That we are likely to be disappointed with the Obama administration. It certainly appears to me that he indeed intends to 'play ball' in order to grease his own agenda. But nevertheless, its important that such efforts be in the open and under the glare of public scrutiny.

That is why I appreciate your efforts to apply simple logic to pull away at least one curtain that will be drawn in order to sheild the new administratio'ns 'allies' in Congress and the previous executive Branch from actual scrutiny.

I read somewhere, that there are a whole bunch of CIA types that are just waiting patiently for 1-20-09 at which point they intend to sing like birds. I have serious doubts. If they have an important story to tell, they shouldn't wait. Crime is crime, no matter who is in office ata any given moment.

Glenn should try to think of ways to protect the Constitution and the rule of law without resorting to extremist partisanship. -- skeptonomist

Glenn is a writer, not a policymaker. What you're describing is the job of Federal employees and appointess.

And there's really nothing "extreme" or "partisan" about investigating the acknowledged crimes of the outgoing Administration. Apply the law as written to the actions taken, ignoring all party affiliations, and that's all there is to it.

Except that would mean pretty much every sitting Representative, Senator, Congressional Aide, Secretary, Undersecretary, and White House Aide would spend the next decade giving testimony and the rest of the century serving time. Not terribly practical.

Never mind the Beltway is such an insular and incestuous community that makes the Moonies look positively enlightened.

If they would have prosecuted Ronnie and Ollie, Bush would have never ever thought of doing what he did.

There probably would have never been a Bush.

Glenn should try to think of ways to protect the Constitution and the rule of law without resorting to extremist partisanship.

-- skeptonomist

1. We have a judicial system because no one has found another acceptable way.

2. It is necessary to enforce the rule of law. That is how you protect the constitution.

3. Why must bipartisanship always block effective action when the dems are in charge, but the repubs can do whatever they want when they are in charge?

I'll grant, it's been a long time since my high school civics class. However, my admittedly limited understanding of our government is centered around the division of powers as first told to me: the Legislative branch writes the laws, the Executive branch, well, executes the laws, and the Judicial branch enforces the laws.

I know, it's pretty simplistic. But, I'm almost positive it's accurate. So, isn't it ironic that the one thing that these people don't want a President Obama to do is... his primary job?

It sure seems like that's been a problem with our Government for a while now. They all want to get elected (or appointed), but none of them want to do their jobs once in office. Congress doesn't want to do over-sight, the President hasn't wanted to execute the laws (or follow them) as they are written, and our judiciary has made what appear to be a slew of questionable decisions.

So, to everyone we've elected or who has been entrusted with the public trust: Please, just do your job and shut up about your irrelevant personal philosophies.

http://tinyurl.com/6hdzaj

The Rightwing punishment: apologizing!

"Glenn should try to think of ways to protect the Constitution and the rule of law without resorting to extremist partisanship."

-- skeptonomist

Good idea!

Perhaps you can point him in the right direction by giving us your ideas on how to do this.

I'm curious, though. Why do you believe it is "extremist partisanship" to demand that lawbreakers be held to account for their behavior? That's new concept to me.

So new, that it grants you an automatic entry in Today's Contest.

".. former department criminal division chief Robert S. Litt asked that the new administration avoid fighting old battles that could be perceived as vindictive."

That's a very good point, but I think Mr Litt casts the net woefully short. We currently have over 2½ million people incarcerated in the United States who may or may not have broken laws in the past. We need to move on from these "old", "vindictive battles", these "vendettas", and deal with the issues facing us today. Charles Manson was incarcerated in 1969 - almost 40 years ago! What's up with that???

As President Bush so rightly said 2 years ago, "the FISA law was written in 1978! We're having this discussion in 2006! It's a different world!" Abso-fucking-lutely!!!! A lot of people weren't even BORN when tens of thousands of Americans currently in prison were incarcerated! It's 2008! What kind of madness is this!!!!

I agree 100% with the Republican Party - Empty Our Jails Now!!

First of all -

Glenn, I started reading Unclaimed Territory way back when due to your persistence and eloquence around precisely these issues. Thanks for all your efforts.

Second of all, what kind of crack are these particular village idiots smoking and why hasn't it killed them yet?

Let's take a poll and find out, honestly, what percentage of the public wants "the government" -not "the Bush Administration" and not "the Clinton Administration" and not "the Obama Administration," but "the US Goverment" to be able to do ANYTHING without some degree of oversight, accountability, and liability in a court of law for violations of US statutes.

Is there anyone outside of the beltway tin hat reality defiance zone who thinks this is a good idea? And if so, for heaven's sake, WHY?!?!?!?!?

I suppose this is one possible answer, but it is the opposite of convincing:

... It is ironic that the virtues of loyalty, discipline, and self-sacrifice that we value so highly in the individual are the very properties that create destructive organizational engines of war and bind men to malevolent systems of authority.

Each individual possesses a conscience which to a greater or lesser degree serves to restrain the unimpeded flow of impulses destructive to others. But when he merges his person into an organizational structure, a new creature replaces autonomous man, unhindered by the limitations of individual morality, freed of humane inhibition, mindful only of the sanctions of authority.

-Stanley Milgram, "Obedience to Authority", 1974

link at signature