What do you think: Should some of our liberal Congressfolk ask the GOP to go on record opposing gun-toting at town halls? Death threats against Obama? Lies about "death panels"?

Yes, absolutely. But doing so would not require them to "stoop to the GOP's level." The GOP depends on a strategy of lying, intimidation, and fear-mongering. What the Dems need to do instead is to stand up for the truth, which they have shown themselves unwilling to do at least since the election of George Bush. Even now, too many Democrats seem to believe the nation's greatest pressing need is to get over the partisan divide, which means refusing to call out the Republicans' hate-filled and deceitful obstructionism, the cause of most of our problems today. This is inexcusable.

Glen writes: "since conservatives disliked the outcome on policy grounds, they viciously criticized the judge for failing to deviate from the law in order to give them the outcome they wanted." The same mindset can easily be seen in conservatives and liberals alike who argue against holding accountable the architect's of our torture policy--"you really can't blame these people for breaking the law. After all, you just have to remember how scared everyone was at the time." Empathy, bad. Remembering how scared we were, good.

If having too much to do is Obama's excuse for not prosecuting war criminals, maybe he should forget about trying to come up way to indefinitely detain terror suspects without trial. I mean, considering that he actually took an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States, wouldn't it really be easier and more time-efficient to do that instead of looking for new ways to subvert it?

is much more compelling than Obama's reasons for suggesting it. Still, one must admit that the previous administration's incompetence was of such an extraordinary magnitude that it is conceivable a few (by which I mean a very finite number) of those we already hold are true threats to America whom we nevertheless cannot try because they have been tortured. However, it is almost certainly true that, in their prosecution of the “War on Terror,” Bush and Cheney committed crimes that have done more damage to America than al Qaeda ever could, and yet the current president has made clear his preference that they not be held to account. Obama also falsely asserted in the speech outlining his proposal that “we’re narrowing our use of the state secrets privilege.” In fact, he is seemingly doing everything he can to not only consolidate but also to expand the powers Bush claimed for the presidency at the expense of the Constitution. No wonder civil libertarians are so dismayed. Yet if Obama were to support a criminal investigation of the Bush administration officials; if he had been true to his promise of open government by releasing photographs of Abu Ghraib, renouncing altogether the state secrets defense, and not threatening to cease intelligence-sharing with Great Britain if it gives one of its citizens whom we tortured his day in court; if he were to allow prisoners at Bagram their habeas corpus rights—if he were, in other words, to denounce Bush administration policies not just in word but in deed, he might find at least a grudging admission that, with regard to several of those whom we already hold, his hands have been tied through no fault of his own. Having said that, it must also be pointed out that our treatment of captives has been a huge recruiting plus for al Qaeda, and that, if the world saw Obama taking actions that actually matched his rhetoric, those who advocate terror against us would find their ideas that much more difficult to sell, and they would be, by definition, quite a bit less dangerous. As it is, if we are to believe that the 9/11 terrorists were motivated by a “hatred of America’s freedoms,” then we must concede that Bush/Cheney’s abuse of our freedoms was a victory for the terrorists; and, if we are to put any stock in Obama’s poetic and powerful words about the rule of law and American values, then we must concede that, so far, his national security proposals and policies are a victory for Bush/Cheney.