Al Qaeda operatives’ claims that they are fighters in a holy war against America.

“They are criminals. They committed murder,” Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) said. “These are not holy warriors. They are criminals.”

Here, here!

Jim Webb, one of the few smart Democrats present:

“I have consistently argued that the appropriate venue for trying perpetrators of international terrorism who are in fact enemy combatants is a military tribunal,” Webb said. He said federal court procedures for turning over evidence to defense lawyers and for calling military and intelligence agency witnesses “could lead to the exposure of classified materials.”

My emphasis, there, and the man said a mouthful.

Regular court procedures would require the prosecution to produce evidence that might consist of disclosure of methods, means and personnel we can’t afford to have the enemy read about in the New York Times.

Then again, that precedent was already set back when the NYT was printing the details of Bush terrorist surveillance strategies, so I don’t suppose it would be anything new.

Webb also indicated he was concerned that a terror suspect sent to federal court could be released in the U.S. if he was found not guilty.

Fancy that!

The whole story is here.