To be honest, Obama, you lost me when you voted for the PATRIOT Act reauthorization in 2006. You lost me again when you voted for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) amendment in 2008. And you lost me every single time you voted for yet more war funding.

Don't even get me started on your vote for the $700 billion Wall Street bailout.

I cast a ballot for you in November, but I just can't share in this moment of collective euphoria over your election.

So, if your transition team really wants feedback on "where President-Elect Obama should lead this country," here's a Top Five list:

Apparently very few journalists and bloggers (BarbinMD) have clicked the links to the English original and Arabic-to-English re-translation, because they keep calling the agreement a "Status of Forces Agreement" or (even less accurately) a "security agreement."

If they clicked the links they would discover the original English title is:

Judge Patricia Wald, former chief judge for the D.C. Court of Appeals and jurist on the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, writing in the new report "Guantánamo and Its Aftermath" (pdf):

Natalie Sherman caught an interesting fact about Eric Holder, who is rumored to be Obama's choice for Attorney General:

As The American Lawyer wrote in a profile this year, Holder was independent enough that he advised then-AG Janet Reno to allow the widening of Ken Starr's investigation into the Monica Lewinsky affair -- which ultimately led to Clinton's impeachment.

If Holder supported an independent counsel investigation of consensual adult sex, how could oppose one for the crimes of the Bush Administration - including torture and warrantless wiretapping?

Especially since Holder said this in June:

Chris Matthews promises to name a potential pardon recipient every day until Bush leaves offices. Pardonee #1? Jack Abramoff.

The Corporate Media has barely noticed the biggest foreign policy story of the year: Bush's surrender to Iraqi demands for a date certain for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. (Sorry John McCain, this agreement is not "conditions-based." Sorry Dana Perino, there is no "time horizon.")

In the binary world of conservative ideology, there can only be one winner and one loser. In this case, Iraq won and the U.S. lost.

With a new day dawning in Washington, D.C., due to the election of Barack Obama as the first black president in American history who looks determined to govern like Lincoln and make changes in that corrupt town, is it possible that Bush administration officials will totally escape the long arm of justice for their roles in high crimes and misdemeanors more damaging than any corruption in our history?

Yesterday the Bush-Maliki agreement went before the House Foreign Affairs Committee's subcommittee on international organizations, human rights, and oversight, chaired by Jim McGovern.

There was only one small problem: did the committee actually have a copy of the agreement?

Delahunt also berated the Bush administration for refusing to release an official copy of the agreement to the public.

Perhaps they had a classified version. We got our copy from the Iraq Oil Report.

McGovern seems to be the only Member of Congress familiar with the Constitution, which requires Senate approval of all treaties. He wants to know: is the Bush-Maliki agreement a treaty or not? The Boston Globe reports,

By Dave Lindorff

The ongoing and deepening global economic crisis, to which Barack
Obama owes his presidential election victory, is no small thing, to be
sure. It also presents us on the left with a lot of openings to press
for progressive change.

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) wrote a good article for Salon about Bush's expected pardons:

An unpardonable use of power

If President Bush cares about his place in history, he should think twice before issuing pardons that call his judgment, and the integrity of the rule of law, into question.

Feingold acknowledges the problem - Bush's pardon power is broad:

The power of the pardon is close to absolute.  Short of interfering with their own impeachment, presidents can pardon whomever they choose. 

Then please read the indictment of Dick Cheney posted here:
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/37794

He is charged with influencing ICE to contract with for-profit prison corporations in which he himself has millions invested, and with assaults on inmates and detainees. Alberto Gonzales is charged with blocking investigations of those assaults.

Arraignment is Friday.

An unpardonable use of power
If President Bush cares about his place in history, he should think twice before issuing pardons that call his judgment, and the integrity of the rule of law, into question.
By Sen. Russ Feingold
READ AT SALON.

Unlike other progressive bloggers, I wasn't the least bit surprised when Senate Democrats let Joe Lieberman keep his Homeland Security chair. Why? Because the last eight years of blogging have painfully taught me that all Senate Democrats are worthless. (My only real surprise was that 13 Democratic "mavericks" voted against Joltin' Joe.)

I first learned this lesson on January 6, 2001, when the Senate and House met in joint session to count the Electoral College votes from the 2000 election. Democrats.com worked closely with the Congressional Black Caucus, led by Rep. Alcee Hastings of Florida, to challenge Florida's 25 electors as illegitimate because 175,000 votes were never counted due to the Felonious Five on the Supreme Court.

The event was made famous by Michael Moore in Fahrenheit 911. Hastings filed his legal challenge as planned. But under the law, he had to be joined by one - just one - Senator. And despite our heroic efforts, not a single Democratic Senator was willing to join the Congressional Black Caucus in their challenge. CBC Members rose in turn to second Hastings' motion, but they were all ruled out of order by outgoing Vice President Al Gore because no Democratic Senator would co-sponsor.

Our friend Nicole Sandler is filling in on Air America all this week while some of the regulars go on a cruise. Be sure to let Air America know if you like what you hear. Nicole is on tonight 6-9 pm ET, Thursday 7-9, Friday 8-9, and I will be on with her on Thursday in the 7-8 hour to talk about pardons and prosecutions. Tune in!

And I'm on The Urban Journal today discussing Cheney's indictment. Take a listen.

By David Swanson

Former judge Andrew Napolitano appeared on Fox News to claim falsely that a president can pardon himself but to assert, interestingly, that a president cannot issue blanket pardons, that each person pardoned has to be named. This would seem to go against precedent. President Carter pardoned Vietnam war resisters, but his pardon referred to indictments and investigations, etc., each of which -- Napolitano argues -- would have named someone. Here's the video. But what about Lincoln's and Johnson's blanket pardons of confederates? And President Washington's blanket pardon after whiskey rebellion? What about the possibility that there might be an appropriate and legitimate use of blanket pardons in the future?

Here's another take on this: