What's he got to push back with? He's a made a mockery of the entire debate. His unwillingness to prosecute those who broke the law and then stand there and act like he's so darn moral about it is hypocrisy at it's finest.

The thing about Obama, his best skill, is to talk out of both sides of his mouth when the polls conflict with what he knows he should do - and his party wants him to do.

Wasn't one of them that no one was above the rule of law? How does that square with refusing investigation and if need be prosecution of persons who announce publicly that they have acted without regard for legal limits?

Fooee on Obama's care for law.

First let me say that yes, Obama is better than McCain, but that's hardly an endorsement.

Secondly, lets get down to the fact that COURTS make findings of guilt or innocence, not the Executive of Congress. Sure Obama can hold people without trial or charge forever if he wants, but that makes him little better than Bush. Please, somebody explain to me how when the Executive gets the power to detain people without charge and find them guilty without trial hot it's NOT a dictatorship.

Finally, any recommendations on a better country to live in? Whenever the housing market picks up I think I'd like to move my family out of the USA for good, probably to Spain or France. Sure my bloodline has been here since before there was an America, but now that Obama and Bush have reduced the Constitution to a piece of paper, I don't think this is a safe country to raise children. As Obama is going to let Presidents keep the power of detaining without charge and torture, at some point it will be my descendents being jailed or tortured because 'the President thinks it's needed'.

Oh, and Mr. Obama, go to Hell!

One of the "challenges of the future" will be to ensure that the use of torture does not occur again. This goal cannot be accomplished unless offenders, at least the originators of the offence, are punished.

What really boggles my mind is that we keep saying that we have prisoners, some of whom may have been tortured, who cannot be prosecuted. If we do not have sufficient evidence to establish their guilt in a court of law (allowing for classified evidence if necessary), under what right is it that we are asserting that their status as prisoners continue? If we have incarcerated people for years, and subjected them to "harsh interrogation" without such evidence, how can we not prosecute those who did so?

It might be highly convenient if we could just forget all of the mistakes that put us in this position, but we do not have that luxury, and neither does Obama.

Obama thinks he can say we are a nation of laws and yet refuse to investigate people who have admitted violating laws against torture.

He thinks he can straddle the fence. The Republicans smell blood in the water. They can see that Obama is just another pussy Democrat who they can push around.

What a fucking disappointment this loser is!!!!!!!! Once again I wasted my vote.

Did he talk about the irony of the 'base' wanting him to use his office for political retribution and wielding the office of the presidency as bludgeon? Or are we supposed to read that between the lines when he talks about congress and the DOJ doing their jobs?

..is which way will the wish wash?

In 4 months time, Obama is becoming the conservative that GWB was not. Of course this will drive the Salonistas nuts but this is how he is "covering his butt" in the event there is a new attack. The lefties have to get real on the this issue and let go.

Let's be clear: if Obama dismantles all of GWB's security apparatus as the hard left wants done by yesterday, and there is a new attack on his watch, Obama is "toast" and the Repubs are back in power for the next 25 years. This happened once before with Jimmy Carter so everybody is forewarned.

Makes me damned proud to have Obama as my president - kudos, Mr. President. Once again you have displayed the calmness, reasonableness, intelligence, and common sense I've come to admire.

Agreed. It means the "moderate" policy will be forever defined by which wingnuts can push the furthest, to drag the middle along with them.

From commenter James Levy, responding to Glenn Greenwald's post on Obama's speech:

The nefarious part was when Obama likened people who support the Constitution and the Rule of Law with those who say "anything goes" as both EXTREMISTS! And that he will adopt some golden mean of only occasionally and of course for our own good throwing out the Constitution and the rule of law in order to make us safe. As one poster earlier today said, give me my freedom and I'll worry about my safety. Obama completely repudiates here his oath of office and his primary responsibility to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, not violate it for some higher good of "protecting" us. Every despot you can think of believes he is acting in the public good and to protect the citizenry from some dire evil.

James Levy has it exactly right. We are in big trouble here.

That's good. That's what America does, it wins. It is not a nation of law or even a nation of men, it is a nation of winners.

Just listen to the words of the Great American War Criminals, i.e. our glorious leaders. America, fuck yeah.

It's a winner.

He threw out a morsel of meat for his base at the beginning of his speech, then proceeded to tell them how he marinated it in his own piss. The morsel will be enough for the newbs though, they'll be chewing on it for the next few months and ignoring its unpleasant aftertaste.

Nice work Mr. President, former Ivy League Constitutional Law Professor. He has become his very own case study.