http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/firedoglake/113276432406584335/

===The allegations of how the memo came to be leaked focus on three
players, former Foreign Office official in the Cabinet, David Keogh,
former Labor MP for Northampton South, Tony Clarke, and Clarke's then
researcher Leo O'Connor.

It is alleged that Keogh, who has been charged under section 5 of the
Official Secrets Act, sent the memo to O'Connor sometime between
April 16 and May 28 of last year. O'Connor, also charged, then took
the document to his boss, Clarke, who dutifully handed it back to the
government.

O'Connor and Keogh were arrested in August of last year; the charges
have just recently been filed.According to sources familiar with the
case, it was the attack on Fallujah that had Bush concerned about
what al-Jazeera might report.

==Lucy Dalglish, the Executive Director of Reporters Committee for
Freedom of the Press points to the First Amendment, under which this
type of gag order would not be permissible in the US.

"[The gag against the Mirror] shows what a difference the First
Amendment can make," says Dalglish.

"You could not issue a prior restraint like that in the US unless
there was an urgent, immanent, actual threat to US national security.
First Amendment would absolutely apply here in this type of case,"
she added.

Bombings now Suspect

According to the Guardian, in reaction to the article in the Mirror,
the International Federation of Journalists is demanding complete
disclosure with regard to the death of 16 journalists and media
staff, including al-Jazeera cameraman Tarek Ayoub, who was killed
when the station's Baghdad office was hit during a US air strike in
April of 2003.

All media outlets had to provide the US military with their locations
in Baghdad and neighboring cities. Al-Jazeera provided the location
of its Baghdad office to Washington prior to the bombing on its
Baghdad office.

Raw Story-- sorry for the long post- but thought it might be worth
some discussion.

==The Padilla case has always struck me as Exhibit A in the case that
the Cheney /Bush/Ashcroft Administration was no-kiddin' the enemy of
the constitution and the rule of law. I'm a big fan of the Plame
case, and lord knows there so many things this admin has done that
one has to be naive to believe that they are not just incompetent but
evil. However, many of these issues are complex (the lying about the
case for war, Plame, Katrina) and most people don't have the time or
inclination to dig in too deep, and the he said/she said media makes
it hard to see what's truly going on.

But arresting a US citizen and holding him indefinitely, without
charges and without access to lawyers, and maintaining that no court
has jurisdiction because one man, the president, says he's a threat,
takes us back 600-700 years. I don't care how dirty or dangerous
Padilla is. How anyone can defend this policy? Investing one man with
this power is the most dangerous thing conceivable.

Why 95% of America is not outraged about this mystifies me.

==Is there some (likely nefarious) reason for holding this particular
individual, or was just selected arbitrarily for the purpose of
advancing the cause of executive power? In which case, this is just
too kafka-esque for words.

==the Padilla case has worried me for years: a natural-born US
citizen, arrested in the USA, carrying nothing lethal, is held
without charges 'indefinitely', solely on the say-so the Preznit. It
could happen to me -- it could happen to any of us.

===="But the big question in my mind at this point is whether or not
the Supreme Court will dismiss cert. in the Padilla case, on the
grounds that it is now moot."

Yes. That would be my bet. The entire Padilla tactic this week was
one of avoiding the core issue.BTW- I find it interesting how phrases
decay, e.g., "enemy combatant." The precise Bushian phrase was
originally "unlawful enemy combatant." An "enemy" fighting you in
a "war" is, by definition, a "combatant" -- and normally protected
once captured under the now "rendered quaint" Geneva Convention
strictures.

Bush has arrogated to himself and his designees the authority to
summarily declare ANYONE an "unlawful enemy combatant" beyond the
reach of both our Constitution AND Geneva (the "unlawful" part being
key). The details of the criteria for so designating someone are even
posited to be beyond any independent judicial review and confirmation.

Given that this "war" will NEVER end, it's a recipe for the worst
sort of dictatorship and gulag-ing. In the hands of an arrogant pr--k
like Bush and his even more mendacious handlers, it is an ncalculably
dangerous circumstance with respect to our moral standing in the
world, and the security of every one of us, long-term. This crap must
be countered in the most forceful and persistent manner.

Those of you with children and grandchildren, think about it
carefully. What moral legacy do you wish to bequeath them?

===The set out to make an example of Jose to other would-be domestic
terrorists and use the guilty-until-innocent spin....and then
(surprise!) it turns out the case looks hollow.

Another must read from Froomkin: The Trust is Gone. Boy, is it ever.
Fantastic summary of the great unraveling of the BushCo empire.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp...2301195_pf.html

And the al-Jazeera bomb story may have legs after the Brit AG
(Attorney General)threatens anyone releasing the memo....which makes
it sound like the memo wasn't just vapor.