Last October, TalkLeft called attention to Ronald Taylor, one of the innocent victims of the Houston Police Department's faulty lab work. After serving 12 years for a rape he didn't commit, a judge released him on the strength of new DNA evidence. That happened eight months ago. Since then:

He moved to Atlanta in October and reunited with the woman who patiently had waited for him. In December, they married. ... Taylor secured a job with an Atlanta restaurateur. But this spring, he left it and borrowed thousands for equipment to start his own business. He knew it was risky but said he was determined.

TAylor started his own lawn care business. Even better, he's been given a full pardon and he's been offered $700,000 to settle his claim against the state. He's thinking about it.

This is a stunning abuse of power.

According to the alleged victim's mom, the 19-year-old woman called [Scottsdale] police Sunday morning about intruders in her apartment complex. The mom claims one of the officers, who came to investigate, ordered the teen to get naked. Afraid and confused, she complied with the strip-search.

Officer Chong Kim resigned after the department commenced an investigation.

The FBI may look into whether Officer Kim infringed on the teen's civil rights under color of law.

May look into? [more ...]

Philosophy from a police officer who watched Celtics fans celebrate Boston's NBA Championship yesterday:

Disorderly, drunken “celebrations” in the middle of public streets - otherwise known as riots - are not good times to have discussions of civil rights or the First Amendment with the police officer holding a large stick.

That's particularly true when the stick-wielding officer views drunken revelry as a riot.

As I posted below, Barack Obama said:

I will work in the Senate to remove this [telecom immunity] provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses...

"Work" MUST include leading a filibuster of the Steny Surrender bill. I am saying that a vow to remove this provision includes a vow to filibuster the Steny Surrender bill. He made that very vow in April. I am holding him to it.

If he breaks that vow, it will be more evidence that Obama is not a man of his word. Most pols are not. But I will certainly rip him if he backs down on protecting the Constitution. Let's see what he does.

Speaking for me only

..."Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance – making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses....

Entire statement below the fold.

Via TPMCafe:

[A] reporter asked specifically about Obama's position. "I better check on that. . . ," [Robert] Gibbs said. "I honestly -- that's what I need to work on, as well." It certainly is striking that Obama is now the leader of the Democratic Party, but he has yet to say anything on such a crucial public issue. Obama has in the past opposed lawsuit immunity for the telecom companies that participated in warrantless wiretapping, but neither he nor his campaign have commented on his position for the latest bill.

(Emphasis supplied.) I smell a "present" vote coming.

Speaking for me only

It's just one poll, but Obama's silence on the FISA capitulation bothers me, so I am posting about it. In any event, at least in terms of national polling, no poll has Obama ahead by more than 5 and leading by less than 2. It's a close race according to these polls.

By Big Tent Democrat

Caroline Frederickson of the ACLU:

It’s Christmas morning at the White House thanks to this vote. The House just wrapped up some expensive gifts for the administration and their buddies at the phone companies. Watching the House fall to scare tactics and political maneuvering is especially infuriating given the way it stood up to pressure from the president on this same issue just months ago. In March we thought the House leadership had finally grown a backbone by rejecting the Senate’s FISA bill. Now we know they will not stand up for the Constitution. [MORE]

Via Greenwald:

Not even the media establishment and the GOP can refrain from mocking this pretense they're trying to peddle. What's amazing is that they're actually as devoid of dignity as they are integrity.

. . . [T]he GOP couldn't even wait for the ink to dry on this "compromise" before publicly -- and accurately -- boasting that they not only got everything they want, but got even more than they dreamed they would get. To The New York Times' Eric Lichtblau, GOP House Whip Roy Blunt derided the telecom amnesty provision as nothing more than a "formality" which would inevitably lead to the immediate and automatic dismissal of all lawsuits against the telecoms, while Sen. Kit Bond taunted the Democrats for giving away even more than they had to in order to get a deal: "I think the White House got a better deal than they even had hoped to get."

(Emphasis supplied.) Everyone, Dem or Republican, is contemptuous of you Surrender Steny and Clueless Pelosi. You look like the weak dupes you have become.

Speakng for me only.

Former Press Secretary Scott McClellan testified today before the House Judiciary Committee about the Valerie Plame leaks investigation.

He said former White House Chief of Staff Andy Card told him that the president and vice president wanted him to publicly say that Libby was not involved in the leak.

''I was reluctant to do it,'' McClellan told the Democratic-led panel. ''I got on the phone with Scooter Libby and asked him point-blank, 'Were you involved in this in any way?' And he assured me in unequivocal terms that he was not.''

As to Cheney:

McClellan said he does not believe Bush knew about or caused the leak. When asked about Cheney, he replied: ''I do not know. There's a lot of suspicion there.''

Have you ever traveled with the fear that you might lose your ID and will be unable to board your return flight? It turns out that the highly classified, super-secret TSA rules actually permit you to get on the plane without an ID, as long as you submit to additional screening (and provided you find a TSA employee who actually knows what the super-secret rules say).

That remarkably reasonable policy is changing.

Beginning Saturday, June 21, travelers ... who "willfully refuse" to show IDs won't be allowed through checkpoints or onto planes. Only passengers who show IDs, and "cooperative" passengers who explain why their IDs are missing and help police confirm their identities, will get through.

The policy change invites abuse by giving TSA the discretion to decide (based on nothing more than a whim, or worse, a prejudice) who is being "cooperative." It also further diminishes the right to travel. [more ...]