I read the New York Times. What if (sic) observe is that many of you read only the 'edited' excerpts from news articles presented to you online by people like Glenn. Both the left and right do the same thing.

Ah, now, you would be wrong about that. I read prolifically, widely, thoroughly and enjoyably (which means I like to read a lot). Why do you assume I read "only the 'edited' excerpts presented ... by people like Glenn"? Is it because you can't find an angle of attack?

You don't have to agree with either Greenwald or anyone who comments here. But I don't think it's too much to ask that you make your case with something other than "you know what occurred to me the other day while reading the authoritative NY Times? Why, there's a lot of misinformed disagreement out there among the rabble"!

then it is the job of an international court not U.S courts or the ACLU.

Surely you do not mean that as a US citizen I should be unconcerned about the actions of my government involving non-US citizens?

Give me a break. They are not holding U.S citizens. They are holding terrorist suspects from other countries. I do not agree with torture, but some of you act as if this will happen to just anyone. If they have any proof of wrong doing, they be an international court not U.S. military courts with ACLU defending them. I thought the ACLU purpose was for U.S. citizen's civil liberties. This is a national defense and international issue.

If I knew of a way, in all seriousness, to disabuse you of almost all of the notions you just expressed, I could truly say I had the key to ending human and civil rights abuses. I'm not picking on you, but what you said encapsulates the difficulties with ending torture and illegal detention so very well.

Here goes, but I think this is one that needs a Glenn:

• Can't give you a break. People are suffering.
  
• Human beings have human rights, everywhere. Many civil rights in the U.S. Constitution are understood to be for everyone, not U.S. citizens.
  
• In this country, the length of time you could hold a 'suspect' used to be 48 hours. Does 7 years seem enough now?
  
• It can happen to anyone. Ask al Marri or Mahar Arar.
  
• What international court? The U.S. removed its signature from the Rome Statute, and nobody has convened an International Criminal Tribunal on this.
  
• The ACLU defends civil liberties of everyone in the United States. Have you ever heard of Sacco and Vanzetti?
  
• Why is holding someone on a rumor or because they were named by a person being tortured a national defense issue?
  
• Finally, you got one right. It is an international issue. The issue is the United States obeying international law.

As I said, bernbart, I'm not picking on you. You are sometimes like a mouthpiece for all the pent up fears that otherwise good people are holding inside after these 8 years. But what you said just isn't right. And human rights are for everyone, everyone in the world. Thanks for listening.

"The president-elect's reversal on Guantanamo shows that criticism from supporters when he deserves it is vital, not a gift to the Republicans"

Well it maybe that but then again it may be something else. For one thing he really shouldn't need pressure from below and without in order that he does the right thing. A man who is a good leader should do exactly that lead.

So bearing that in mind it might have been other considerations that brought about that press release.

Maybe he didn't like being obliged to have to comment on Cheney's unasked for advice during the t.v interview. Maybe the Newsweek article got up his nose. Or maybe the fine illustration that accompanied the article caused him to think he needed to put some distance in thinking between him, an incoming prez. and Cheney an outgoing vice, a bit quickly unless he started to look like Cheney's lackey.

The simple manoeuvring between two suits for advantage might be the more accurate and dreary interpretation of events.

In other words a cross between a bit of arm wrestling and a pissing competition between an old lag seen better days and a young highly perfumed prince.

Not pretty and smells something awful.

Why do I keep on mis-reading your name as Bernice Breitbart?

Maybe I'm reading too much Sadly, No!

I was NEVER mislead on the Iraq war. I knew it was a mistake from the beginning. The NYT did not support the war, they reported on it. The New York Times does the best investigative reporting of any newspaper. I don't believe everything I read, and that is why challenge Glenn, and will also challenge Democrats and Obama. I supported Obama, worked to get him elected because he is pragmatic. But I will not do not follow Obama blindly either.

I've never see young people out on the streets in large masses peaceful civil disobediance, just protesting online.

I was NEVER mislead on the Iraq war. I knew it was a mistake from the beginning. The NYT did not support the war, they reported on it.

Ah yes, perhaps it was a differert NYT that Ms. Miller worked for.

My take is that Glenn doesn't so much object to the cult of personality he sees all around Obama (which, for Glenn, includes everyone who: a) doesn't already hate Obama; b) can't yet see the colossal failure of Obama's presidency; c) is insufficiently ideologically pure; and d) doesn't agree with every word the Great Greenwald puts on a computer screen. No, it isn't the cult that Glenn objects to, Glenn is just jealous that his own cult isn't bigger. (Cue Glenn's Moms to come defend their boy.)

I have to say, this really made me laugh. Your frustration and anger perplexes me, really. It flummoxes me. But remember, I'm not a Mom (although I do have that Greenwald altar I mentioned before; and a candle has been lit to harvest your soul which I shall slurp up at the earliest opportunity).