But why is the onus placed on Democrats ALONE in this article? From what I've been reading lately, and what I've seen of the GOP talking points bubbling through the mouths of so-called journalists, suddenly the worst abuses of the Bush administration are the fault of the Democrats.

Who said the onus is on Democrats "ALONE"? I said the opposite:

And while it was the Bush White House which initiated this practice and it was Republicans in Congress who voted for it, Democrats -- who calculated that meaningfully opposing this bill would be too politically costly and would jeopardize their election victory -- bear significant culpability for its enactment.

Having said that, though, the Democrats control the agenda of the House. When they were in the minority, they repeatedly claimed they could not control the agenda because they were in the minority. Now they are in the majority. Who else should be responsible for introducing and enacting this bill?

Moreoever, the Republican Party has, more or less in unison, made clear they support this bill. Democrats claim to oppose it. So why shouldn't the onus be on them to follow through on those claims?

Can I yell "Fire" in a theater too?

The hallmark of someone with no argument is someone who spouts that wretched clice. I don't know who first said that but whoever it is deserves substantial punishment in the afterlife.

Sometimes you have to make a choice - and the simple one here is: "War or Police Action?"

We have a mechanism under our Constitution for how a "war" is declared. That's when Congree declares one.

And according to the advocates of the "war," this "war" is supposed to last for decades, at least. That means fundamentally changing our country not temporarily, but permanently, and keeping people imprisoned for life without charges. If that's the type of country you like, then you are the type of person that the Founders of the country waged war in order to avoid.

If it is the latter - then give Habeas Corpus to all of the guys in Guantanamo and let the Zakarias Mousawi type trial circus begin for all of these men. That should tie up the Federal Bench for a few years.

Of all the misinformed and just plain stupid arguments that we're subjected to, the idea that our federal courts, with tens of thousands of cases, are going to be "flooded" by granting due process rights to Guantanamo detainees -- who number in the hundreds -- is, I think, the single most misinformed.

Also, our courts are really busy, so we should allow the police to start entering our homes without warrants so that those nice judges aren't so burdened by the warrant process.

Of course, there will be few trials because when the defendants start finding out who their accusers are (especially the ones overseas) they will be killed and their testimony made invalid. This is one of the reasons you never saw trials of spies during the cold war too - you risked losing your sources.

Presumably, any "accusers" of terrorists are themselves terrorists, which is how they are able to come into possession of information about other terrorists. Therefore, they are likely already in U.S. custody, or they ought to be.

But if it is a war - then pass a law to have some kind of military trials with enhanced evidence rules. But don't pretend that this is just a normal case for the bench.

The MCA has nothing to do with the difference between civilian and military tribuinals, because nothing in the MCA requires a military trial in order to detain people indefinitely. Under the MCA, the President can detain people indefinitely without any meaningful process. That's the whole point.

Then what? Does the Autocracy wither? Does anyone seriously believe it will? I don't. More than likely what will happen is that there will be much parading around and blaring of trumpets and public worship of the "restored" Constitution, but nothing will actually have been "restored" at all.

The restoration of habeas corpus will accomplish exactly what it will accomplish -- namely, it will enable the thousands of people who are withering away for years in U.S. custody the opportunity to get into a court and convince a federal judge that they are not guilty.

Nobody is suggesting that the enactment of this bill would be some cure-all or would satisfy those who make grand systemic critiques of America (if anything would ever be satisfactory).

But there are real human beings in detention right now, and while it may be true -- sitting on a generalized intellectual plane of political philosophizing -- that this measure would only be a small fraction of what is needed, it is equally true that the difference between having a habeas corpus right and having none is enormous for the actual people who are actually being detained with no process of any kind.

We've had this discussion before, but absent some violent fundamental revolution -- which might be more glorious and dramatic but is so improbable that it's irresponsible to wait for it -- all change is going to be incremental. And each increment can easily be dismissed away as insufficient by pointing to all the things left to be done.

But that is tantamount to being in a group trying to climb a mountain, and each milestone that is passed along the way, having to hear: "Oh, what we just accomplished is nothing, meaningless, who cares? Look at all the ground we have to cover still." Yeah, that's true. But so what? It still is necessary to take each step.