After I appeared on a 2006 Fox News panel and criticized the Bush administration's secret illegal financial surveillance regime, I was peppered with hostile emails including this gem: "Every know-nothing lying jackass like you should be rounded up and gassed with the Iraqi poison gas that does not exist according to you."

I've never enjoyed poison gas so I eschewed following that suggestion. Unfortunately, most media outlets remained reticent about publishing frontal attacks on President Bush's most outrageous policies. So, with a hat tip to Monty Python and Jonathan Swift, I sought to satirize my seditious thoughts into print.

On August 27, 2006, the Los Angeles Times ran my "Modest Proposal: Coerce Congress to Tell the Truth." That piece was accepted and deftly edited by assistant op-ed editor Matt Welch, who is now the Editor at Large for Reason Magazine. Following is a tweaked version of that piece.

What about Congress?
Do Americans deserve the truth about their members of Congress? If so, citizens should be entitled to use the most advanced fact-finding methods approved by the US government.

Many people are unaware of the revolutions sweeping American jurisprudence. In June, the Supreme Court condemned the Bush administration's torture of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and declared that the president is "bound to comply with the Rule of Law." The Bush White House was outraged and is browbeating Congress to enact legislation overturning that court ruling and unleashing its interrogators.

Last month, Assistant Attorney General Steven Bradbury notified Congress that the administration seeks to use "coerced confessions" in military tribunals at the Cuba base. Bradbury stressed that "there are gradations of coercion much lower than torture." Those "gradations" veered away from a 400-year trendline against using brute force to determine facts in judicial proceedings.