Prime Minister Tony Blair wants to end the rules that prohibit MI5 from spying against Members of Parliament.
I wonder if MPs will prove as unwilling to challenge an out of control leader as our Members of Congress have proven to be.
January 2006 Archives
King George Bush today declared that the leader of the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Senate Leader, and the Democratic Senate Whip are treasonous for criticizing his Iraq policies.
Yes, King George's aides say that His Royal Highness was referring to the three of them when he said that their criticism was bringing comfort of our enemies.
That is, of course, language ripped right out of the definition of treason given in Article III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution.
King George and his handlers are not exactly subtle.
Really, our government should explain how this happened. In full and without delay:
American troops in Baghdad yesterday blasted their way into the home of an Iraqi journalist working for the Guardian and Channel 4, firing bullets into the bedroom where he was sleeping with his wife and children.In the bedroom, by the way, were Dr. Fadhil's wife, three-year-old daughter, and seven-month-old son.Ali Fadhil, who two months ago won the Foreign Press Association young journalist of the year award, was hooded and taken for questioning. He was released hours later.
Dr Fadhil is working with Guardian Films on an investigation for Channel 4's Dispatches programme into claims that tens of millions of dollars worth of Iraqi funds held by the Americans and British have been misused or misappropriated.
The troops told Dr Fadhil that they were looking for an Iraqi insurgent and seized video tapes he had shot for the programme. These have not yet been returned.
Is this the Bush Administration plan for handling the Iraqi media and winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi population?
Dan Kennedy posts about an issue that has become an increasingly annoying pet peeve of mine: whether newspapers fact-check the letters to the editor they receive?
My local paper, the Contra Costa Times, prints several letters a week that have obvious errors of fact in them.
Everyone can have their opinion, and share that in our newspapers. But people should not be entitled to make up their own facts.
And newspapers should make sure that their letters to the editor section is not being used to spread falsehoods to their readership.
Here's another example of our run-amok Congress. CNET News's Declan McCullagh reports:
Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime.Unconstitutional favors, at that.It's no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity.
In other words, it's OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a blog as long as you do it under your real name. Thank Congress for small favors, I guess.
McCullagh provides an example showing why this measure is really a huge problem in a supposedly free society:
Think about it: A woman fired by a manager who demanded sexual favors wants to blog about it without divulging her full name. An aspiring pundit hopes to set up the next Suck.com. A frustrated citizen wants to send e-mail describing corruption in local government without worrying about reprisals.Not even a little.In each of those three cases, someone's probably going to be annoyed. That's enough to make the action a crime. (The Justice Department won't file charges in every case, of course, but trusting prosecutorial discretion is hardly reassuring.)
The president could order the Justice Department not to enforce this obviously unconstitutional law. If any Republicans out there still cared about limited government, they would lead the charge to see this law overturned.
(Hat tip: Atrios.)
