But, by his answer to this question, Fitzgerald suggests he did learn of efforts by Kjellander and Rove “during the CIA Leak investigation.” Now, I’m not convinced that means Fitzgerald learned of Kjellander’s efforts before he gave Rove the all-clear in June 2006–but it sure suggests that’s a possibility.

Are you suggesting that Fitz’s “all clear” for Rove was related to or maybe because of the possibility that Rove might get him fired – that Fitz was intimidated?

…certain types of cases would be tried, and that others would not be tried, because of political factors such as whether thay would capture the imagination of the American people, be sexy, or involve blood on the hands of the accused…

… – and the biggie, which is, without any requirements of notification to Congress such as exist with an outside special counsel, what is to prevent secret (pixie dustish) modifications of delegations for political purposes that remain obscured from outside scrutiny.

Wow. They might go that far, mightn’t they? Though I imagine ‘for political purposes’ could be couched as ‘for national security reasons’ instead. In fact, why not go whole-hog and make it secret on the recipient’s part like the librarian NSLs, i.e. Sorry Fitz, we cancelled part of your mandate… and you can’t tell anyone we did it, ever.

The Pentagon is dropping charges against a Saudi at Guantanamo who was supposed to have been the “20th hijacker” in the Sept. 11 attacks.

Mohammed al-Qahtani was one of six men facing murder charges before a U.S. military tribunal for the attacks.

But U.S. military defense lawyers confirmed to The Associated Press on Monday that a Pentagon official has finalized the charges only against the other five, including the alleged architect of the attacks.

No Harm No Foul?? So what will the benevolent Bush government do with him now, drug him up and drop him off in Siberia? We are evil.

Dammit Bmaz,
That has been the source of my anger. Why back off when your constitutional obligations dictate otherwise.

Me too. Tell me: If you’re a prosecutor, and a known bystander fails to intervene in an apparently illegal act when they might normally be expected to do so, what conclusion do you suspect?

If a pedestrian repeatedly passes by an alley where a mugging is going on, and does nothing about it, other than to complain later on in vague terms about the crime rate, what do you suspect?

The normal answers that come to my mind are
(a) cowardice,
(b) moral turpitude, or
(c) complicity

What else is there?

Bob in HI