Even in their scathing editorial, they equivocate mightily:

Given his other problems — and how far he has moved from the powerful stands he took on these issues early in the campaign — we do not hold out real hope that Barack Obama, as president, will take such a politically fraught step.

So: "Bloviate, bloviate, bloviate ... Don't expect Obama to actually DO anything about any of this; that would be unreasonable given his 'current problems' ... bloviate bloviate bloviate."

I guess it's a small step in the right direction, but my goodness it's telling to see them set the bar for the new administration so low.

...but am I the only one who would love to see him interview this woman? Boy, howdy, that would be an interesting 15 minutes.

...grew into one of the more graphic and compelling condemnations of Bush administration I've read. As is often the case with really excellent essays, the components were all familiar (indeed, you've written about this stuff extensively), but, perhaps in light of the "Persecutor's confession" and that chilling image of Obama's photo hanging at Guantanamo, they came together with unusual effect. A great way to start the new administration, Greenwald.

I can't help but note that McArdle's post was phrased as a question, and was admittedly titled "A Little Confused"; is it possible she was admitting her ignorance and hoping someone would give her a useful lecture on the topic? Or was she feigning ignorance while insinuating that Obama was fouling up the imaginary, ongoing UCMJ prosecutions? I'm not familiar enough with her writing to read between the lines.

Incidentally, her question WAS answered in her own comments section, by "JWR" within the first 30 posts and two hours of her original post:

Megan, you are a little confused. Neither KSM nor any other Gitmo detainee has been tried under the UCMJ. The Gitmo Military Commissions do not follow the UCMJ, they are done pursuant to the Military Commissions Act. The UCMJ is great, has lots of robust procedural protections, and has a long history and lots of integrity. The Bush administration chose not to use the UCMJ.

In Hamdan, the Supreme Court held the MCA was illegal precisely because, among other things, it failed to comply with the UCMJ:

"The military commission at issue lacks the power to proceed because its structure and procedures violate both the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949."

The MCA procedures are a joke, tailor-made for only the Gitmo prisoners. That's why the Obama administration is suspending them.

...Which, I guess, means that Glenn Reynolds didn't read much beyond the first paragraph. The whole lesson of the blogging age is that you've got to read the comments. Right?

I'm not an economist and I'm very open to new information, so please correct me where I'm wrong.

Here's a line from Grayson:

And we'll be able to ask the same questions to him and some more questions beyond that, and try to probe about what this federal agency has done with $1.2 trillion dollars of our money.

Isn't the congressman laboring under at least two misconceptions? I have always understood the Fed is NOT a federal agency and the money it loans is not "our money" in the same sense that money in the Treasury is.

Although the Directors of the Fed are picked by the President, it is not under government control. And, unlike the Treasury--which works with a finite balance sheet (in the red though it may be)--in the words of economist Gary North,

"Every time the FED buys an asset and does not offset the purchase by the sale of another asset of equal face value, the legal reserves rise for the nation's banks. The adjusted monetary base has increased from about $850 billion to $1.8 trillion since September of 2008."

In other words, from what I understand, the Fed is not lending "our money", it's printing money to buy toxic assets from banks at grossly inflated prices to save the banks from insolvency, and devaluing our currency in the process. One could argue (and I suspect Bernanke WILL argue) that's the Fed's JOB, loosely construed.

I couldn't tell from the interview whether congressman Grayson understands this distinction; he seemed to be treating the Fed as if it was the Department of the Treasury, and was subject to congressional oversight, or that American citizens are "on the hook" for $4000 each. If the Fed has spent that amount, we aren't in debt for it; but the money in our pocket is that much less valuable, so the damage is more insidious than a strict deficit.

Is the Fed's license to print money and spend it with no oversight whatsoever a dangerous policy?

Yes, of COURSE it is. It was dangerous when the Fed's loose monetary policies helped create the real estate and tech bubbles of the last 20 years, and it's dangerous now. It lends itself to the most unspeakable abuses, and is a primary mechanism by which the rich and powerful can bend the economy to their benefit, the government can finance wars, etc. etc.

Critics of the Fed have been saying this for some time. It's interesting to see that criticizing the Fed's secrecy and unaccountability has now entered Jay Rosen's "Sphere of Legitimate Controversy," though I'm sorry it's taken this long.

If Mr. Greenspan is interested in exploring this topic further, there seem to be many careful and thoughtful economists laboring out in the "Sphere of Deviance" who would, I suspect, enjoy a chance to get in out of the cold. Perhaps the time has come to question the Fed's methods, and even its very existence.

Ha! Yes, I meant Greenwald. I'm sure Greenspan has had his fill discussing the Fed.