I want to see this loon try to pronounce El Camino Real, San Jose or San Joaquin in his 'nativist' english!

He, he. Speaking of "natives", he'd hate it in Wisconsin. How would he pronounce Menominee, Waukesha, Shawano, Peshtigo? (All named after the real natives or using their words. And that's not even getting to 'Fond Du Lac'!) Using his logic he would have to pronounce them like the natives did.

And Tom Prezeleski has it right: Sotomayor is from Puerto Rico and thus no immigrant. And why is Puerto Rico American territory since 1898? Because we invaded and took over the place. So Mark K., blame your neo-con predecessors with all their Manifest Destiny nonsense if you don't want to say 'SotomaYOR'.

--RaMON

That was fantastic.

The federal courts are staffed with judges who are already way too deferential to the government. And Obama wants to avoid them? Why???

This whole episode is simply sick.

Could the executive and military decide that a US citizen was acting as a spy for the germans and string them up under military law?

Yes! That's exactly right. Under military law or under civilian law. But under law!!! This is not law. This says the president can string you up without you having recourse to the law, because there is the "danger" that the law might come down on your side.

Under his plan he, not the law--military or civilian--decides. Just because he thinks you're a "danger to the American people." Maybe it was something you said. Maybe it was because you were an Anarchist. Maybe it was because you belonged to a fringe militia group. Maybe it was because you were a radical environmentalist. Maybe it was because you are a union leader who led a strike. It doesn't matter. What matters is that under this proposal the president gets to decide what constitutes a "danger to the American people" and that same president gets to decide that you, without recourse to the law, are detained indefinitely.

And we all know how established powers define "danger to the people." It might be legitimate danger, but often it is perceived danger to their privileged position. Martin Luther King could have been declared a "terrorist" because his movement was a "danger to the American people." He was inciting others to break the law (through civil disobedience), and he was challenging legally established authority and long-established custom. Under Obama's hare-brained plan what's to stop a president from indefinitely detaining a future Martin Luther King?

What happens if a judge decides to free the detainees and their countries don't want them? Are you comfortable with them being freed into the American communities with no strings attached?

I'd be comfortable having you as a neighbor should you ever experienced being accused of a serious crime but then being acquitted. What makes them different?

Well done!

As you put it, the problem boils down to this: The "mess" mboehm refers to is that the government wants guaranteed guilty verdicts because they just know that the hard-core 30 are guilty, and a court that offers proper due-process rights presents a problem. As Noam Chomsky puts it in his inimitable style, "A serious flaw in the criminal justice system, it appears." (see his article elsewhere in Salon.)

Today on CNN.Com, a poll was released stating that 3 out of 4 Americans - equally divided amongst Democrats and Republicans, are against releasing more torture photos. Finally, average Americans are moving away from the old time sixties style "liberal vs, conservative" polarization and looking at whats best for America, not for ideology.

So there you have it. Lack of a moral compass is a feature, not a bug. Silly me.

Seriously, I'm coming up blank when trying to list the many ways that not releasing these photos is "whats (sic) best for America." Could you help out here?

Our enemies already have plenty on us to stoke their anger and hatred. And just to make sure we keep sending them more by the drone-full. A few dozen photos won't make a difference one way or another. But not releasing them speaks volumes about what they depict, and our enemies will be quick to fill in the blanks.

No, not releasing these photos was for the 3 out of the 4 you mention who would like to go on pretending that we are a Noble Nation who is out to do nothing but good. But, like an alcoholic in denial, those who cannot see the evil in themselves cannot redeem themselves. And that, in the end, is why not releasing these photos is disastrous.

Not all Republicans were cheering on Bush/Cheney and I strongly resent being tarred with that feather.

For all practical purposes, they were. Take it up with your party. There is nothing to resent here. And I think you meant "brush."

One wonders when it will sink in for people like jerseygirl7 that her government cannot guarantee her safety, ...

Or whether it will sink in that her government is the biggest threat to her safety. If we allow our government to torture people and kill them extra judicially, what's to stop them from torturing and killing the next person? And the next? Your citizenship? That you're white? What?

When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist.

Then they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat.

Then they came for the trade unionists, I did not protest; I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, I did not speak out; I was not a Jew.

When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.

--Martin Niemöller