Assassination of Americans by Americans for Americans

Glenn Greenwald has a looooong post over at Salon.com today discussing recent disclosures that the U.S. intelligence community has been targeting American citizens for assassination. In the ongoing War on Terror (there's a new, less menacing term for our crusade, but I don't remember what it is) the Executive has commandeered the prerogative to designate certain American citizens as terrorists, making them fair game in the assassination campaign. Obviously there are serious questions about the legality of this program, as it essentially deprives American citizens of scads of Constitutionally-guaranteed protections. Equally troubling is the absence of oversight. According to government officials, before an American citizen can be deemed fair game for assassination, special permission must be granted. Swell, right? Not exactly. That special permission comes from within the Executive branch of government, either from the president or from someone working for the president. Keep in mind that the entire program was designed and has been executed by the Executive. So, to recap, before engaging in the assassination of American citizens (deemed terrorists, as defined by the Executive), the Executive must get special permission from the Executive. Sounds like a flawless system.

New Approach to Punishing Child Porn Possessors

The New York Times has an article today detailing a novel approach to dealing with individuals convicted of possessing child pornography. Lawyer James Marsh represents "Amy," a woman who was abused by an uncle who documented and posted his crimes to the internet. The series of photos and videos are popular and are often found in the personal collection of individuals accused of possessing child pornography. Mr. Marsh devised a method for Amy to secure restitution for her suffering, demanding payment from any individual who is found to have the images in his possession. Under a theory of joint and several liability, Mr. Marsh claims that every guilty party should be ordered to pay the full amount of the restitution ($3.4 million) and then be permitted to sue co-defendants for their respective share of the total. The approach has provoked mixed responses from the legal community.