At once, I can demand the best from humankind (government leaders included) while fully expecting the worst.  No statesman (or stateswoman) is likely to live up to the dreams of the idealist buried deep within me, but the cynic's low expectations protect that poor naive inner-me from disappointment.

Anyway, enough about my reaction, let's get to more meat of the Post story.  (Highlighting the European bit.... so yaz know why I'm posting this here....)

The Republican chairman of the House intelligence committee and other members of Congress have complained about not being briefed on classified surveillance programs and huge unprecedented databases used to monitor domestic and international phone calls, faxes, e-mails and bank transfers.

European governments and three international bodies are investigating secret prisons run by the CIA, and some countries have pledged not to allow the transport of terrorism suspects through their airports.

Six European allies have demanded that President Bush shut down the prison for terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, citing violations of international law and mistreatment of detainees.

And the Supreme Court recently issued a rebuke of the military commissions created by the administration to try detainees, declaring that they violated the Geneva Conventions and were never properly authorized by Congress.

Accustomed to having its way on matters related to the nation's security, the administration is being forced to respond to criticism that it once brushed aside. The high court ruling rejected the White House's assertion that the president has nearly unlimited executive powers during a time of war, and now executive branch lawyers are reviewing whether other rules adopted after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon will have to be revised, especially those concerning the Geneva Conventions.

Ahhh... would that it were true.  The administration can't have its wanton way with the Constitution and international law anymore, and is being forced to reign itself in.

Yes, those challenges from the courts, Congress and European allies are all very real, and yes, they (and mere morality) ought to be reigning the administration in.  But are they?  Really?  Truly?  Sadly, I think probably not.  I suspect BushCo is just plotting a new route around these unforseen obstacles.  Sure, they're being forced to consider criticisms that they brushed aside before, but only to find new justifications for their bad behavior.  I don't see them changing the behavior.

"The Bush doctrine of 'trust us' is being questioned by the courts, Congress and the country, which is insisting on changing and strengthening their involvement," said former congressman Timothy J. Roemer (D-Ind.), a member of the independent commission that studied the Sept. 11 attacks.

"We are not a parliament, and when we function like a parliament we're unfaithful to the process and our system of government," said Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), who will preside over the Iraq hearing. "We hurt our country and both branches of government. If we had been more forceful . . . Abu Ghraib would have never happened."

Well, yeah, it probably would have, but nice try.  And looking on the bright side, maybe it wouldn't have gone on so long.  But would Congress (and a Republican-run one at that) have held more senior officers accountable, or have been satisfied with the courts martial of a few low-ranking grunts who happened to be stupid enough to capture on film their violations of domestic, international and military law?  Hmmm.

Say... who's brought us this little collection of happy thoughts, anyway?  I know the tinfoil hatters and other assorted denizens of Big Orange are likely to fall back on their stock denunciations of the Washington Post as an administration apologist rag, right wing mouthpiece, yadda yadda yadda.  I can hear them now, saying the whole article is just some whitewash attempt aimed at convincing us that the administration are changing their tune.

Because I'm just as skeptical of the conspiracy theorists as I am of the conspirators, I have to point out that this reporter is Dana Priest, who won a Pultizer Prize for her reporting on the CIA's secret prisons.  IMHO that story represents not only a key investigation into a tremendously important domestic & international issue, it was also the hammer blow that brought down the wall of US press kowtowing to the Bush Administration's demands for non-coverage of national security and anti-terror tactics.  It reminded the news-biz folks that they can and should examine and expose the ills that our government is doing in our name.

So anyway, what I'm trying to say is that Dana Priest is no Bush Administration shill.

In the international arena, the administration and the CIA are reexamining procedures for capturing, transporting and detaining terrorism suspects.

Pierre-Richard Prosper, formerly the State Department official charged with negotiating the return of Guantanamo Bay prisoners to their country of origin, said most countries agree with the goals of counterterrorism.

"But once you started actual implementation, you see the fractures taking place," he said. "I think what has to happen is the world will really need to take a look at these issues. This is a new game; what are the new rules going to be?"

Hmmm.  Good question.  My guess:  same rules as the old game, but you have to actually keep score.

Beyond Congress, the administration faces a barrage of legal challenges by privacy and civil rights groups such as the one that led to the Supreme Court decision.

The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit in Detroit, home to one of the largest Arab populations outside the Middle East, on behalf of scholars, lawyers, journalists and nonprofit groups challenging the National Security Agency's domestic eavesdropping program. It alleges that the program hindered communications by phone and e-mail between the plaintiffs and people in the Middle East. The Center for Constitutional Rights has a parallel case pending before a federal judge in New York.

I honestly did not know that, but I do take comfort from it.

Ah, thank God (or Dog, or whatever you thank) for the ACLU, and for the Southern Poverty Law Center (currently fighting the infiltration of the US military by racist hate groups!) and the scores of other steadfast defenders of civil liberties in the country of my birth.  Ever since September 12, 2001, I have placed my most fervent and idealistic hopes, for the salvation of my nation, on these groups and others of their ilk.  If anyone will reign in the Bush administration, they will.

But wait, there's more...

The Justice Department so far has persuaded many judges to dismiss such suits, along with those challenging the CIA's "rendition" program, under the "state secret privilege," which argues that allowing a case to proceed would damage national security.

Yesterday, the Justice Department made such a case before U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit. The ACLU, on behalf of the plaintiffs, renewed its call for a court ruling that would force the government to suspend its program of intercepting without a court order the international phone calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens.

See?  See?  The cynic roars.  They're not changing their goals, not one bit.

So anyway, the point of this diary (in addition to calling your attention to an interesting article and ranting a bit) is to open a debate on the degree to which these various sources of pressure might actually change anything.  These are your governments, my European friends, who are exerting some of this pressure.  And whether it works or not, I'd like to thank them, and you, for it.