Behind the debates, votes, and bureaucratic battles of the past few years over civil liberties, torture, Guantanamo, terrorist tribunals, the Patriot Act, and domestic wiretapping, are two different views of how to respond to the threat of terrorism. Republicans and liberals each frame the question differently, asking two basic questions that lead them to diverging answers about the same issues.

A. Republicans

• Question: What rights should we give to terrorists?
• Answer: It doesn't really matter. We need to do what is necessary to keep people safe. You shouldn't care what we do unless you are a terrorist. (See footnote.)

B. Liberals

• Question: How can we best reduce the risk of terrorism while preserving a free society?
• Answer: There is no simple answer. It's a complicated process necessitating many trade-offs and compromises and the process needs to be as transparent as possible.

While Republicans have often deflected Question B by answering Question A, their response to Question A indicates that they do not believe the two questions are related. I don't know how many times I have been told in debates on the issues that I shouldn't worry about them unless I am a terrorist. To consider the effect of our government's actions gets you called a "fellow traveler" with the jihadists or more charitably is labeled "pre-9/11 thinking". This is the essential idea of the books published by Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity, of countless columns in the National Review and Wall Street Journal, and of a large part of the Republican's electoral success in the 2002 and 2004 elections.

Politically, Question A confers great advantages. It offers easy answers. It comforts us - "If I'm not a terrorist, what do I care?" It seems a tougher approach. Most important though, it emotionally charges the issue. "Why should we confer the rights our society guarantees on those who have no respect for these rights and who will exploit them?" It separates them from us. Question B leads to a rational, reflective discussion and no easy answers. It's a much harder sell and has been portrayed as a sign of weakness.

Despite the political rhetoric, both questions are merely different ways of phrasing the same problem. In fact, the disagreement between Republicans and liberals centers around a single point of controversy:

Do terrorists have rights?

• Republicans have resoundingly answered "NO!" They have even gone so far as to indicate that even if you are only suspected of being a terrorist, you have lost many if not all rights.

• Liberals believe terrorists do have rights, although many liberals do acknowledge that terrorism presents such a challenge to our way of life that we must make some changes to our system to deal with the issue effectively.

Within the Republican framing of the issue is a single, absolutely frightening idea that undermines the very basis of our nation and freedoms: that the government confers rights upon people rather than that rights being inherent in each individual. This is a profoundly unconservative idea - a radical one more generally associated with Communism than with any American ideology. You can see this idea at work listening to the chief prosecutor for Guantanamo defend his treatment of prisoners there, in Cheney's defense of the terrorist tribunals, in Rudy's defense of "enhanced interrogation", in Bush's defense of domestic wiretapping.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..."

The problem with the Republican position is that it denies the very basis for American government, one of the cornerstones of our Constitution. If you believe in the ideals encapsulated in the first collective document produced by the American nation, in the reason for the revolution that created our country, in the ideals that animated the Founders in creating the Constitution, then terrorists have rights, inherent, inalienable, and God-given. If you reject this idea and believe instead that the government grants us rights which we can then exercise - to a fair and speedy trial, to a jury of peers, to not be tortured, to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, to free speech, to freedom of assembly, to an expectation of privacy - then you have negated the very basis of our founding. This is self-evident.

What then is the rationale for the Republican position?

Simply, the Republican position is this: the terrorists have won. The terrorists' ideas and actions make America's liberal democracy irrelevant. We must take what steps are necessary to protect the public safety; civil liberties are only for those who deserve them. Although the President took an oath to defend the Constitution, he now must defend American lives at the expense of this old document.

Clearly all Republicans do not believe this; and many who have mouthed these lines are merely reacting emotionally and have not thought through the clear consequences of their rhetoric. This is why I believe there is still hope for this country. There are many details liberals and conservatives can work out about the balance between protecting the public and protecting each individual, between liberty and safety. But to frame the issue as the Republicans have is truly radical, and it should be recognized as such. And to act as the Bush administration has done, based on the assumption that rights are granted rather than inherent, has clearly undermined everything America stands for.

In this piece in the New York Times tomorrow, Obama discusses what his approach to Iran would be. Not much news made in the interview in my opinion. Along with some criticisms of Iran's actions of late, Obama stated that he would:

“engage in aggressive personal diplomacy”...and would offer economic inducements and a possible promise not to seek “regime change” if Iran stopped meddling in Iraq and cooperated on terrorism and nuclear issues.

His conciliatory approach to Iran seems like part of a smart strategy at this point given the Iranian people's overall anger towards their own governement and affinity for American culture, as well as general demographic trends and tactical considerations in the region. I think his approach would be similar to Hillary's - with the Senator from New York moving more slowly and putting in less effort, and probably posturing to try to ward off attacks from her right - but I truly appreciate the fact that he is telling the country now what he plans to do instead of running a campaign based on fear of Republican demonization.

On ABC World News Tonight with Charles Gibson, Senator Obama discusses the hubris a person needs to believe that he or she can be president:

I think if you don't have enough self-awareness to see the element of megalomania involved in thinking you can be president then you probably shouldn't be president. . .There's a slight madness to thinking you should be the leader of the free world.

Watching this reminds me of half of the reason I support Barack Obama: the less important half which involves his personal appeal and charisma. I can't imagine another candidate in the present or past speaking like this, providing a genuine insight into the campaign process and himself on purpose. Most of the time when the "real" candidates are revealed, it involves them making mistakes - either in front of a camera, or mistakes so serious the matter ends up in court. The definition of a gaffe in Washington is when a politician is accidentally honest.

Obama talks in a way no other politician does. Not because he is an inherently better person but because he is of a different generation. The lessons of the past 20 years of cultural warfare don't seem to apply to Obama; he transcends them because he lived through them. Somewhere in this is the core of Obama's appeal.

The video is after the jump.

Link here. A perfect illustration of the unintended consequences of our actions.

Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, continued, or concluded. They are barred from the latter functions by a great principle in free government, analogous to that which separates the sword from the purse, or the power of executing from the power of enacting laws.

James Madison, "Helvidius No. 1," Philadelphia Gazette, August 31, 1793.

"How come he doesn't need subtitles?!"

A video from metacafe.com was embedded here; it is no longer available.

According to Noam Scheiber of TNR, the Obama campaign is pretty confident about their current position. Three weeks ago, the national finance board of the campaign met and was divided into two camps:

In one camp were the people relatively new to the world of high-powered fundraising, who seemed rattled by Obama's standing in the national polls and the media narrative about Obama stalling out. In the other camp were veterans of previous campaigns, many of them former Kerry fundraisers, who felt comfortable--even encouraged--by Obama's Iowa numbers and shared an overall sense that the campaign was on track.

In the end, Scheiber says, the newbies were comforted by Barack's appearance and talk with them.

Via reddit, a former top narcotics officer in West Texas, Barry Cooper, has created a video showing how to "hide your stash" and "never get busted". NPR manages to give some advice while explaining how law enforcement officials are outraged.

Although tips on how to outwith "the Man" are always welcome, I found the frankness about the job and the moral angst felt by the officer most interesting:

"I used to break into houses at three o'clock in the morning with 10 other men, after throwing a flash grenade through the window," Cooper says. "I would drag Mom and Dad away and send the kids to the department of human services — over a bag of pot — and totally ruin that entire family. I started reaping what I had sown."

A nice feature on Slate that I just came across. I did not realize how precipitous John Edwards's decline in Iowa was until I saw it on this graph. Kudos to Mark Blumenthal and Charles Franklin on the feature.

Maybe Senator Obama had a bit more reason to be satisfied after last night's debate than I thought. The focus of all the coverage I have seen has been on Clinton's dissembling and the relentless attacks on her. As the Politico says: "When Hillary has a bad night, she has a really bad night." Drudge is reporting that Hillary is blaming Tim Russert for being too tough on her:

CLINTON INNER-CIRCLE BLAME 'UNFAIR' MODERATOR TIM RUSSERT. 'HE BORDERED ON THE UNPROFESSIONAL,' TOP HILLARY ADVISER CHARGES. 'HE BROKE DEBATE RULES AND WAS BELLIGERENT'...

Last night actually made me respect Russert all the more because he took no bullshit from Hillary. She kept trying to avoid answering his questions, keeping her position "fuzzy", and he tried to get her to give a clear answer. He also seemed to have prepared statements Hillary had made refuting every point she was kind of making. With as long a career in the public eye as Hillary has had, I think she could have brushed off these challenges by taking a solid stand last night. Instead she made it worse, reminding us that her husband was the first president to question what the meaning of is is.

Clinton still has a formidable campaign, but I believe the weakness she demonstrated last night spells the beginning of the end. She's not going to win the news cycle by blaming her lack of candor on Tim Russert. And she will not get sympathy for being attacked because she has cultivated a reputation for being ruthless in attacking her opponents. Most of all, with primary voters and caucus goers deciding which candidate is best suited to beat the Republican nominee come next November, this night will loom large. Given all her experience in the public eye, given her practical incumbency, one would expect her to be able to give the appearance of being straight-forward, of directly answering questions instead of getting annoyed when anyone points out she is merely mouthing platitudes.

Regarding my hand-picked candidate: Obama didn't do enough. He did not make his case. I am not sure if this was intentional or not. Obviously Edwards came off very strong. He was aggressive and forceful. He demonstrated an instinct for zoning in on the kill. Here, his trial experience must have been very helpful.

But few people saw Edwards's strong performance last night; and although the headlines and stories all mention Edwards's good performance, they include it as a footnote to the main story: Hillary had a really bad night.

If Obama had performed at the top of his game, I am not sure it would have stood out amidst the carnage. Perhaps - and this is wishful thinking on my part - he did not want to be known for taking out Hillary. Rather, he wanted to make his case when he could be positive. The question everyone was asking before the latest national polls showing Hillary with a 20% lead was how Obama could get Edwards to do the dirty work of taking out Clinton for him. If that was the goal, Obama succeeded last night. Given Edwards's lack of a national campaign structure and relative weakness in the money race, Obama still stands most to benefit from Clinton's stumblings. What he needs to do now is to present a compelling positive vision of his view for America. Now.