ElBaradei quoted as saying Qom facility illegal...

Glenn,

I remembered that ElBaradei (of iaea fame) had actually stated that Iran broke the law. I've viewed him as an objective player.

Here's the first link i could find on it through google :

http://www.themajlis.org/2009/09/30/elbaradei-says-qom-facility-illegal

No, he did not say the facility itself was illegal. Iran and the IAEA have a difference of opinion going back to 2007 regarding Iran's notification obligation - the IAEA claims Iran is required to notify as soon as the decision is made to build, whereas Iran claims the requirement is 180 days before operability (the NPT requires 180 days notice, but that was amended with a codicil that the IAEA says is binding and Iran says isn't which makes notification required immediately upon construction).

Here, Iran didn't notify immediately upon construction -- but they did notify more than 180 days before operability -- so the IAEA says they notified late and Iran claims it didn't. But that has nothing to do with the facility itself being illegal.

Moreover, for those who want to rely on ElBaradei, he not only says he believes Iran has no active nuclear weapons program (as you note), but he also recently said that it is Israel -- because of its nuclear stockpile - that is the greatest threat in that region, at least according to a Chinese news agency (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-10/04/content_12181647.htm).

While I agree that the evidence that Iran thought their cover was blown is weak, the fact is that their cover WAS blown,

Sane people, by definition, only call things "facts" when they can point to what is called "evidence" for it. Where is the evidence for the "fact" that "their cover was blown"?

and there was really no other reason for them to admit the existence of the Qum (Qom) lab.

There's "no other reason"? How about that they want to comply with their NPT obligations? How about they want to demonstrate good faith before the negotiations begin? How about they want a PR win in the eyes of the world by disclosing? How about that they intend to use it only for civilian purposes and thus have nothing to hide with it? Those are all possible "other reasons" for them to disclose this.

Sorry - this time, I think you've gone completely over the edge. This isn't part of the 'vast right-wing conspiracy', this is simply the situation on the ground - Iran was exposed, and needed to do something to retain any right they had to a seat at the table.

If that's so clear, how come all you can do is repeat it like a parrot, but can't point to any evidence for it?

Remember: we don't want to smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud over an American - or an Israeli - city.

For those who ARE making war on us, the military can capture (as opposed to arrest) them anywhere in the world (including in the US, as should be obvious from any invasion or sabotage scenario - a la Quirin, which you also know), and hold them in accordance with the UCMJ and the Geneva conventions.

None of this has anything to do with the Patriot Act or FISA debates, nor with the Zazi case, since they were charged with a crime. Based on your opposition to using the military inside the U.S. for law enforcement, it also wouldn't have anything to do with the Zazi case for that reason.

As for the general question you did ask, my answer is here (see Item 5):

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/22/preventive_detention/

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States

So the Army and Navy of the United States are now deployed inside the U.S. in order to seize suspects, and the President's power to command them now extends to domestic investigations of U.S. legal residents?

When did that happen? Seems to be a rather consequential occurrence. Does it apply to citizens as well?

My point was I don't remember President Obama promising all that much change on the domestic terrorism approach.

You're mistaken. He featured a critique of the Bush/Cheney terrorism approach as a centerpiece of his campaign, repeatedly insisting that we need not choose between our nation's values and security. Specifically, he opposed the Bush/Cheney use of state secrets to get lawsuits dismissed; excoriated them for denying terrorism detainees the right of habeas corpus; vowed to fix the excesses of FISA warrantless eavesdropping powers and to impose greater safeguards and oversight; railed against the creation of legal "black holes" to hold detainees; slammed Bush for the issuance of excessive signing statements to preserve the power to ignore laws; sponsored a broad journalist shield law to protect journalists from identifying their national security soruces; and promised a new era of transparency.

Those are all specific pledges he has affirmatively violated (i.e., NOT cases where he has yet to act, but where he has acted in direct violation of what he specifically promised). And that, of course, is separate from his December, 2007 promise to filibuster ANY bill that contains telecom immunity, only to turn around in July, 2008 -- once he had the nomination -- and vote for cloture on a bill that did exactly that.

You may not remember those promises, but they were made.

when did Obama promise a repeal of Patriot act?

Who said he did? And who is advocating for a repeal of the Patriot Act? Let me help you with that: nobody.

He's his own man and he's having a hard enough time keeping the promises he made,

If he's his own independent man, how come he's having such a hard time keeping his promises?