What I meant about certitude was your faith in the law.

You know... getting back to it all... I was asking do we need to confront this again? Now that Bush is gone (or at least going)... his policies are disgraced... do we need a new review? This was what I was trying to get at.

Some changes Bush made will be kept. Inter-agency cooperation I'm sure is thought of as a good idea and should be continued.

I would say I would not be against extradition. Even if it violated international law.

So... should there be a review about EVERYTHING... including torture... and what IS torture... and what would be permissible?

yes... look at everything.

My opinion on torture... I want to punch the guy out, providing of course I KNEW he was the bad guy...but that's not a policy.

What US policy should be is something else. Is making a threat against someone torture? Does it cross the line when you get physical? Is shining a light in someones eyes when you question them torture? What would be the circumstances when any of this could be permissible.

Maybe the conclusion would be... any torture under any circumstance is wrong. That may be. What I think could happen is the US will publicly disavow torture... but still practice some nasty things in secret. To me this is almost worse! I say whatever we do... whatever we decide.. let's do it in the open... and confront it. I think the world has changed... we need to define how... and what we should do because of that. Bush USED that change to do terrible things. Ignoring the issue and pretending it was all politics is wrong too.

I already said I thought rendition is a good idea.

@ondelette

A review of what we did is an excellent idea.

I also agree with your observations about Steve Coll's book and the cold war. A heightened sense of cultural sensitivity will go a very long way to better policy and relations.

The 'brand new' aspect though I think is not so much in the enemy... but in what new technology can bring. I think that things are different because of that. One man with a weapon.

The internet has changed things too. Very small groups of people can have a bigger impact because of the internet. Maybe you are right, and these new developments do not warrant a review. It is worth thinking about.

Reminds me of the weird uncle who gets invited to thanksgiving but you NEVER leave him alone with the kids...

Maybe the trend of bushlessness was a form of unconscious protest against the current occupant of the White House. Now that he's going, it's coming back!

Bush is dead! Long live the BUSH!

Thank god these idiots are almost out of office. It's going to be fun watching the sad/hysterical/reality-deprived right wing of the repugs drive further and further off the deep end. Bye-bye silly strange people... you are destined to be relegated to the scrap heap that comprises the horrors of history.

I just listened to Glenn's appearance on Moyers in pod cast form. I thought he was fantastic. I did not get the feeling that the previous poster did at all about access.

Two questions came up in my mind that were provoked by the excellent conversation.

1) What about signing statements? This practice that had been around a long time seems to undermine rule of law. I would have liked to hear a bit more about that.

2) It seems to me that Presidential power is deliberately left vague at some points in the Constitution. Many Presidents have ignored what would have been current law by declaring a state of emergency, or Executive Privilege. I think this vagueness is put in place on purpose. My question is: how to you stop a President from taking advantage of that vagueness without doing away with it? Clearly most would agree that President Bush and his administration went far over the line in taking advantage of that vagueness. However, we can also say that many contemporaries of Lincoln would have said the same thing. I would love to hear what Glenn thinks about how to deal with the 'wiggle room' I think is inherent in the Constitution. While the Supreme Court did seem to severely limit Executive Privilege with United States v. Nixon, it doesn't seem to me they have completely addressed this constitutional issue. Thanks for the great broadcast.

Hi... unfortunately I have to go now... but I bookmarked your link and will find time to digest it later. thanks!

I was looking around the net thinking about my original post and found this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory

Wikipedia seems to get better and better. The interesting part is at the bottom with many cases that seem to contradict each other throughout history.

If you get a moment take a look and give me a steer, thanks again.

You'd take a shot working on the Bush section at the bottom of the page... is it any wonder it's listed as controversial in need of help? lol