No, that is a very healthy fear. If I were in charge of the DOJ at this moment, I would offer Mr. CHong $2-3 million right now, on the spot, to dry up and go away; all for exactly the reason you say.

Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on your perspective and opinion; that may not be the case. We shall see, and it will be fascinating on a great number of levels.

Well, as a bit of rare follow through: There were actually seven US Attorneys at issue in the Bush/Cheney firings. One of them was Paul Charlton here in Arizona. Let me assure you that not only was Paul a stand up guy, and wonderful US Attorney, in spite of being a Bush appointee, he has proved his mettle and worth ever since in private practice. Here is, but one of the many, examples of why I say so. Another example of how things can be done right, or are being done, that pale in comparison to the unfocused and hollow primal screams. Who we are is what we do, and what we care about. It must be more that hollow.

I apologize about the rant, but….

The courts are better than given credit for, but still imperfect and flawed….like society as a whole. But, ultimately, justice comes from a society engaged, outraged and demonstrably demanding of real justice. We live in one that is not sufficiently so, and populated by too many people that are quick with the long arm to criticize and pathetically short armed with the will to understand, find, and follow through with the mechanisms and cases to make it so. I am regrettably guilty of more than some of that as well.

Again, I don’t know, nor pretend to, all the answers. But if you want a demonstrative building block, for many purposes, but significantly thos of justice for Mr. Daniel Chong and a counterweight juxtaposition, that cannot be ignored, to the unaccountable results of the terrorism detainee cases, here it is. Crickets is NOT the appropriate treatment for Mr. Chong, nor the greater significance of his case. Hollowness of the moral fiber tree does not the strength of an individual nor country make. Here is what I have witnessed commenters both here and across the progressive internet yammering about for the last 8-10 years. Always “wooooo what has happened is going to kill the rule of law in our general society”. Well, folks, here it is. Was that true; and, if not, where are you to express outrage now? I wonder.

I cannot speak to that, it need not have been so. But I do not think it was a lack of law which explains why it is so, I think it is a lack of men (in the generic human sense). Which is also part of my cry in comment 6 above. Interestingly, this was a bit of a cross-post from Emptywheel and, I am shockingly saddened to say, there was basically the same exact yawning, sleeping reaction as here today. This actually simply stuns me. I do not get it.

If you want to go kill, or bring to justice, the kings, you have to be able to work and lay the ground. The Chong case could be a once in a lifetime juxtaposition invaluable in laying such a foundation. Yet, somehow, there is not only no action, but no interest. I am saddened beyond belief.

Hmmm, I had not envisioned it that way, but I certainly would not be opposed to such. I would love to see that. By the same, if flip side, of the same token, we have a LOT of laws that cover our ills; the problem is they are not enforced and appropriately implied. We suffer not so much from a lack of law, but a lack of will to honestly enforce it. But, you know, I would, and will, take whatever helps.

You know, it is bizarre how, when something goes right, and is a PERFECT example of the good portions of what remains of the rule of law and American justice system that, save for the local you not, it loses the interest of the sturm and drang gang of supposed internet justice. I honestly do not get that.

We talk so much about that which is unconscionable and “against the ethos and founding principles” etc. But, here, with Daniel Chong, is a case and example that is literally perfect for being used, both as a symbol and a dagger, to attack the evil heart of that which we have all been supposedly railing against foy years, actually a decade, now.

And, yet, there are you and I – here – discussing it. Where are the usual agents of outrage?

Yes, I know the case. I have dealt with Barry Scheck (Michael Morton’s lawyer for this exoneration) in the past, he is one hell of a man. Seriously awesome. The story of Michael Morton, DA turned powerful judge Ken Anderson, etc. is a life lesson for both what is wrong – and that which is right – with the American Justice system.

Well, since there are no comments so far, let me open up:

What Daniel Chong went through is unimaginable. Seriously, this is pretty notable in the scheme of things. A lot of us, very much me included, have been shocked and disillusioned since 911 with how the has been no accountability for the torture occasioned by the Bush/Cheney regime. I have personally watched so much of that in the intervening time, much of it here at FDL. That is, in part, how I came to be here.

But there needs to be more than just lashing out rhetorically, there needs to be examples and true commitment to pointing out where there are similarities in real life – apart from the “battlefield” and a concurrent commitment to hammer immoral and unconscionable behavior there too, and not just where it fits personal political goals of not being Bush and/or Cheney. This is one of those cases. It not only deserves attention, discussion and comment, but wielding as a sword against the juxtaposed efforts to hide the national security/terrorism instances of similar physical treatment.

In short this can be a learning case, and an effective sword, for those that harbor more than the pained cry of temporary rhetoric.

Yes, she pretty much did have to write the opinion, it would have been a direct assignment by the Chief Justice. And why not write it, was legally the right opinion.

And referring to Justice Sotomayor as a whore is somewhere the far side of childish, asinine and ignorant. Nice.

Right. I loathe the status of US law in this area, but here SCOTUS made the decision they were compelled to make. That is exactly why it was unanimous. I am certain Sonya Sotomayor wishes it were different, but it is not.

Sotomayor is quite correct, the actual wording TVPA (not to mention its clear legislative history) demands this ruling. Ire directed at the Supreme Court’s proper decision based upon seminal and black letter historical statutory interpretation, is silly. The fault lies with Congress, as the legislative history quite clearly evidences. Not to mention that the many exceptions the US has always formally asserted to the CAT take us well out of the purview disingenuously applied by international commentators.

I do not like it any better than anyone here has expressed, but that is the truth and should be acknowledged.

The Soltz Think Progress article is effectively ignorant of the real nature of the pertinent Florida law on homicide, use of force and justification. Heck it was pretty cherry picked from Iraq as well, from what I can discern. It makes a great bleating shout of a claim without much real honesty or factual depth and accuracy.

Well, I give then on the substantive questions

Kentucky or Louisville?

External or internal political agenda?

External: Possibilities include instillation of fear, agenda control, financial reward, policy movement

Internal: Consolidation of entities into desired form within the Executive Branch, causus belli for at least one war, expansion of Title 18 and Title 50 powers, implementation of surveillance and collection modalities outside of any legal justification, cowering of the US Congress into authorizing future conduct as well as ratifying, immunizing and indemnifying past conduct.

There are MANY more entries, and I affirmatively assert these all constitute “political” purposes.

The scope of the book is limited to intelligence operations against real and imagined enemies classified as terrorists, communists, anarchists. The anthrax case was a lone-wolf nut, without a political agenda.

With all due respect, I am somewhat stunned by this answer.

1) Amerithrax has been repeatedly claimed to be the single largest “investigation” in the Bureau’s history, and from what I can discern, that is both as to scope and expense.

2) It involved weapons grade finely refined spores; it is truly the only commonly defined (at least since 9/11, “weapon of mass destruction unleashed within the continental US

3) The prime targets included high ranking United States Senators and press modalities. It is the perfect epitome of both “terrorism” and “political”

4) There are so many holes in the nearly insipid “Supervisor, then Hatfill then Ivins” lone gunman theory that you could drive a field of NASCAR racers through it.

5) Affidavits in the Florida Stevens litigation establish convincing doubt that the material could have been refined by Ivins as alleged.

Despite all these, you see the case as outside the purview of “The History Of The FBI”????

Can you explain that a little further?

Tim, Obviously there has been a lot of evolution over the years, but can you describe for us how FBI operations, whether on their own, or in conjunction with other agencies/entities, has changed in regards to Mexico over the last decade or so?

Yes, whither Amerithrax??