I could easily see you when the Constitution was being debated: "Wait, you're saying EVERYONE is entitled to due process, not just some people? EVERYONE has the right of free speech and the right to be secure in their persons and papers from unreasonable searches and seizures and EVERYONE is protected from cruel and inhuman punishment"?

I can't say why I'm against it, but it seems totally unrealistic.

Fortunately, people like you were a minority when the Constitution was written.

Would this be the same Constitution that valued Negroes as 3/5ths of a human being and made no mention of women at all?

Thank God strict Constitutionalists such as yourself are still around to fight for that noble place otherwise called "The Fictional Perfect World Inside Glenn Greenwald's Head."

Obviously in cases of international terrorism, the Constitution's limits as a document are exposed.

Secondly, the fact Obama is cleaning up Bush's mess means that, yes, a two tiered system will be set up to make sure terrorists who were tortured illegally by the Bush thugs don't go free as a result.

This is the rational response by the Obama administration to the irrational disaster known as the Bush Administration.

Is it "intellectually inconsistent"? Wow, thanks for pointing that out, Sherlock. It's also the only option available.

The point, silly one, is that Glenn's rants about the mainstream media's false equivalencies ("both sides do it equally") somehow don't apply when Glenn wants to rant about religious extremism.

Shorter Glenn:

Mainstream Media -- Radical left wing terrorism and radical right wing terrorism are the same -- false equivalency without regard for the underlying facts.

Glenn Greenwald -- Radical religious fanatics of every religion are equally crazy -- intellectual consistency in the globalist humanistic vein.

Even shorter Glenn Greenwald:

When you do it, it's reductionist false equivalency.

When I do it, it's intellectual consistency.

Pathetic logic, Glenn. Fail.

It's obviously true that some Islamic extremists are inherently incompatible "with the Western way of reason," but that's just as true of Christian extremists and Jewish extremists and a whole array of other kinds of extremists. And some measures taken in the name of accommodating Islam are in tension with core liberties -- just as laws enacted in order to impose Judeo-Christian dogma are.

So you rightly call out the American media for the lame false equivalencies they always draw between right wing extremists and left wing extremists ("both sides are violent") when, in fact, right wing militia movements ala Tim McVeigh and various threats on Obama show that there is zero equivalencies in America between the radical left and radical right.

The radical right in America is FAR more dangerous.

You've argued this, and criticized the mainstream media for refusing to pick a side for fear of being called "a liberal" by the right wing noise machine. And rightly so.

Yet here you are.

All religious extremists are the same.

Congrats, Glenn. I look forward to your scathing self criticisms.

Which, in a second stroke of brilliant irony, are no more likely coming than Israel's criticisms of it's war crimes in January.

Imagine that.

People, just like Nations, don't like to admit errors.

Whodathunk?

In the last ten years, the U.S. and Israel collectively have bombed at least six Muslim countries (including Gaza)

Hey Glenn, not to interrupt your one-sided cartoon rant, but even if everything you say is true about America's disastrous foreign policy decisions since 9/11 (and you're on target there), who attacked us ON 9/11? We hadn't "bombed" any Muslim countries at that point in any notable way (outside of no-fly missiles shot into Iraq sanctioned by the U.N.).

How many bombs did Israel drop on your "nation" of Gaza 1999-2001? How many suicide bombings went off in Israel during this time?

"Why do they hate us" was a valid question in 2001. It is a tragedy that BushCo gave them a million reasons to hate us in the aftermath. But your ridiculous comic book one-sided narrative (Americisrael, the singular nation of evil empire, bombs, and then innocent muslims react as anyone would -- by setting off suicide bombs in schools and restaurants).

This most recent cycle of violence, in both Israel and America, began with nail bombs and airplanes. Israel has only recently turned to the dark side in response. We turned so immediately.

To leave out this recent history, as you always do, Glenn, is a disgrace. You can make every point about Bush's abuses and contributions to terrorist recruiting without leaving out the very obvious facts of what happened 1999-2001 that set fire to this situation.

I honestly can't see why such motivation has to be one or the other; why can't it be a mixture of both and all? Seems extremely obvious to me that Israel is part of the motivational mix, just as Glenn and many others are asserting.

Is it a motivation? I'm sure on some level it probably is. The question is whether it's a primary or significant motivation, and whether were we to shift our support for Israel in the way that Glenn advocates, whether that would make a difference on Al Qaeda's ability to recruit.

The truth is that our support for Israel has not cost us in any scenario. We still can negotiate with any country we want, and the Palestinians themselves have yet to redirect their terrorism and/or rage at America, and rightly so.

Greenwald can invent phantasmic subtextual readings of Mohammed Atta to shoehorn events into his anti-Israel narrative all he wants.

But the rage of Al Qaeda has nothing to do with Israel and everything to do with American actions in Saudi Arabia, the secular regimes of Saddam Hussein (whom Bin Laden hated) and Kuwait, as well as their own pathological perversion of Islam and rage at the creeping 21st Century secularism taking place.

So is Israel a factor? Sure. Everything is a factor on some level.

Is our support for Israel this destructive force that Glenn wants to mark it as? Not even close.