It is a shame that a tough investigative journalist like Georgie boy who is not afraid to grill Obama about flag pins and Bill Ayers has suddenly lost his nerve to question a nonsensical assertion that has become a mantra for the Israel lobby's pod people aka the executive and legislative branches.

Don't you get it? We all hope Obama will govern better than he's presently indicating by his political maneuvering/acquiescence.

I still have a glimmer hope of hope re Obama and his administration, while at the same time decrying his apparent rubber stamping of the Bush foreign policy.

a. Iran with a stopped nuclear weapons program; but

b. with good likelihood of achieving enough highly-enriched uranium for a weapon in the next six years, with a small likelihood of achieving this by end of 2009; and

c. just a political decision away from restarting what appears to be a long-term strategic objective of acquiring nuclear weapons; yet

d. perhaps susceptible to some mixture of pressure and reward to abandon the weapons program permanently.

The problem for the American President is to induce Iran to abandon permanently its weapons program. The problem is very much there. Obama's words yesterday certainly do not exhibit the NIE understanding of the Iranian nukes problem.

I wasn't saying that Obama intended to extend the rationale to future cases. I was asking you: what possible grounds is there for confining the rationale to past cases?

Fair enough. The rationale is this - this is how I would hope Obama would frame it in announcing his proposed special court:

These special courts are created to resolve one problem and one problem only: we want a process that is more fair to the defendants, more adherent with the rule of law, than the current military commission tribunals. On the other hand, if we simply transferred these cases to regular US courts, because of some abuses committed by the previous administration, some detainees whose guilt of heinous crimes is practically unquestionable would have to be released. Neither situation is acceptable; therefore a third way is required.

The previous administration's abuses happened because they thought that US Constitutional principles would not apply to these suspects, because they were not US citizens or people acting in the US, because they were enemy combatants. They were wrong, but I'm stuck with cases that would be dead or seriously weakened if brought in US court, so I'm not going to do that.

But once these Bush-era detainees cases are adjudicated, the special court will be dissolved, Guantanamo will be closed forever, and all future terrorism cases will be handled in strict adherence to American rule of law. Period.

Shorter version: I'm only doing this because Bush fucked up and these are extremely serious cases. Then, no more.

Now I've answered your question. Will you answer mine? If transferring KSM's case to US court would result in dismissal due to Bush abuses, is that a just resolution?

As someone else noted, it is perfectly rational for Iran to want nuclear weapons. The situation from their perspective:

1) Bush named them, Iraq and North Korea to the Axis of Evil.

2) Iraq complied with the inspectors and was invaded for their trouble, despite not actually having WMDs or a functional program to create them.

3) North Korea made nukes and was not invaded.

4) Iran's overture of peace and willingness to talk about everything was completely ignored.

You're the Ayahtollah: What would you do with these facts?

There is something congenitally wrong with neo-conservatives (well, conservatives generally) that they utterly lack empathy and the ability to imagine situations from someone else's perspective.

I bet they all suck terribly at chess or other turn based board games where the ability to anticipate the opponent's moves is key to victory.

Maybe instead of (or in addition to) debates, Presidential candidates should play Risk.

God Bless You!

Of course, I do not necessarily mean the Christian/Judaic/Muelim God when I say that. ;-)

re:

By the way, are you aware that every day in this country, criminal convictions go up on appeal, and appellate review courts find that while Constitutional violations occured, the remaining evidence of guilt was compelling enough that the appeals courts decide to leave the convictions undisturbed?

Were you aware that THAT is the law of the land, that Consitutional defects are not an automatic get-out-of-jail-free card?

I'll note that the "remaining evidence of guilt" was apparently untainted by Constitutional violations. To whit, there was some evidence other than what had been tortured out of the accused.

Jesus, jest, I hope you can argue better in Court than you do in these toobz. And you haven't answered Greenwald's question about why it wouldn't be just peachy to enhancedly interrogate the shit out of future bad guys. There sure are plenty of them in the world, aren't there? Should we just decide in advance who the bad-guys are? Trials are over-rated anyway, aren't they?

This shows a troubling lack of inquisitiveness or honesty on Obama's part and a willingness to go along with the establishment's approved line regardless of the facts.

Does Obama actually believe this nonsense? If so, he is ignorant and naive, and if not (to put it bluntly) he is a liar. Either is troubling in the extreme, particularly given an issue with the potential for very real consequences in terms of war and peace, and life and death.

"I'm doing it just this once because George messed up! And nobody can EVER do it again!"

Seriously? That's your answer?

... where does the Constitution authorise the President to decide what weapons a sovereign nation may possess?

I must have missed the inauguration of the new Emperor of Earth.

Who is it, again?

I don't know, would you be straight with George S. or any of the MSM? If I were in charge, I wouldn't tell them squat and would treat them like children, until it served my purposes to do otherwise.

That I'm a politician and, therefore, can't or won't swim against the currents flowing through the government. Things aren't going to change so much as they stay the same. My only hope for his administration is that the obsessive secrecy of the last 8 years will be banished. Beyond that, he has the same mindset that has been driving the US become an increasingly rigid facade.