There are 40-odd comments already that pretty well cover the issue (and not a few that don't), but I'll throw in my 2 cents worth.

This is not what we expected from Obama the Constitutional Law Professor.

A few possibilities from the spectrum of explanations:

Perhaps Sen.Obama's criticism of the Bush regime's illegal activities was simply a ploy to raise his visibility for national office and court progressives?

Could Pres.Obama be so afraid of political backlash if adherence to the rule of Law coincides with another terrorist attack that he feels compelled to keep the illegal tools invented by Bush and compromise his principles?

Has Obama fallen under the spell of closet-republican advisors?

Are all politicians liars and does absolute power corrupt absolutely?

Thank you, Glenn, for this excellent piece. I agree with another comment that it should be more widely read. However, it is very likely that those who disagree would continue to do do, regardless of the evidence.

Thanks, Glenn. Maybe progressives will prevail, for once. I am getting awfully tired of this BS. Obama got the nomination with our votes, and so far the professed progressive positions on every issue that was important (at my end of the spectrum, anyway) have been abandoned by the wayside. To hell with the Dems. If Obama won't keep his promises, even their vestiges, let the damn repugnants have their way. Maybe things need to get worse before they can get better.

by all means, gracefully invite the defeated enemies to rejoin the human race, but first make the criminals amongst them pay for their lies, robbery, subversion of the constitution, illegal surveillence of citizens, wars of aggression, destruction of the economy, etc. Obama won the primaries by pretending to be a progressive and has been moving right ever since. There will always be arguments for compromise and comity, but first put the criminals on trial.

Happy to read that a congressional staffer (maybe even a congressman or two?) has figured out that we are only aware of the "tip of the iceberg" regarding the crimes of the bush/cheney junta.

Isn't anybody else a little worried about what they might do to avoid being held accountable, either thru the venue mentioned or the World Court?

Are you ready for the next war?

Thanks for putting all of this in one place. It makes a tidy (and eloquent) package to send around to other members of the choir.

But what is to be done? These are majorities, huge majorities, and the dems go about their business, ignoring the clamoring masses.

Why on God's Green Earth do the dems accept the republican fable that we can drill ourselves out of the oil crisis? By proposing an alternative plan that involves more wells, just not in environmentally sensitive places, they tacitly agree with the oil companies (and the criminal regime in power)that if we would just turn them loose the problem would be solved. Even if they could bring all the known untapped US on-shore and off-shore fields on the market immediately it wouldn't make a significant dent in the price of oil, not even if they gave it away, which of course they won't. Why don't the dems have the courage to say that? Do they think the American people are too stupid to understand that it takes 10 or 20 years to get the stuff to a refinery, that it is still untapped because it is absurdly expensive to exploit, requiring the equivalent of a barrel of oil of energy to extract 2 barrels? Where this leads is pretty obvious: as the price continues to go up dems will cave, because the more it hurts, the clamor of ill-informed voters to drill off-shore and in ANWAR will rise to a cressendo. And what politician would dare to put a Cariboo herd before a constituent if it meant losing his seat?

I imagine that no one is going to promise at this point to send Bush to the Hague, but it can be hoped that Obama has at least left the door open. There is no doubt that the bush clique has commited crimes, and we are probably only aware of a relatively small percentage. They cannot have eliminated all the evidence, and some of their crimes, like the on-going domestic spying programs, will still be around for closer inspection after they leave office.

If they leave office. I suppose that it has occurred to the dems that if bush et al feel especially threatened they will have even more incentive to do something that could provide an excuse to "postpone" elections for the duration of an emergency. Like bombing Iran, inviting their retaliation.

Thank you, Joan! No one should use that sort of language, whether describing politicians or not. Perhaps a lexicon of more appropriate terms of disapprobation should be offered for general use? Otherwise those unhappy souls searching for the right word to express their discontent will be forced to rely on their limited vocabularies.

I prefer "warmonger" to describe Hillary, which to my mind is more scathing since it doesn't just express contempt, it also condemns her as someone who condones killing innocents to achieve her ends.

Will there be another Nuremberg? Guantanamo will be seen as akin to Stalin's "Show Trials", not Nuremberg. Now, if Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Wolfie and the rest were tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity, that would invoke reference to Nuremberg. But not Guantanamo.

They will never do it, but either of the dem candidates could secure the progressive vote if they would simply say that those who had commited crimes during the Bush regime could not absolve themselves and that they would be held accountable.