Fingerprints and you

Mcjoan has a great post at Daily Kos today titled "Privacy, Bush Style." Which is, of course, none at all.

She writes about Secretary Chertoff's position on fingerprints as this relates to a guy in Kansas who was held by the FBI for two weeks on the supposition that he was linked to the Madrid bombing in 2004 by a fingerprint. Now the guy in question had not left the U. S. since 1994, but no matter. And the Spanish police were skeptical that the man's fingerprint matched the digital photo of the print from a bag in Madrid, but that wouldn't stop our FBI. When the Spanish police ID'd the Algerian whose prints were on the bag, the gentleman was finally released.

Ya gotta wonder what constitutes probable cause anymore because John Yoo has postulated that the Fourth Amendment 'has "no application to domestic military operations." We still don't know how the administration defines "domestic military operations" or whether the memo in which John Yoo declared the suspension of the Fourth Amendment is still operable. The current Attorney General refuses to answer those questions.'

What do you know about the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, its scope and applicability? [Hint: it is about limits on use of military power in domestic policing.]

We live in interesting times. Given all the domestic spying going on, it may be assumed we have all come to the attention of people in authority. The third legendary curse is that we may find what we are looking for. I suggest we think carefully about what we seek.

--the BB

An interesting discussion

Kagro X has an intriguing post about Bush's putative "pocket veto" and the finer points of contitutional law as elaborated on by the Legislative Counsel of the Republican Policy Committee back in 1990. You see, in those days Republicans in power seemed to care about the rule of law. Check it out here.

The memo in that case included these words:

CONCLUSION

The Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch have clashed repeatedly on veto policy during the past two decades. The President's actions on H.R. 2712 and the Congress' response are but the latest in a string of thrusts and parries. The President believes he exercised a 'pocket veto' and the bill is dead. The House has treated H.R. 2712 and its papers as though the President exercised a traditional 'return veto.' The Senate is preparing to concur in the House interpretation. There is another reading of the facts and the law, however. Under this alternative reading, H.R. 2712 became law on December 2, 1989 without the President's approval.

This is a follow-up to a topic addressed in previous posts at this site here and here.
--the BB