I believe I stated that the situation that we have now is "grey" because we have a non-governmental entity (Al-Qaida, Salafism, Jihadism or whatever you want to call it) that effectively has developed the ability to wage war on selected targets with military level force.

Just like Timothy McVeigh or the first WTC bombing attempt? But you didn't wet your pants then, did you?

The main difference is that on 9/11 they didn't bother to rent the delivery vehicles, they had the nerve to steal them. Military level force? You are hysterical. Consult a physician. Get an hysterectomy.

It is time the Democrats take some responsibility and fix what they were afraid to challenge.

One point I would make is regarding this statement in the article: "That is the system of American justice which the 2006 Congress imposed -- people swept off the streets of America and imprisoned indefinitely, with no charges and no venue to prove one's innocence."

I would only add that in the system of American justice prior to this 2006 act of Congress, Americans did not have to prove their innocence. The government had to prove they were guilty. I suspect that is what the author meant, but we should be careful in our language. Everyone should understand that the burden of proof lies with the accuser and not the accused and "innocent until proven guilty" should not be compromised in anyway.

I really have no idea why you imply that I would support rounding up people willy nilly without warrants - but as I have noted in many of your columns, you always seem to take an idea and distort it to make your point. I thought the point of this column was an argument if Habeas Corpus has situations where it could be suspended.

You're serious, aren't you? You really thought he was writing in favor of such suspension.

English isn't your first language, is it? Or are you simply among the thousands of Americans who can't read?

That is correct. You should quit while ahead.

Thanks for another great piece. This is off topic and that annoys me but I just wanted to let you know that I have made three posts on Politico over the last several days and referenced your piece about their connections to the Republican Party. They are polite posts not vulgar rants and they never get posted. I have had other topics posted but not that one, and I have not read any other references to your work on their site.TPM got a refrerence today and I was shocked.

Wow - getting a rebuttal by the blogmaster himself! Imagine the nerve of actually having a different idea here and opening a debate.

How does one even start? First, WWII was the last major declared war the US fought - everything else has been "police" actions - but with authorizations by Congress (except perhaps Kosovo?) Whether Congress authorizes "force" or a legal state of war - the effect for the last 60 years has been pretty much the same.

I believe I stated that the situation that we have now is "grey" because we have a non-governmental entity (Al-Qaida, Salafism, Jihadism or whatever you want to call it) that effectively has developed the ability to wage war on selected targets with military level force. I am really not aware when an ideology has been coupled with such lethal military capacity and is willing and ready to die to effect it. These people are not "soldiers" but I consider them more than just criminals too. The phrase "enemy combatant" may be repugnant to you, but it straddles the middle pretty well.

I mentioned the Zakarias Mousawi trial because it was a circus that lasted something like 3 or 4 years? You want to put some hundred people on trial with the same duration - and supply resources for each? There are not an infinite level of resources in the court system for that = so I do not think that it is an unfair or misinformed speculation. Again - I did never implied that these people should rot in a cell either - but I do not think that justice would be served in the normal court system.

And the point of witnesses being killed - well, in the Middle East the family connections are usually so strong that any informer usually is from within the kinship group (or else the relatives of a witness can be reached). My point is that to have a normal trial with discovery rules in place - well, that would lead to the elimination of a lot of potential witnesses (through murder or intimidation) This is not speculation - I just read the paper from the middle east and observe how common this is in this part of the world.

In the Mousawi trial much of the time was spent trying to conceal the sources of the evidence for exactly the reasons I noted above - as well as to conceal some of other methods used to obtain it. In the cold war, there were rarely spy trials for the same reason - too much was revealed in order to obtain a conviction.

For those that pointed out that there was an insurrection when Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus - I agree, but it was targeted as much against dissenters (the Copperheads) as those actively supporting the South. I just wanted to make that point since I don't see MAC being used for those aims quite yet. (again - not in any way supporting that (mis)use of Presidential power here, folks!)

I really have no idea why you imply that I would support rounding up people willy nilly without warrants - but as I have noted in many of your columns, you always seem to take an idea and distort it to make your point. I thought the point of this column was an argument if Habeas Corpus has situations where it could be suspended. But then when people make "stupid arguments" it is your job to call that "wretched cliche". Kind of like a left wing Rush Limbaugh would, I suppose. After all, it's all just entertainment here!