It's hard to think of anyone outside the tiny handful of uppermost administration decision makers with more to answer for than Lieberman. In the next circle of this hell would be the bigshots of the Washington Press and its cable adjuncts who rush to put cameras in his face while ignoring and ridiculing the "Cassandras" who've been right all along.

Great post, Glenn

Since conversations around Left Blogistan yesterday made it clear that it is inappropriate and uncivil to suggest that the Vice President's passing, had it occured yesterday, would have been unlamentable and largely unlamented, I guess I have nothing to say.

Such posturing and empty tough-guy rhetoric has been quite successful for Bushites on the domestic front for years.

Perhaps this is why they delude themselves into thinking that our international adversaries, real or imagined, can be intimidated like Congressional Democrats and media sockpuppets and that there are no consequences for alienating the rest of the world.

At home they are never effectively called to account for the clear implications and intent of their statements... until that happens why should we expect them to behave differently?

"It's not a bug, it's a feature!!"

It seems clear that Limbaugh and Taranto find Edwards very attractive and resent him for this.

"Odious" is a word even I haven't used in describing Hillary Clinton or her campaign.

But I find it difficult to summon up compelling reasons why it's unfair or untrue.

This crew thinks the Democratic nomination -- if not the general election -- is theirs, bought and paid for. I sincerely hope they're in for some unpleasant surprises come primary season.

Those who "hate us for our freedoms" appear to have less reason to do so, every day.

Over at The Corner, Andy McCarthy has posted what seems to me a well-stated, if partial, response to Ponnoru:

To ask whether "the president should have the authority to arrest U.S. citizens with no review" is confusing. Presidents do not have such authority. During times of armed conflict, they have authority to arrest and detain American citizens who are enemy combatants with no trial, but not with no review.

The Justice Department conceded in connection with the Supreme Court's 2004 Hamdi case (involving an American citizen enemy combatant) that U.S. persons (a category broader than U.S. citizens) are entitled to challenge their detention by petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court agreed that this was the case. What principally divided the Court, and divides scholars, is not whether there is review but what that review should entail.

On that, opinion seems to range from (a) the purist Scalia/Stevens position that, absent a suspension of the writ by Congress, an arrested American is entitled to an indictment and trial in the civilian courts if they are open and functioning; to (b) a majority falling in the middle, holding that Americans alleged to be enemy combatants are not entitled to a full-blown trial but, rather, to a meaningful opportunity to challenge the president's determination of their status — with the caveat that such a proceeding must be deferential to the executive branch in wartime; to (c) the Thomas position that the president's determination that a person — even an American — is an enemy combatant is essentially unreviewable by the courts. (If Thomas's position were the law, the question put to Romney would be of greater moment. But the remaining eight justices rejected this interpretation.)

I think McCarthy is right that the better question is: what should be the scope and venue of the review? Of course, such an "arcane" issue will never get raised in any forum where it's likely to get much attention.

Left unsaid, of course, is the outrageous fact that an American President actually claimed the latter, completely unreviewable, authority.

Speaking for myself, I share the Stevens/Scalia/Greenwald position that the full judicial review of these determinations is the appropriate level if Due Process. I wasn't trying to justify a more restrictive position.

The point McCarthy was making, and I thought worth raising here, is that by asking the candidates whether they "believed the president should have the authority to arrest U.S. citizens with no review" some confusion might have been created since, contrary to the claims of the administration, the Supreme Court has ruled that this is not the law of the land, although there may be an open question as to what level of review would constitute "Due Process," more's the pity (I don't think it's a crucial point, and I don't make it to undermine your points, with which I agree).

It would be reassuring if candidates for the Presidency could be expected to reply to a question like this: "No I don't believe that, and the Supreme Court has said that the President doesn't have this authority."

I wish I were confident that even the Democratic candidates would respond in this fashion, but I'm doubtful.

I know now that I will never again click on a link to The Corner on April Fool's Day, before I've had several cups of coffee.