I knew what the question was going to be.

As soon as Obama said they only had a week to respond, I told my wife Glenn Greenwald is going to hammer him on that one, the judge was willing to give them time and was surprised they didn't ask for it.

I still contend that any statement by the President is the opinon of one man, not the opinion of the Executive Branch of the US government. If he says that he thinks the State Secrets power is being used overbroadly, that is his opinion and he is entitled to it. Like you Glenn, I applaud this opinion. But is it legal? Who gets to decide that? When the new President says 'the executive branch has changed it's mind' and a case is decided because of that, then what impetus is there to change or expand restrictions on the practice to limit its use when there is a new President, with a new mind? If there is anything good to come of the insanity that we have endured for the past eight years, it might just be that these radical ideas of Dick Cheney's will finally get their day in court.

I was extremely gratified that those questions were brought up, although I was disappointed in Obama’s answer to Scherer; it’s pretty hard to deny that he simply lied in his answer.

It was also discouraging that no other reporters followed up. Why couldn’t someone have pointed out that the Justice Department lawyers said that their position had been cleared at the highest levels or asked why the government didn’t ask for more time. I guess it was more important to find out what “enchanted” Obama.

The fact is, Obama usually says the right thing to questions, and if reporters pinned him down on things like the state secrets privilege, he’d be forced to actually do the right thing rather than just say it. Well, or stop having press conferences.

He's still a bit hazy on calling the acts torture:

And -- and so I strongly believed that the steps that we've taken to prevent these kinds of enhanced interrogation techniques will make us stronger over the long term and make us safer over the long term because it will put us in a -- in a position where we can still get information.

If its torture, then call it torture every time. How does this "enhanced interrogation techniques" term creep back into the answer?

Let's allow for a moment that President Obama, presumably like Senator Obama, really wants the whole 'State Secrets' regime to be at least reduced to a more rational level. Its probably hoping too much it be jettisoned entirely, so reducing it to become the extreme exception to the nominal rule is the best we can hope for.

What's stopping him from doing so right now? A few possibilities come to mind. For starters, its likely a full accounting of the previous Administration's 'interrogation tactics' (from conception through execution) coming out will harm the Democratic caucus as badly as it will the goposaurs. Its no secret there are key members in both caucuses who were made aware of the 'enhancements' that were developed, with no objections offered or recorded to them, and equally doubtless there is an encyclopedia-worth of details we the public still don't know about it all. If even some of the other rumored evils that were committed (child rape among them) under US direction, perhaps the Senators have good reason to fear further exposure.

Perhaps I'm simply too post-partisan to comprehend the President choosing to favor his party over the trust of his office. But then I had a far, far higher opinion of the Senator from Illinois than of the former Governor of Texas; the latter's choice of advisors made hyper-partisanship a virtual certainty.

That said, I go back to my original question: why doesn't President Obama end this here and now? The danger to eroding Congressional standing is one thought. Anyone care to hazard any others?

1: @dcarmack: Your ideas about One Mans Opinion do not comport with the reality of signing statements and executive orders, which have long since been used to over-ride the Constitution itself. I suggest that you wake up now. Give yourself a good hard smack in the mouth.

2: Liars, Thieves, Murderers. I know, I've said it before. But it is repugnant that the murder of "suspects" not only does not raise an eyebrow here, but mention of it gets studiously ignored. First, they came for the suspected terrorists ...

Liar: Glenn has just documented (again) that Obama is a barefaced liar.

Thief: It is a matter of public record that his administration has taken hundreds of billions of dollars from the citizenry to benefit vested corporate interests, and that he was complicit in this process even before the election.

Murderer: The White House openly admits that Obama gave authorisation for missile attacks on "suspected terrorists" in Pakistan, simultaneously an act of war and of murder.

3: I had to have a grim chuckle at Glenn's "WHEN he does the wrong thing". A fan of Obama might have said "IF he does the wrong thing" ...

I was struck by this part of Pres. Obama's response regarding the release of the torture memos:

"So when I made the decision to release these memos and when I made the decision to bar these practices, this was based on consultation with my entire national security team, and based on my understanding that ultimately I WILL BE JUDGED AS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF on how safe I’m keeping the American people. That’s the responsibility I wake up with and it’s the responsibility I go to sleep with.

And so I WILL DO WHATEVER IS REQUIRED to keep the American people safe..."

Since when did the main criteria of a president's performance become his role as Commander in Chief and "keeping the American people safe"? I thought his oath was to protect and defend the Constitution? I may be getting forgetful, but I just don't recall the Constitution granting the President the powers to do "whatever is required" to keep me safe!