I'm glad you brought that up.
I'm sorry, has it been taken away? Are you afraid it will be taken away even though it's been reaffirmed by the Supreme Cout in Hamdi? Is there some group that fall outside the usual parameters of Habeas protections you'e concerned about? Do tell.

One doesn't have to point to the people unjustly constrained by such laws -- although there've already been some notable examples -- to understand the dangers it poses in the hands of people willing to use it against folks who've done nothing against the law, but are merely inconvenient to those who hold power, or make policy.

Sort of like, Eminent Domain, or the IRS, or Asset seizure laws, and such? I only use these to point that nearly every law with a penalty can be used "against folks who've done nothing against the law". That doesn't precluse wariness, but as a fatal flaw, being dangerous doesn't qualify.

Not being allowed to get on a plane may seem like a trivial matter until it happens to you. Being treated as the protesters against the Republican Convention in New York were treated may seem trivial if you don't yourself feel strongly enough about anything to protest against it.

LOL. You guys are getting really soft. Bereft of heinous crackdowns on dissidents, you're reduced to citing inconviences. What happened to the shootings and stabbings and beatings of yesteryear? Heh.

Not so under the provisions of this legislation, which leaves people like shooter in a position to say, if his neighbor disappears overnight like a Jew in pre-war Germany: Well, he must have done something. No one will contradict him; no one will ever get the chance to contradict him.

And here we arrive in fantasy land. Even al-Maasri is getting his day in court. Tsk. You can scare the daylights out of yourself if you like but it just isn't resonating out there.

As for privacy, it's certainly true that most of us have volunteered enough information about ourselves to private agencies over the years to compile a pretty good profile of who we're likely to be. Still, data isn't a person, and it can't predict guilt in advance of any crime which appears likely to a paranoiac government operative to be in the offing.

As the man said, we have tacitly (and specifically in some cases) agree to let computers and agencies compile information about us. So what. I'm willing to bet you are happy about that and even advocate more govt. information gathering of our most private data via universal healthcare. This is just liberal hypocrisy. You don't mind information gathering just not being the one currently in charge of the data.

Using such data to incarcerate a person is testimony more to an insane desire to control uncontrollable events than it is to any criminal predilection on the part of the person being hauled away.

You're asserting that the info my grocery store collects is sufficient to have me jailed? Who knew?

* Glenn refers us to a woman who thinks invading another country is just fine.
* Thinks discussion of diplomatic strategy should be public, keeping the object of said strategy informed at all times,
* Is a despairing that someone he has called "deceitful", a "war lover", "underhanded", and a writer of "adolescent war pornography", is reticent to let Glenn interview him. Now that's detachment from reality.

More interesting is this....

I conducted an interview today with Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution about his views on the war and his trip to Iraq. I will post the transcript in a couple of days along with some thoughts about it.

I wonder why the unabridged version isn't available somewhere, and why a few days to think about it are needed. My guess is that O'Hanlon has caught on that Glenn is a hostile interviewer more interested in making himself look good than getting any real information from the interviewee. My guess is that we'll see an edited version, spun like cotton candy.

* Glenn refers us to a woman who thinks invading another country is just fine.
* Thinks discussion of diplomatic strategy should be public, keeping the object of said strategy informed at all times,
* Is a despairing that someone he has called "deceitful", a "war lover", "underhanded", and a writer of "adolescent war pornography", is reticent to let Glenn interview him. Now that's detachment from reality.

More interesting is this....

I conducted an interview today with Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution about his views on the war and his trip to Iraq. I will post the transcript in a couple of days along with some thoughts about it.

I wonder why the unabridged version isn't available somewhere, and why a few days to think about it are needed. My guess is that O'Hanlon has caught on that Glenn is a hostile interviewer more interested in making himself look good than getting any real information from the interviewee. My guess is that we'll see an edited version, spun like cotton candy.