I actually don't read those first two paragraphs about Rumsfeld as contradictory.

In the second, Graham says Rumsfeld is an honorable man "in many respects." That means he is not honorable in all respects, and the first paragraph illustrates two examples where he acted dishonorably.

So there are no acts so deranged and amoral that they should disqualify someone from the term "honorable"?

Pol Pot was honorable in many respects because he was loyal to some of his friends and loved his mom.

Right! I read the second graph - Rumsfeld is honorable in many respects in that he is patriotic and genial and smart - as the same kind of damning with faint praise as your Pol Pot example. Or like when people like Buchanan or Marge Schott say Hitler also did a lot of good things.

Not a big deal.

Oh, I remember that.

I remember when Palin conceded that global warming was real but said that it didn't matter what causes it, what matters is that it exists and we should do something about it.

Biden instantly shot back that of COURSE it matters, very much, what causes climate change, because if you don't know that, you can't do anything about it.

Oh, but Palin cleaned HIS clock. I see.

One answer I was hoping to get from this interview - what statute was he charged under?

And what statute would he be charged under if they pursued the case in federal court? *Man* I would not want to take that case.

In addition to the speedy trial and Huntley issues(there is no way those coerced statements are coming in) Hafetz mentions, how the hell are they going to make out jurisdiction?

If the statements are all they have, they have nothing, and this case is going nowhere. Give the kid a check and put him on a plane. Jesus.

I am astonished that Joe Klein thinks that a conversation with someone he doesn't know at a party, and emails he posted on a list-serve with hundreds of subscribers can be considered "private" in any sense of the term.

Where does the expectation of privacy come from? Does he not know that if he confessed to a crime in either of those situations they would be admissible in court against him?

It seems to speak to his exaggerated sense of entitlement that he doesn't know the difference between privacy and belonging to an elite social network.

You don't seem very bright. But here's what's obvious to anyone with some analytic capacity:

1. Glenn didn't bring up George Bush gratuitously or unsolicited. That was done implicitly by the hypocricy/revisionist history by the right-wing pundits.

2. The DoJ is supposed to be independent from the president, they are not expected to have the same fealty as his "cabinet" or "staff" as you misleadingly put it. Glenn focused on Bush's DoJ.

3. Glenn didn't say slavish devotion to Obama was good - the fact that he thinks it's bad might be the most dominant theme in his writing for the past year - so I don't know why you brought that up.

If you don't believe in the Government's ability to present evidence to convict them in a real court, why do you believe the Government's accusation that they're Terrorists who must be detained?

But a defendant's culpability, and the government's ability to present constitutionally admissible evidence in a US court can be mutually exclusive.

In other words, the guy could be guilty as hell, but because the investigation was bungled (by, say, an incompetent previous administration), the evidence is tainted. I've long been concerned that was the case with KSM, but I guess Obama doesn't think so; we'll see.

Glenn, you and I have argued about this previously, I think we know where we both stand, but your quote above seems to posit that if a case is untriable we necessarily should not believe the government's accusation of guilt. I think that is generally true but can think of some exceptions.

The evidence is deemed "tainted" for a reason: namely, something about it makes it unreliable: too unreliable to use in court (such as the fact that it was, say, obtained through torture or otherwise mishandled)

That's not always the case. Some tainted evidence is unreliable, such as coerced confessions. Some evidence is tainted because it violates the constitution in some other way (say, 4th amendment) but it's not unreliable.

If the cops search me as I walk down the street, with absolutely no probable cause, and recover a loaded gun from my pocket, that evidence will be suppressed at trial not because it is unreliable, not because I am not culpable, but because my expectation of privacy has been violated.

I would never argue to introduce a coercive statement at trial because it is inherently unreliable. But reliable evidence that may have other unconstitutional infirmities is a different matter.

Glenn:

The evidence is deemed "tainted" for a reason: namely, something about it makes it unreliable: too unreliable to use in court (such as the fact that it was, say, obtained through torture or otherwise mishandled)

That's not always the case. Some tainted evidence is unreliable, such as coerced confessions. Some evidence is tainted because it violates the constitution in some other way (say, 4th amendment) but it's not unreliable.

If the cops search me as I walk down the street, with absolutely no probable cause, and recover a loaded gun from my pocket, that evidence will be suppressed at trial not because it is unreliable, not because I am not culpable, but because my expectation of privacy has been violated.

I would never argue to introduce a coercive statement at trial because it is inherently unreliable. But reliable evidence that may have other unconstitutional infirmities is a different matter.