A few weeks back, discussing torture and the memos which tried to explain why the government could employ particular methods of extracting information from those in its custody, it seemed important to remind readers of our national mood in the immediate wake of 9/11, particularly, I suppose, here in the east coast. On one of the sites where these doodles get posted, one of our "colleagues" lectured me to

Speak for yourself. My first thought [after the attacks of 9/11] was 'What horrible shit are we now gonna unleash on the world?'

I'm against the idea of a 'War on Terra' and have been since day one. To have a war you have to be fighting a country, not a ragtag bunch of outlaws. Not to mention that for a war to be legitimate, you have to have first been attacked by said country... 9/11/2001 was always a law enforcement issue and should have been treated as such. Raining bombs down on peoples' weddings is neither a moral nor an effective response.

Fortunately, the political party to which I belong, and the President of the United States we nominated and saw elected, does not share this view.  Speaking just for myself, my thoughts after hearing that an office building in which I used to work was hit by a hijacked passenger airline as was the building next door, as was the Pentagon and that a fourth airplane crashed in a field in Pennsylvania, and that the US government had no handle on this or whether there were more such jets on the way,was of a sudden fear of being attacked by an organized group from which the government was unable to protect me, my family or my community.

I understand that many did not have to consider whether a child was safe at school that day, but was able to worry about what "horrible shit" the United States might do in response. It is good to know that so many were spared the many wakes, funerals and comforting of next door neighbors whose father and husband were killed that day, or of a co-worker whose son died, or of talking with a woman from my community who was still shaking a week later from watching planes hit 1 WTC from her office in the building in which I used to work, 2 WTC.

I do not agree with much of what was done in response, nor in what was done to protect us from the attack in the first place, nor did I want the twerp who was President of the United States to being holding office at the time. Others, a majority of my country apparently, disagreed with my views.

But that was then, and now, in 2009, were are blessed to have almost the exact opposite of what passed for political leadership, in the White House and charged with the duty to

preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

That is, by the way, the oath the President takes as specified in the Constitution.  Vice Presidents, whose oath is not specifically prescribed by the Constitution, generally take the same one most federal officers take upon entering into office to

support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; ...bear true faith and allegiance to the same [and] that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter

So, when the former Vice President asks, as he did last Sunday, that we

look at it from the perspective of a senior government official, somebody like myself, who stood up and took the oath of office on January 20th of '01 and raised their right hand and said we're going to protect and defend the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic, this was exactly,exactly what was needed to do it

it seems that, particularly given the words he excised from the oath he actually took----"the Constitution of the"----that we should remain eternally grateful that he and his ilk are gone and we should resolve that they should never be allowed to hold such positions as "a senior government official" again.

I do not advocate just turning over responsibility for our national fate to President Obama and blindly agreeing with whatever he says.  I think the President himself would not find such "support" to be useful or in the best interests of the country.

But he is not George W. Bush or Dick Cheney.  He is not Richard Nixon or Ronald Reagan or Herbert Hoover, and he is not J. Mitchell Palmer, Joseph McCarthy, Donald Rumsfeld  or Barry Goldwater.

So when the President of the United States says that the release of certain photographs, which

 represent conduct that did not conform with the Army Manual.... would not add any additional benefit to our understanding of what was carried out in the past by a small number of individuals [and that i]n fact, the most direct consequence of releasing them ...would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger

and it is this President, a student of history and the Constitution and a lawyer who understands the requirement of law, and his duties as commander in chief of our military forces, his view is entitled to substantial respect.  We are all free to disagree with it---to argue that the publication of these photographs would further the ends of purging our country of the shame "we"---at least enough of "us" to put the Bush cabal in office----brought on our nation, but to suggest evil motives or crass political judgments trumping what he knows to be the right thing to do, is wrong and unfair.

Likewise, before anyone makes judgments about a President abandoning "promises" he made during his campaign, they will have to show what he said then that contradicts his view, expressed yesterday that

Military commissions have a long tradition in the United States. They are appropriate for trying enemies who violate the laws of war, provided that they are properly structured and administered. In the past, I have supported the use of military commissions as one avenue to try detainees, in addition to prosecution in Article III courts.  In 2006, I voted in favor of the use of military commissions. But I objected strongly to the Military Commissions Act that was drafted by the Bush Administration and passed by Congress because it failed to establish a legitimate legal framework and undermined our capability to ensure swift and certain justice against those detainees that we were holding at the time

so that with the right "reforms" to the system the previous regime put in place the

the Commissions [should become] a legitimate forum for prosecution, while bringing them in line with the rule of law.  In addition, we will work with the Congress on additional reforms that will permit commissions to prosecute terrorists effectively and be an avenue, along with federal prosecutions in Article III courts, for administering justice. This is the best way to protect our country, while upholding our deeply held values

accusations that he has become "Bush lite" are wildly off the mark.  If your view is that these prisoners should simply be allowed to return home to plot to kill Americans, either because the war we fought was "illegitimate" or the Bush administration was eveil there is little we can say to one another.  If you believe the President is taking positions to mollify Rush Limbaugh, rather than because he has studied the problem and honestly believes this to be the best way to proceed, you are being grossly unfair.  If you don't agree with his decision and have a better idea, I am all ears and eyes and I am certain he is, too.

The frightened American public of late 2001 (of which I was a member) wanted the government to do what it did (I did not, in many respects, but was hugely outvoted).  What they did was, in many ways, grossly wrong.  They have been punished for that, and for deceiving us and not protecting us as they were charged to do, and it is my hope that they have been tarnished much as President Hoover's party was by their failures in the critical period from 1929 to March, 1933, a punishment which lasted, in the main, until January, 1991.

Whether more should be done this time is not clear to me.  What is certain is that we have turned a corner, and restored our country to what it was on, say, November 21, 1963, but with the most difficult parts of the struggle for civil rights now behind us.  Let's try to continue our march forward, without too much backbiting and the questioning of the motives of what could be one of our greatest presidents.