>>>We must understand that as much as we push to have the law apply equally and in all cases, it never will be, and extenuating circumstances may lead to fiascos like what we see now in Gitmo.

But Win, you're not "push[ing] to have the law apply equally and in all cases." That's what Glenn is doing! What YOU are doing is insisting that the law need not be applied equally and in all cases when there are "extenuating circumstances" (however those are to be defined), and (apparently) contending that since the government has broken the law in the past, there is no point in expecting it to comply with the law in the present and future.

Bush violated the laws of the United States, repeatedly and egregiously. That does not mean Obama has to. The only reason there is "now" a fiasco in Gitmo is because Obama is keeping said fiasco going.

Defecator90?

(Sorry.)

I could answer that, but the answer would be derisive, scatological, and perhaps anatomically impossible. :-)

I've visited your blog from time to time, as I always find your thoughts worthwhile. The problem is, you don't post often enough. One interested in your thoughts is more likely to find them here than there. But, having been reminded that you have a blog, I went over there again, and MAN Tom Friedman is one crazy motherfucker is all I can say.

I hope he is treated humanely and released promptly.

But wouldn't it be interesting if his captors took the John Yoo memo, turned on the video camera, and...

Am I a bad person for thinking about this?

"As commander-in-chief, I hope obama does not engage in this type of knee-jerk reactionism..." --NotOrbitBoy

Congrats on your promotion, NOB. Here I thought you were just some anonymous bozo on the Internet, like me...

Awwww, I was just teasing. You are a gentleman and I'm sure it was a gentleman's C.

So Obama is the Commander in Chief, our mother tongue is overrated, and I am "everyone." Good to know.

Seriously though, isn't it objectively stupid to arrest a citizen for "disorderly conduct" that (a) occurred on the citizen's private property, and (b) consisted of speaking to a policeman in a manner that the policeman did not like?

1. Whatever else is true, we know that the conduct for which Gates was arrested was entirely verbal, and directed solely to the arresting officer. (I'm quite certain that if Gates had physically assaulted or threatened the officer, that fact would have found its way into the discourse by now. Yes?) So how is "speaking to a policman in a manner the policeman did not like" an inaccurate summary of the conduct for which Gates was arrested?

2. We also know that the conduct for which Gates was arrested took place entirely on private property owned by him.

How can 1 plus 2 not equal stupid?

If you condemn the unconstitutionality of kidnapping people and locking them in cages for years with no legal rights and savagely torturing them, but aren't equally outraged by waiting periods for firearm sales, you're a big fat liberal phony.

>>>"Do you not recognize that this is the sort of gross oversimplification and distortion that passes for argument at National Review? It is not actually an argument - it's a straw man designed to shut down argument, as transparent as it is tawdry."

I don't read National Review, but I'll take your word for it. In all seriousness, I do think that the constitutional principles Glenn writes about are much more important, far less ambiguous, and in much greater danger at present than the ones you chide him for not writing about.

As to the 2nd Amendment, the only people who really think that the libruls are comin' for their guns are members of militias that are decidedly not well-regulated. Talk about a straw man...

As to the 10th Amendment, one could write (and people have written) volumes about the tension and interplay between that Amendment and the broad powers the Constitution grants Congress to regulate interstate commerce and provide for the "general welfare" of the nation. It's very complicated, and there is often ample room for reasonable and well-informed minds to disagree regarding when the Amendment should be construed as inhibiting or prohibiting a given government action. (I personally believe that the 10th Amendment is so vaguely phrased and so starkly at odds with more specific constitutional provisions that it can seldom be applied in a meaningful or principled way, but that's just my opinion as a reader of English and a lawyer who is not a constitutional scholar.)

Locking people in cages and torturing them and denying them all legal rights, by contrast, is really simple, sadly non-hypothetical, and yes, just a touch more important than parsing the subtleties of a "well-regulated militia" from an 18th century perspective.

Glenn's last couple posts have been about pretty basic stuff --i.e., follow the Constitution, don't torture kids, etc.

What good-faith dissenting views have we missed out on due to the prevailing cult-like atmosphere around here?

Correct as always, Infallible One.

"Regardless of the political differences and the substantive differences in the debate over health care, the use of Nazi symbolism is outrageous, offensive and inappropriate," said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director and a Holocaust survivor. "Americans should be able to disagree on the issues without coloring it with Nazi imagery and comparisons to Hitler. This is not where the debate should be at all."

..."Comparisons to the Nazis are deeply offensive and only serve to diminish and trivialize the extent of the Nazi regime's crimes against humanity and the murder of six million Jews and millions of others in the Holocaust," said Mr. Foxman. "I don't see any comparison here. It's off-center, off-issue and completely inappropriate."