It seems to me that a simpler alternative is available here, one which makes the whole situation seem much more benign than it's being made out to be. (1) Such a call never happened. (2) The AG is imagining something *like* 9/11, and some call *like* the one he describes, to drum up support for the a certain eavesdropping policy. The whole hullaballo becomes far more understandable (though not necessarily defensible) if one were to preface the whole story by "Imagine the tragedy that would ensue were something like the following to happen: it's 9/11, and someone calls in..."

Why not consider this option? According to it the AG is still just fearmongering, but he's not falsifying history or dropping a bombshell.

Thanks for the piece today -- I'm glad to see an acknowledgement that by all measures Obama is getting more flack than praise/ equivocation from his supporters on his FISA stance. Yet I was surprised to learn that Larry Lessig was included in the list of those who support Obama but brush off his FISA position. What's the support for that? As of only two days ago, you mentioned Lessig and quoted him as being rather critical of Obama. Has he really done an about-face on this?

Thanks for the link to the Lessig post. I agree that there may be something intellectually unsavory here. (One comment that I especially don't like these days, arising in connection with Obama's taking unexpected positions, is that Obama never really was that much of a progressive. It's especially irksome when it's pointed out with a self-satisfied air: "I've known that all along, so this suits me just fine.") But is this really inconsistent of Lessig? Two days ago, Lessig criticized Obama about his FISA stance. Yesterday, Lessig writes that the discussion about Obama and FISA is "hysteria". These two positions might be inconsistent, but they don't strike me as obviously so. From Lessig's perspective, (1) Obama has taken a wrong position on FISA, but (2) it's time to move on. Perhaps I'm being too generous with Lessig here, but one can disagree with (2) (and with the characterization of those who disagree with (2) as hysterics) and yet still see (1) and (2) as consistent.

As a native Minnesotan, the news of these raids saddens me. The initial descriptions of what was going on suggests that the police applied excessive force against these people. It looks like police did manage to scoop up some potentially incriminating materials at one of the houses, but as fara as I can see the reports suggests that at other houses no such materials were found. My first guess is that once one of the houses was found to contain such materials, the police overreacted and widened the scope of their operation.

Looking at the comments at the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune (http://www.startribune.com/politics/27695244.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUs) one can see some more about the reaction to the raids. I would guess that a lot of the reaction is based on a latent dislike for the kinds of people who might be involved in protests. Judging from one of the comments, it looks like the reactionary "If you're against the war you're against the troops" style of thinking is showing itself here ("If you criticize the police for this you must have something against police officers").

It seems to me that the consensus is that what the police are doing, were it targeted at nonviolent protesters, would be clearly out-of-line and disgusting. Rutherford admit as much, and I think this probably goes without saying for many people. (Of course, some think this kind of police activity is justified because they think that protest of any kind is unacceptable; that protest is carried out to a large extent by carried out by people they dislike makes excessive force even more acceptable in their view. You can find such sentiments by looking at the Star-Tribune comment section for this story. But that's what what we're talking about here.) But I think you and Glenn are talking past each other. Glenn is focusing on the action taken against the nonviolent groups, but Rutherford focuses on the special case of the RNCWC. Concerning the RNCWC, Rutherford thinks this kind of police activity is understandable (though unacceptable), whereas Glenn would say that it's not understandable. Is that a fair assessment of the discussion?

It seems to me that the discussion has two sides: (1) the particular group called the RNCWC that apparently was advocating violence, and (2) the justification for police activity directed at nonviolent groups, such as the ones Glenn is talking about in his post. Concerning (1), I'll take other people's word for it that this particular group was indeed advocating violence and that some form of police response was appropriate. If that's not the case, I'll revise my view. But it seems to me that the real question is about (2). At least, that's what Glenn has talked a lot about in his post, so it deserves comment. What are your views there?

I generally admire and appreciate Professor Cole's pieces on his blog (http://juancole.com), which I've followed for a long time. But this piece surprised me -- in a bad way. I think it's fair to point out that McCain's previous views about "agents of intolerance" are (apparently) quite different from what they are now; one might even point to the choice of Palin as evidence for McCain's shift. But seriously, the claim that Palin's views are on a par with those of Islamic fundamentalists is an error at least of emphasis (to be generous). The article would have been stronger and made a more appreciable point had it been a comparison of Palin's views with those of *Christian* fundamentalists. In this context fundamentalist Islam is red herring, at best, and undermines the force of the article.