The Constitution does not grant our President the power to ignore the law so long as his motives are pure.

Actually, it does.

"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion, the public Safety may require it."

-- Article 1, Section 9

That wacky Constitution, understanding that in certain cases, Martial Law may be needed. Cwazy!

His dates of application for this exemption to legal due process ended at January 22nd, 2009 when he was attempting to pass Graham-Lieberman.

This is not about Graham-Lieberman. Read the linked article, I suggest.

Johnson said that “as a matter of legal authority,” the administration’s powers to detain someone under the law of war don’t expire for a detainee after he’s acquitted in court.

Graham-Lieberman is not law. They are claiming this authority now.

If this policy of presidential detention post-acquittal is really necessary, let Obama make public the information that proves it to be necessary.

Such a momentous issue cannot be decided by the President's say-so.

Now you get it. If you cede to the president the power to violate the law as he sees fit, there is, for practical purposes, "no law" at the highest level of government. For those whose faith in Obama is limitless and whose vision does not extend past the end of his presidency, that is hunky-dory. For others, not so much.

What the hell does this mean?

The Constitution requires a "declaration of war" from Congress before the President goes to war. Our country hasn't followed that Constitutional dictate for over 50 years. Does this mean we have "no law" in this country?

Is it really all-or-nothing in your simplified cartoon world?

How many laws are broken every day in every corner of this country that go unpunished? Does this mean we have "no law"?

The power of the judiciary is finite.

We must understand that as much as we push to have the law apply equally and in all cases, it never will be, and extenuating circumstances may lead to fiascos like what we see now in Gitmo.

"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion, the public Safety may require it."

-- Article 1, Section 9

Win, do you honestly see this is as allowing the government to break the law? It IS the law. The law allows the government to suspend habeas corpus when public safety so reqires in the event of "rebellion or invasion." I can't imagine how you think this supports any argument you are making.

Win, do you honestly see this is as allowing the government to break the law? It IS the law. The law allows the government to suspend habeas corpus when public safety so reqires in the event of "rebellion or invasion." I can't imagine how you think this supports any argument you are making.

In the Orwellian world where torture gets redefined to be "enhanced interrogation techniques" and is no longer a violation of the law, perhaps a dozen people holding placards near the Capitol can constitute a "rebellion", and two people without valid papers on a ship entering a US port can constitute an "invasion".

We cannot rule out these absurdities, because it is politically acceptable to Humpty-Dumpty-ize words.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.'

This is clearly a person who has allowed herself to be co-opted by whatever force is behind the gradual neutering of journalism. It was barely a generation ago that journalists brought down the Presidency and were otherwise regarded as a check on the actions of the government. To actually verbalize the stenographic model of journalism in such unambigous terms, and without any obvious embarassment is simply amazing and indicative of a totally soft-headed approach to life. What an idiot!

>>>We must understand that as much as we push to have the law apply equally and in all cases, it never will be, and extenuating circumstances may lead to fiascos like what we see now in Gitmo.

But Win, you're not "push[ing] to have the law apply equally and in all cases." That's what Glenn is doing! What YOU are doing is insisting that the law need not be applied equally and in all cases when there are "extenuating circumstances" (however those are to be defined), and (apparently) contending that since the government has broken the law in the past, there is no point in expecting it to comply with the law in the present and future.

Bush violated the laws of the United States, repeatedly and egregiously. That does not mean Obama has to. The only reason there is "now" a fiasco in Gitmo is because Obama is keeping said fiasco going.

The Constitution requires a "declaration of war" from Congress before the President goes to war. Our country hasn't followed that Constitutional dictate for over 50 years. Does this mean we have "no law" in this country?

In actuality, we have followed that rule - much in the same way as we followed the 'we do not torture' decree. There hasn't been any wars in the last 50 years, just conflicts and military actions. There also hasn't been any torture since 9/11, just enhanced interrogation techniques.

Obama Threatens to Veto Intel Bill If It Expands Covert-Briefing Access

By Spencer Ackerman 7/8/09 5:18 PM

So much for the most-transparent-administration-ever stuff. Remember the Democrats on the House intelligence committee’s effort to open briefings on covert intelligence programs to a broader pool of members of Congress than the so-called “Gang of Eight?” And that they pushed that change because those restricted briefings enabled the Bush administration to keep Congress in the dark about torture and warrantless surveillance? Yeah, President Obama says he’ll veto the fiscal 2010 intelligence bill if the House doesn’t scrap that provision. This is change you can believe in.

[emphasis added]