....as to think Obama is going to go after possible prosecution of Bush administration officials? It's the last thing Obama could consider...with about 47% of the country voting against him,to tie up his administration is knots by jumping into a possible "execution of the (former) sovereign" seems fantastical, or at least dumb, considering all the stuff on Obama's plate. Can Greenwald, who has a mind we must highly respect, distinguish his hopes from his beliefs?

GG omits the main reason not to go into this: if they do and there's another 9/11, blame will fall on those who wanted investigation and prosecution. GG doesn't mention this motivation because he thinks people give a shit about the NY Times editorials. Here in the real world, things are seen as they are, i.e., no attacks since 9/11/01. One can argue, as in academia or even a courtroom, no proof that Bush/Cheney tactics prevented another attack. Go ahead and argue this after you've investigated/prosecuted/changed policy, and then an attack happens. That'll be bye=bye Obama in 2012.

As someone who "has no dog in this fight" (other than I don't think it's my business who people choose to marry), what I find particularly poignant is that Obama gained nothing for the country for this, and had he not done it the country would not have been hurt a whit. This is an unforced error of the highest caliber. His law review "on the one hand and on the other" approach is not suitable to governing. I told people that during the primary campaign but I had better luck talking to the wall.

I'm too lazy to figure out exactly why, but I find this move by Obama endearing, almost naive, and naivete is something to like in a person.

....Santa Claus.

....stink, according to people who've looked at them, which the ga-ga posters here most surely have not.

....while he refuses to do your bidding. He'll hold out for the deal he wants. If he listens to the liberal elite, he'd give up his bargaining chip for nothing. How dumb would that be! Meanwhile, Fitzgerald disgraced himself with an over the top press conference designed to prejudice Blago in the court of public opinion, from which the jurors will eventually be drawn. Boo to Fitzgerald, who produced only evidence that Blago is vulgar, not that he particularly elicited a bribe from any specific person, as criminal evidence would require (sorry to bring up the law, I know that's irrelevant once you folks get overheated).

...to create a mechanism to transfer these cases to civilian courts? Just asking...

...in the original German or Japanese

Having skimmed a few letters here it is apparent the leftist line is "Israel is wrong". There are indications Obama will not change US policy in the region, and so I'm starting to like this man more and more. That he will enrage his lefty supporters is the icing, whipped cream, and cherries on the cake. There's even a complaint against Israel here from somebody who says he's from Europe. That's rich -- in my lifetime Europeans put each other in ovens, and now they're giving Israel morality lessons. I'm enjoying what's going on in Gaza although obviously wish it wasn't necessary, and I'm also enjoying Lefty obama-supporters' outrage. 2009 is going to be a great year (in some respects -- Obama won't be able to do shit about the economy, although that won't be his fault.)

@ Cole D'Biers

You wrote rum ruins egg nog. I don't give a shit about the Palestinians, but what;s the rum issue, and what spirits do you recommend?

civil libertarians are cautiously optimistic that the Court will likely reverse it.

They are "cautiously optimistic" about what the Court will "likely" do? Impossible, sez I.

Obama's confirming what I expected of him...he's really against the system. Not saying he's disloyal, but that he thinks the cool thing is to go with outsiders for senstive intel stuff. Lefties like this because people they dislike (Feinstein, rockefeller), are against it. It's nuts to pick people outside the intel community, but people just think politically/ideologically and "I hate Bush/Cheney" so that's their response. When did ignorance of a field become a qualification or even a good?

She says she wrote six books about emotional eating. Was each one a contribution? She says her father (for good reason) was cynical about morality, therefore she invested in Madoff. Huh? She tries to excuse herself over everything by listing her (prior?) poor values...what does that accomplish? Exoneration? Redemption? She wants to have her cake (not my fault) and eat it too (it was my fault, please let me forgive myself). All in all I person I would run, not walk away from.

Can;t be true that your parents spent big chunk of their retirement on your wedding while your father hasn;t spoken to you in years.

I have no doubt Mr. Greenwald knows that not everybody held at Guanatanamo is alleged to be a was criminal. Some of them are supposedly held just the way people hold POWs in, say, WWII: to keep them off the battlefield. Arguments against this conceptualization can be made, but Greenwald doesn't even acknowledge the issue: is there a justification for holding detainees besides to await trial on war crimes. I lose respect when people omit a big chunk of a controversy, but GG is so smart and dedicated maybe I've missed or misunderstood.

...you believe that Obama read some blogs and suddenly changed his mind. How dumb can you get? At the most -- the very most -- he released his policy earlier than intended. To believe he fashioned a policy after a few days/weeks of blog outcry is nuts, and even an insult to the man. What next...blogs will demand big cars will be banned and he'll go for that, too?