But what about indefinite terrorism suspect detainee detentions, or even potential detainment after acquittal?
A strong case can be made that the prior administration did an extremely poor job paying attention to and properly addressing the issue -- from an over focus on Iraq while the real problem in Afghanistan was never effectively rooted out (and continues today), to ignoring warnings alltogether with respect to the initial threat.
Combine this nevertheless with the fascinatingly manufactured point that it is the Clinton administration -- which did far more to address the threat in the face of more imminent warning, and even took unusal steps to overly brief the incoming administration --which often tends to get blamed.
And consider Democrats "caving" on the so called FISA compromise issue, and other alleged national security matters. Here, the choice has often been to avoid "looking" weak, rather than simply being strong, and articulating and selling their case to stand on principles of freedom and justice first and foremost, and why it matters to America and who we are.
Perhaps the Democratic Party is concerned about losing the battle of rhetoric, and so is overly concerned with anything that, rightly or wrongly, might, to Democrats, allow their (perhaps increasingly right wing?) political opposition to miscast them. Recall that during the election cycle, Obama switched his principled opposition to that same misnamed "FISA compromise." Was it a real change of position, or a fear that he and his party during an election cycle simply would not win the battle of rhetoric? At this time, with the weight, responsibility, and worry of being President upon his sholders, as well as an opposition seeking to demonize and even mischaracterize him at every turn, what is Obama's position, now, as President?