This is, in a nutshell, besides the bedrock reasons of simple sanity, civil and human rights, of why we have the rule of law. Yes, real crooks do get off because the police don't follow the rules. Boo hoo. The larger, far more important picture, is doing things right, according to the rules.

That is, in a nutshell, why this post exists. The constitution and its limits on the capabilities to conduct searches and such aren't there to protect criminals. It's there to protect *us*. And when we weaken - or in the case of this administration, completely blow through the constitutional limitations like so much wet tissue paper - we put all of us at risk. Serious and very real risk.

Maybe Steve Plunk thinks the trade offs are worth it. But I seem to remember Ben Franklin saying: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

I happen to agree with this - doubly so for so called libertarians who, at least in theory, hold civil liberties of which Franklin refers in the highest regard. These scum deserve neither liberty or safety.

Strange how this weird strain of hyper authoritarian libertarians appeared after 9/11.

Bed wetters all.

Even the presiding judge was furious with the shameful behavior of the prosecution and personally apologized to Lee for his treatment.

I'll say something I don't often say about a Reagan-appointed jurist: In my opinion, Judge Parker is a flaming idiot.

If you examine my postings carefully, you will see that I never asserted that Lee was guilty of espionage. Because the investigation was bungled, we will never know. That's why he wasn't charged with espionage.

The charges were for egregious mishandling of classified material. Of that, there can be no doubt of his guilt. He pleaded guilty to a single count of mishandling classified material as part of a plea bargain. I don't see the civil liberty issue James originally alluded to.

I've seen the classified briefing on the computer forensics. So did a great many other people close to Lee, including supporters who are now former supporters. I'm told the court documents, which are publicly available in redacted form (classified information blacked out), actually give a pretty good picture of the computer forensics. And a damning one.

I have no idea why Judge Parker offered his bizarre apology. Well, that's not quite true; I've heard some speculation. But that really is hearsay. I do note that Judge Parker approved of a plea bargain making Lee a convicted felon. If Judge Parker didn't think Lee committed a felony, why did he approve the plea bargain? And if he did think Lee committed a felony, what was there to apologize for? It makes no sense. Hence, my verdict on the Judge's intelligence.

Perhaps, but considering the hysterics and the literal religious aspect to our response which prevents any serious discussion on the subject, one makes lemonade when given lemons.

Considering that 10x people die every year in traffic accidents, or that you stand a better chance of being eaten by a shark or killed by lightening than ever even being involved - much less hurt/maimed/killed - in a terrorist attack, it's stunning to see the effect a bunch of losers has had on our national psyche.

Bed wetting is an appropriate derogatory term which accurately describes the response so far. Adults, or at least adults in the true sense of the term rather than those who faint at the use of Galic words or resort to using the description of traitor for people who disagree with them.

It was the darling of the Democratic party FDR who was responsible for that shameful episode in our history.

No skin off my back for tarring FDR. I'm not, as they say, a big "party" guy. I started off my political life as a libertarian and when I grew up I turned liberal largely because of what I saw Regan (for whom I voted for, to my eternal shame) did to this country. But the democratic party identification hasn't really been a part of my identity, so feel free to slur them all you want - not going to worry me.

But back to the point, the issue here is police powers of the state and as you pointed out in your first comment, you've made the calculations which find extra constitutional abuses of the executive branch as acceptable. As history has shown, people who do so inevitably end up excusing/allowing far more than they originally bargained for because the consequences of their decision didn't immediately affect them.

This is not so much a right wing blog as a blog for sharing ideas.

Whatever.

Out of curiosity, are you the same Steve who replied on the thread regarding the McClatchy article? I've been assuming so, and that's colored my response to you. Perhaps that was in error.

Still, when you start off like you did with your comments, it's pretty clear that we're in two separate worlds and it's doubtful your going to see anything even remotely resembling the way I see it. I was nice - I didn't rise to your initial bizarro world comment. It's when you asked me to expand on it that I did.

Don't ask for what you don't want to hear.

I do expect we have different visions of reality.

It does cheapens your argument when you resort to terms such as "wet your bed". It's a public policy debate among adults, insults are petty.

I may live amongst the 28% crowd but with the Democratic congress at far lower level I feel pretty comfortable.

It would also elevate your argument not to do someone else's thinking. I would argue against internments for any American citizens. It was the darling of the Democratic party FDR who was responsible for that shameful episode in our history.

This is not so much a right wing blog as a blog for sharing ideas. I happen to believe in certain conservative and libertarian principals and argue in support of them. If people don't want to hear alternative points of view they don't have to stop by. When you do stop by it's nice to show some measure of tolerance.

He does not have the right to make laws from his bench! His job is to inforce the law not make laws.

Oh, so close and yet so far. It is not his job to make laws, nor is it his job to enforce the law. It is his job to rule on the law, which is exactly what he did in this case.

Just because you don't agree with a judge, doesn't make him an activist.

Judges Are Not to Legislate from The Bench! Anyone up for stopping these illegal actions?

Precisely.

I can imagine that Steve probably wouldn't have been too worked up about the Japanese internments either, figuring the trade offs were worth it.

I don't see this changing our lives in the long run. I don't see this as the first step toward jack booted thugs running the country. To be very honest I fear my city council, county government and state regulatory agencies more than I fear anti-terror operations of any sort.

That's because your name is Steve and not Ahmed or Hakeem.

Then there's the Failure to understand the difference is inexcusable. when I brought up the Clinton FBI imaginary scandal y'all were pushing during that time period.

You can wet your bed when you think of the terrorists - no sweat off my brow. But when you start worrying more about your local school board and city council more than abuse of authority and clear extra constitutional power grabs...

Well, there's not much to discuss between the two of us as you clearly live in the parallel reality which the 28% who approve of this president and think he's doing a bang up job live.

I agree, the waste of dollars going to small towns who invest in SWAT weaponry, surveillence cameras, and lord knows what to combat terror where it is very unlikely sickens me. It is clearly a mis-allocation of resources. These towns are addicted to anything free and congress is addicted to giving things away.

Hal,

Sorry, I don't get it. A full, reasoned response would be appreciated.

Michael,

I see your point and appreciate it. Like you imply, we'll agree like gentlemen to disagree.

The debate surrounding this is robust and reasonable on both sides. That is prima facia evidence of the law being just about where it should be. Blandly Urbane is certainly correct predicting some tweaking over time as the security requirements, outside threats, and domestic concerns will change over time.

You can say Lee was guilty until you're blue in the face, but in the end, if the government wasn't willing to go to court, it had no case.

DC Loser:

I'll repeat to you what I said to James: You haven't a clue.

I remind you that Lee did, in fact, plead guilty to mishandling classified information, which is a felony.

One reason he was not convicted of additional charges was that, to prove its case, the government would have had to present highly sensitive material in open court. The defense knew this and played it for all it was worth. I believe the term is "graymail."

There is historical precedent. Look at the history of the Chicago Tribune's leak of the fact that naval intelligence knew the Japanese were going to attack Midway. The persons responsible could not be prosecuted because it would only have called public attention to the leak and ensured the Japanese would notice the news story.

Another difficulty is that, while there is simply no question that Lee willfully mishandled classified material, the fate of this material, and his exact motivations for smuggling it out of the laboratory, remain unclear. The investigation was botched -- but not in the sense that Lee was an innocent man being railroaded.

I believe that robust litigation of these issues (with the "best and brightest" attorneys representing both sides) is necessary for preservation of our constitutional government.

Sixty five years ago, in the name of security, US Citizens who are my age were, as toddlers, taken from their homes in California with their families, forced to abandon their homes and property, and placed in concentration camps without due process of law. Mind you, these were not illegal immigrants; they were US Citizens.

The "decider" in this case was one of our more revered Presidents and a civil libertarian of note, FDR, who initiated the action by Executive Order on the grounds of military necessity.

Unlike European Jewry, these citizens were not killed, maimed or subjected to obscene medical experiments.

German Americans on the east coast (like my wife and her extended family) were not rounded up like the Japanese were, so race was definitely a factor in the decision of who to round up.

The Supreme Court in the Koramatsu case held that FDR's Order was a constitutional exercise of executive authority. Justice Black another prominent civil libertarian, wrote the opinion, and his civil libertarian colleague Justice Douglas agreed.

The point is that cases like this have a history of being difficult and it is hard to predict their outcomes with any certainty.

This is the kind of case where attorneys and judges earn their money.

It is where the proverbial rubber meets the road.

To be very honest I fear my city council, county government and state regulatory agencies more than I fear anti-terror operations of any sort.

Security is always a balancing act between what is most likely to happen, what will cause the most damage if it does happen, what is the cost to reasonably prevent it from happening.

For example, you are exceedingly unlikely to be struck by lightning, and yet when there is a thunderstorm you take shelter, stay away from tall objects, and don't use your umbrella. Why? Because the even though the chances of being struck are low, the amount of damage that it will cause is high, and the cost of avoidance is low.

Yes, your local city council may be more likely to negatively impact your life, but DHS can have a much more severe impact than your city council can, even if it's less likely. So really it comes down to the cost of avoiding it, which I think is where we will disagree.