The test of how we treat non-citizen accused terrorists should not be a Constitutional test, but a pragmatic one: what can do to protect ourselves and others while still enjoying the respect of our fellow nations in the international community? I expect there would be considerable overlap here with the protections our Constitution affords citizens, but perhaps the distinction would allow somewhat more aggressive efforts against non-citizen accused terrorists than our Constitution would allow for citizens.

You are, of course, entitled to think this, but the Supreme Court has already held otherwise. The Bill of Rights restricts what the Government can do to everyone, not only citizens.

when will you stop praising Obama for what he says he's going to do? I mean, it's a well-established pattern. He makes announcements like this to win points from people like you, and then doesn't follow through, or, more likely, nobody can even determine if he's followed through.

There's obviously confusion about what happened here with this new policy (and it's not just me that's praising it, but organizations devoted to transparency, including the ACLU, the Sunlight Foundation, and CREW (which sued for the records), though all with the same reservations I noted.

This isn't just Obama "saying" he's going to do this. It's going to be formalized in a settlement agreement the administration will be bound to (and can and will be sued over if they violate), as well as, I assume, a court order compelling adherence with it.

Can they still violate it? Obviously. Anyone can violate anything. But it's more than just Obama "saying" he'll do it.

Affirming. The initial title of Glenn's column did indeed read Various Matters. It has been since changed to Are political dynasties growing? I'm looking at his column on two different tabs; one I'd loaded within 10 minutes of when it went up, and one I loaded when I saw your comment.

Not sure who made that unauthorized change, but it's been changed back.

You're setting the bar pretty goddamned low if disclosing visitor logs is a "substantial" step forward.

Have any other Presidents disclosed that? Are you willing to publish a list of everyone you meet with in your office? And what would be a "substantial" forward -- a video camera in the Oval Office that broadcasts 24/7 on the Internet?

I made clear it's no panacea -- doesn't solve their multiple transparency problems -- but it's the first time the public will have the right to know who is going to the WH to meet with WH officials -- Dick Cheney litigated to the Supreme Court to prevent that from happening -- and I think it's significant.

All very well-said:

That point is not only disputable but plainly and evidently wrong. The Nazis had forced themselves on Austria but even after a peaceful entry during the Anshluss they rounded up all Austrians that were anti Nazi and sent them to camps. Whilst they were doing that they were forcing concessions out of the Czechs forcing them to give up the German speaking Sudenten lands.

And even after they had done so they then still moved and took over Czechoslovakia proper. The Nazis were up to creating an empire in the heart of Europe.

That idiotic statement above just proves again that anti war people can be as much full of shit as those that support war.

In Broder's world crimes committed by Democrats must be punished, because Democrats are essentially not pro-American.

When did Broder argue for prosecutions of Democrats?

"certainly deviated" in terms of domestic policy? this implies a stark contrast between Obama and the GOP.

I'd honestly like to know that the basis for this assertion is, because I'm having difficulty seeing it.

As I wrote that, I thought in the back of my mind I may be implying more of a difference than I intended, but never got around to changing it. Of course I've written many times about how enthralled they are to corporate power in the same way the GOP was in the domestic realm.

Still, there are differences: the GOP overwhelmingly opposed the stimulus package. They'll vote against whatever health care reform package is passed. The DOJ is about to revitalize civil rights enforcement. They made it easier to sue for gender discrimination. The GOP opposes cap-and-trade. McCain isn't appointing someone like Sotomayor but like Scalia. They liberalized stem cell research and abortion funding. They granted some benefits to same-sex couples for federal employees. There are lots of other issues like that.

I'm not suggesting they're pure progressives in these areas. Many of those are little more than gifts to industry. But it's still a deviation from what GOP policy would be, and they're not all significant.

Do we have any responsibilities to countries we invade?

It's a fair question, even a good one, and the answer is clearly "yes." But that doesn't mean we should stay. How many civilians are we going to slaughter in fulfilling our "responsibilities"? And who really believes that we're there to help the Afghan people. Wars aren't fought for charitable purposes; they're fought to advance self-interest.

The idea that we can "improve" and help another nation by invading, bombing and occupying it is a pipe dream. Is it possible that a nation might end off marginally better after a war? It's possible, but it's unlikely in the extreme. There are a lot of other ways -- more effective ways -- we could fulfill our obligations than continuing to occupy and wage war in their country.