I was appalled by Obama's answer about torture.

He essentially conceded that torturing detainees gleaned the same information that legal interrogations produced, but said he discontinued torture because we should not take "shortcuts" which "undermine who we are."

What he basically told the country was that torture produced the same valuable information as non-coercive menthods, only quicker ("shortcut"), but he won't do it because he is standing on lofty principles.

If that was all I knew about about the torture issue (and I assume most Americans know little more) I would think the man was a lunatic. He played right into the pro-torture crowd's hands, and sounded like a weak-kneed liberal willing to risk American lives to provide comfort to terrorists.

The right answer about why we don't torture is 1) it is a serious felony under U.S. law, and 2) any interrogation expert will tell you that ALL coercive menthods, including but not limited to torture, produce UNRELIABLE results.

I know this is going to sound utterly ludicrous, but the Obama administration knew all along that the state secrets case was being decided by what could be the most liberal Federal Court of Appeals in the country, which makes me think that the administration WANTED A DEFINITIVE JUDGMENT AGAINST BUSH'S STATE SECRETS POLICY and strongly suspected that the 9th Circuit would be obliging.

I think you are right.

You sound utterly ludicrous.

The strategy you describe is simply never practiced in the world of appellate litigation, for a lot of reasons, including the most important, which is that if you inadvertently win you have just created bad law for yourself.

When asking Obama about whether Bush officials sanctioned torture, Tapper explicitly stated that "torture is a violation of international law and the Geneva Conventions" ( it is also a violation of clear domestic criminal law).

Aarrgh!! Thanks for reminding me. I forgot to include that in my diatribe about his torture comments: by failing to mention that torture is an extremely serious felony under U.S. law, and only citing foreign law and the Geneva conventions, he again plays right into his wingnut critics' hands as one of those pointy-headed, U.N.-loving libruls who places adherence to international law over national security.

I suspect the omission was deliberate. If he admits on prime time national TV that the Booshies committed felonies under domestic law, how can he justify not investigating?

Could he be putting up the good and proper fight even though losing is what he really wants?

Now THIS is a form of the "Obama wants to lose" theory I actually agree with.

I have always felt that the Obama administration has embraced the Bush position on state secrets because that's what the executive does. And he weasels about it when called out on it in a press conference because that's what politicians do - he won't be forthright about it because he knows he will piss off his base.

DavidStewartZink said something like this - he is pursuing the executive's agenda. It's the job of citizens, Congress, and the judiciary to push back.

Obama may personally not agree with the position his DoJ is taking but may feel his duty is to advocate for outright dismissal of the suits on state secrets grounds. And as Glenn might say, what Obama's personal feelings on the issue are is irrelevant; if his actions are bad he should be criticized.

I think this because of my experience at work. As a prosecutor, it's my job to always advocate for the government's position. When is comes to Bill of Rights issues like search and seizure, self-incrimination, suppression of evidence - while I would never argue in bad faith - I often find myself arguing for an outsome that is more ardently pro-government than I personally would like to see. That's my job as an advocate. It is the defense bar's job to oppose me and the court's job to decide the law.

So I would say to the "Obama wants to lose" crowd: you seem to want to cling to the belief that Obama's heart is in the right place no matter what he does. It might be, it might not be, but that doesn't matter. He's doing what he thinks is his job, and if you don't like it, it's YOUR job to scream from the rooftops and oppose him. It's OK to still like the guy.

Don't get me wrong. I don't have any problem with Glenn's critiques of Obama's states secrets policy. Like I said, it's a citizen's duty to rail against politicians who take positions we disagree with. And I give Glenn a lot of credit for taking the long view, and noting that Obama does other things which are good, and how he is almost certainly preferable to the nightmare that could've been McCain/Palin.

I am addressing the Obama apologists: if you don't like a particular position he has taken, why twist yourself into a pretzel finding ridiculous rationalizations to justify the position? Say you hate the position and oppose it; otherwise you like like a hypocritical fool. It doesn't make Obama a failure as president nor you a chump for supporting his election because he sometimes does things you don't agree with.

In fact, you are doing yourself and him a disservice if you don't oppose him when he's wrong. Remember, FDR's "I agree with you, now make me do it."

Me, I think he is behaving pretty much the way I expect the executive to behave, and acting just like a politician when he gets called on it.