I was offended by Obama supporters who reflexively blamed white racism for Clinton's late-primary wins, but I was certain it had played some role and would be a bigger factor in November.

So Joan was offended by people who were saying aloud what she was thinking...

It amazes me that people who are still gobsmacked by the symbolism of the USA electing a President Of Color are minimizing the symbolism of said President inviting a warmongering, antichoice, creationist gay-baiter to call down the blessing of a narrow-minded god on his oath-taking.

Obama is going to be the most powerful person in the world for four years or more. Warren is going to say a prayer for five minutes.

Isn't it obvious whose values and identity are more important?

It is pretty striking to me how many commenters are already in despair over the Obama administration's policies on civil liberties. To point out the obvious, his presidency hasn't even started yet. By all means, hold his feet to the fire on civil liberties issues. Just don't adopt a defeatist attitude and assume nothing will change.

Think of it this way: Given our current political climate, is the next President going to be more of a civil* libertarian than Obama? Not likely.

This is what we've got, folks. Let's make the most of it.

*As opposed to economic libertarian, which Obama clearly is not.

It is ridiculous to think that divided government, as we would have had under Pres. McCain, is a guarantee of civil liberties. We've already seen over the past two years that this didn't work.

it is pretty shitty to fire someone because they were the victim of a crime.

I predict Hooters will make a big apology and rehire her with back pay.

If the Senate Democrats had immediately agreed to seat Burris, the Republicans and their media allies no doubt would have slammed Democrats for coddling a corrupt governor. As it turns out, those people are demanding that Burris be seated and claiming that Reid is violating the Constitution. If he does give in now, they can't very well accuse Reid of enabling corruption. After all, he is just following the Constitution, right?

So the bottom line is that Reid may end up looking like a wimp but Illinois will still have a Democratic senator and the Republicans will not really be able to push the corruption angle.

That is my reading anyway, as well as a Yale law professor who wrote an article in Slate.

All of this grandstanding about the "rule of law" begs the question of what the law actually is.

Before we accuse Obama of "centrism", we should ask ourselves what that actually is. If it means pursue policies that are palatable to the average voter... well, duh. If it means being in the middle of two imaginary extreme positions, then any politician can be a centrist depending on which endpoints you choose.

The real question is what is the right policy for a given situation.

I usually agree with Greenwald, but this time he has really taken a logical leap. He says that its "quite clear" that Obama wants to use confessions obtained through torture. But let's look at Obama's actual words, as quoted by Greenwald,

...some of the evidence against them may be tainted even though it's true.

The operative word here is tainted. Now, Greenwald knows damn well, although he may have temporarily forgotten, that there are many ways for evidence to be tainted by the usual standards of criminal law. It could be physical evidence obtained without a search warrant. It could be a confession that was obtained from someone who wasn't Mirandized. I'm sure a smart criminal defense lawyer could think of a dozen ways that Guantanamo detainees weren't treated like normal criminal defendants.

Frankly, I would expect this kind of sloppy attack from someone like Rush Limbaugh.

You seem to be missing the point here. Once you let someone into the ordinary criminal justice system, you can't pick and choose which requirements apply. Every violation of ordinary criminal procedure, whether it's something as horrible as torture or as picayune as not Mirandizing someone, could be used by the defense.

The fact that you think it absurd to talk about ordinary criminal issues in the context of Guantanamo Bay actually illustrates Obama's dilemma. He wants to respect human rights, but he doesn't want to use a criminal justice system that is manifestly not designed to deal with the mess he has been left with.

Sorry, still not buying it. Even if people have been discussing the torture issue for years, it doesn't mean that that was what Obama was talking about when he used the word "tainted".

If you are against torture, then you shouldn't "torture" Obama's words until they confess.

Everyone criticizing Obama for allegedly wanting to use evidence obtained through torture -- please go back and look at what Obama actually said. There is a vast gap between his actual words and GG's interpretation.

Think. Decide for yourself.

Fair enough. If you think that prisoners taken overseas are entitled to the full protection of the American criminal justice system, then you are perfectly entitled to criticize Obama for taking a different position.

I can't resist asking though - is it alright if we send the ones who are acquitted to the UK?

That report came out in November 2007. What has happened in the meantime?

GG wrote:

So what's the justification for Obama's inflammatory and obviously consequential (though seemingly baseless) claim on national television that the Iranians "are pursuing a nuclear weapon that could potentially trigger a nuclear arms race" when the consensus of American intelligence agencies is that they are not doing so?

I doubt that GG really knows what the consensus of the intelligence agencies is, unless he has sources that don't know about. If he is going by the 2007 NIE, well, any English teacher will tell you that that report indicates what the consensus was.