...but,

It's just another case of the administration wanting to bask in the rhetorical glory of "the rule of law" while simultaneously trampling on it for petty political convenience.

I disagree, Glenn. If all the administration were after was political convenience, they ought to throw everyone into a military commission. That would assuage the Right, and since most of the ostensible Left is defensive of whatever Obama wants to do, there would be far less uproar all around.

Rather, it seems likely to me that Obama, who after all is well educated and knows that he is trampling on western democratic values, simply believes that his primary responsibility is to preserve the safety of the American people. The job description of the President, in his eyes, is "Chief of Security". No terrorist attacks on my watch. I don't think that's necessarily a political motivation. It may be rather well-intentioned. I imagine that someone who is philosophically against expanded executive power (see Obama rhetoric circa 2008) yet suddenly finds himself with executive responsibility may begin to feel the weight of a moral burden to protect American lives, no matter what the cost, from threat. If he slacks off in that duty, no one else will pick up.

Obama loves compromise. I can imagine the pragmatic motives behind defending the democratic values of trial by jury and habeus corpus wherever "possible", that is to say whenever it doesn't jeopardize our safety under his guardianship. I think it's more likely that his short-sighted view of what best supports our security (that is, not letting any of these dangerous people go), rather than political timidity, has dictated his clear decision not to let anyone at Guantanamo go free. He isn't afraid of some political risk, after all. It's turning out to be a political tumult to suggest holding civilian trials for some of the alleged terrorists in New York. It's a little hat tip to the fundamental values of western justice in spite of the political cost; but it's the greatest he can manage to do while still guaranteeing the dangerous terrorists will never be set free. That it becomes a woefully empty gesture for all that is good argument against making compromises where human freedom is at stake. But Obama doesn't seem to see it that way.

At the risk of being redundant (haven't gone through the whole thread yet), I need to say this: I am especially incredulous at the characterization of the very foundational pillars of Western democracy such as habeus corpus, due process, and the rule of law, as "the interests of liberal special interest groups". I really don't see what's so "special" about an interest in the basic precepts of limited government and the preservation of liberty. It seems like a universal interest to me, if there ever was one.

You know, I haven't seen it yet, but most of your criticisms sound like they would apply equally to the original. Which I loved, but it was also a confusing labyrinth of misdirection, unnatural dialogue, dark themes in bright colors, and a healthy dose of "I have no idea what the fuck is going on" all the way through the final episode, which was a bit like "I still have no idea what the fuck is going on, and when are they going to tie up all the loose ends?" In other words, plenty of nonlinear, symbolic hem to get tangled up in.

So, I'm interested to see this version, but while I was reading your review, I kept wondering whether you were critiquing the remake or the original, which you seem to respect. We'll see, but nothing you said turned me off to it. In fact, it sounds intriguing!

Indeed. I feel kind of uncomfortable with "terrorism" being a crime I could be charged with. Kind of like "hate crime" legislation. If I kill someone, can't you just charge me with murder? Do you have to assume you know my motives and punish me more harshly for motives you especially disapprove of? I don't like it.

9/11? An episode of mass murder, committed by a small conspiracy of people who have a grudge against America. Get your extradition agreements out of the drawer and start calling around. Don't launch a "war" on "terror". It's such an Orwellian term, I'm incredulous every time I hear someone say it.

Well, we already have a president who wants to imprison people for pre-crime (but not try them of course).

He was actually tried on terrorism charges:

Muhammad was convicted of capital murder and terrorism charges in Virginia for killing Dean Harold Meyers, a Vietnam veteran cut down by a single bullet as he filled his gas tank at a Manassas, Virginia, service station.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/09/scotus.sniper/index.html (link at sig)

I feel like that's a little screwed up. Now your run of the mill serial killer campaign is Terrorism too? Really, what's not?