That would be 'Yoo'

Marcy Wheeler also points to this in Feingold's letter.

Feingold also issues a clever warning when discussing his opposition to Obama's suggested use of military commissions to try detainees: full transparency on the government's files.

Like you, I voted against the Military Commissions Act of 2006. I agree with you with regard to that statute's many flaws, but it is not clear to me that those flaws can be fixed, or that the other options in the current federal criminal justice and courts martial systems for bringing the detainees to justice are insufficient or unworkable. If Congress is to fully consider your proposal for military commissions, therefore, it will need access to the same information your administration is currently reviewing, including detailed, classified information on individual detainees and the extent to which other options are available. [Marcy's emphasis]

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/05/24/feingolds-opposition-to-indefinite-detention/

Although, it's not hard to imagine Feingold being "out voted" on it. I am developing a kind of entrenched skepticism that precludes Congress demanding access or exerting oversight... on anything... perhaps, especially, this.

Our Anglo-American judicial system has been in pretty much continuous development for the last 800 years. Even though a splinter group of the U.S. Supreme Court stole the election for Bush in 2000, it's fairly easy to see why the Bush administration in specific and the Neocons in general don't trust the judicial system.

When you think about it, the main purpose of the judicial system in our society is to determine the truth and tell it to the public. Yeah, sure, the system is subject to the same human frailties as the 12 citizens sitting in the jury box, and is a damned scary place to be if you're a young black man, but over the centuries the citizens have agreed to believe that judges and juries do a fair enough job of finding the truth, and that they will speak that truth to power.

It is easy enough to see why Bush and his followers so fear public judicial review; they can't stand the truth. It is just baffling to try to understand why Mr. Constitutional Law Professor would agree with them.

You have contributed to that backlash, and that is a very good thing. Keep the pressure on Glenn.

... It's a bit difficult to claim that what Obama is proposing is nothing new, nothing out of the ordinary, given that his own White House Counsel just last February told The New Yorker's Jane Mayer that it would be "hard to imagine Barack Obama as the first President of the United States to introduce a preventive-detention law."

...

It was not so hard to imagine. It was almost inevitable. If we ever get to the place where we find it acceptable (and legal) to hold any men, women, or children in captivity to prevent what they may do in the future, then no one can be safe from the government.

They first do it to the most reprehensible (or the most demonized) among us, then they do it to anyone they choose to after the populous offers no resistance and the practice has become normalized.

I'm really glad so many people are working so hard to bring to light the fundamentally dangerous notion at play here, since it's another one of those 'debates I never expected our society to be having', similar to that of the most recent years of whether or not the Magna Charta was outmoded and whether or not the President and / or Vice President possessed magical, kingly powers above those of the Constitution and legal limits.

Who in their right mind gives a damn about these miscreants that we have caged at Gitmo?

Unconstitutional treatment?, hearings? detentions??? Good God, simply forget it and spend you time praying for our Country that is now in the destructive grips of Marxist/Leninists.

I believe as others that some of these detainees are so damaged and shell shocked from their torture that to show them in a bright light would be as (or more) damning as the second batch of photos that aren't being released. Like American troops that liberated the death camps in WWII, Obama's team probably sees a lot of innocent people that are mere shells of their former selves and is very worried about the public outrage that will ensue. It's already been proven some of these people were just in the wrong place at the seriously wrong time.

The more I watch Gregory on MTP, the more I can directly hear the hidden powers speaking through his mouth. It's never felt like more like a dictatorship than it does now. The press is out of control. Correction the press is totally controlled.

I have noticed a lot of commenters (on many blogs) are wising up and not prostrating themselves before the Soothing One. Perhaps we can turn this. Thanks for the positive Feingold letter, Glenn.

The "backlash" is growing only in your mind. Other Americans have more to worry about than the civil rights of a handful of legacy terrorist suspects. Such as the teetering economy and joblessness, the impending Supreme Court nomination, global warming, health care, drug policy, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, etc. etc. etc. Even Feingold is abandoning you Left-Wing Loonies now. At the rate you're going you'll marginalize yourself completely by the end of the week. Good luck w the next book after that happens.

Finally, I read Obama's speech yesterday properly in order to get right to the exact words he said rather than the second hand parsing that seems to go on from commentators both right and left.

this passage struck me:

"Having said that, we must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded. They can't be based simply on what I or the executive branch decide alone. That's why my administration has begun to reshape the standards that apply to ensure that they are in line with the rule of law. We must have clear, defensible, and lawful standards for those who fall into this category. We must have fair procedures so that we don't make mistakes. We must have a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified."

It may be me, but this seems to have been totally ignored. It's not like he is salivating at the chance to have unlimited preventive detention; and it's not like this is something he would have done absent the current horribly complicated situation in GITMO. Glenn, in your previous column, you had a number of questions for Obama supporters to consider all of which I think are extremely relevant - we must of course always question the decisions made and be curious - but one i thought was missing was to those who criticise the decisions; would Obama have made them if he weren't faced with the "mess" of a situation?

Maybe this is naive, but the fact that Obama - at least as far as I can see - clearly makes these decisions with a heavy heart and with a recognition that his successors might not have such a heavy heart - gives me comfort that whatever framework is introduced will be the least bad option out of many terrible ones.

Having said that I will reserve judgment until the framework is actually determined, but until then I am willing to wait and see before shouting Gulag or fascist or Bush lite or any of the other absolutely ridiculous things we now hear.

The one area where I thought Obama got it wrong was this:

"I have confidence that the American people are more interested in doing what is right to protect this country than in political posturing."

Unfortunately, that does not seem to be case either with the right wingnuts or the verging on hysterical so-called progressives.