Stewart is clearly a liberal, but he isn't afraid to poke comedy at Obama. I can live with that.

However, that having been said, I'm still waiting to see a serious contrast between the two ideologies. And when that happens, I hope the liberal side recognizes that the Bush administration learned as it went along. They eventually restricted the use of waterboarding. They changed the military tribunal system to respond to critics. Most of the criticisms against Bush are focused on the earliest stages, not at the program as it evolved. Cheney's defense is that the program was created in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, and even then it was legal and appropriate. Even so, I hope the debate doesn't forget that the Bush crowd modified it as it went along, even if you already believe that the earliest stages were legal anyway.

For me, the central difference in the ideologies has to do with how to handle the fact that terrorists aren't soldiers. The Obama argument is that we should treat them as soldiers anyway, even if we don't have to. The other side of the argument is that, as terrorists, we can't reward them with a soldier's respect and yet allow them to disregard the rules of war. I fall on the side of the latter; strategically, you have to punish them when they disregard the rules of war.

So, is Jon Stewart to find that Obama CAN provide material for comedy?  I hope this is the start of a trend simply so that Obama is taken off his pedestal so that we can question his actions and hold him accountable. 

The latest rules of war are established by International Treaty. The latest version of those rules are the Geneva Convention. I am sad to say that treaty is already outdated. The terrorists are comitting acts of war as defined by the convention but they do not represent a Nation State. That is the reason that the Clinton Administration, the Supreme Court, and now Obama wants to proceed with trials in dealing with these people, it is all they really understand because they are trying to deal with these issues as Lawyers.

The only portion of International Law or Treaty that begins to cover how we as a nation should deal with this is the laws regarding Piracy. It isn't the taking of goods or even the murder of innocents, which could be handled by regular jurisprudence, that matter it is the forceable invasion of another nations territory (a ship flying the flag of a nation is considered to be the soverign territory of that nation) that is the central issue.

When President Thomas Jefferson was faced with the Barbary Pirates repeatedly attacking US Flag Vessels he sent in the Marines to attack Tripoli and deal with the matter. There were no trials. The Pirates were rounded up and dealt with, end of story. Pirates give up the rights that citizens of countries have by ignoring the basic precepts of civilization. They are a cancer that must be excised. I contend the modern terrorists fall under this catagory. They do not wear uniforms identifying themselves and thier alliegence, they have no recognized flag. These are important points. By the terrorists own actions and statements they have rejected civilization and the understood rules that all civilized nations follow.

The Supreme Court actually has very little say, other than to rule whether or not the terrorists are acting under the direction of another nation in these matters. This is the crux of the problem as the Geneva Convention sets the basic ground rules regarding war and the treatment of prisoners between Nations. By its' very definition terrorism and the terrorists who commit these acts lie outside the tenants and protections of the Treaty.

We in the USA did nothing to take any of the rights away from any captured terrorist. The terrorist rejected the very rights and the protections covered by those rights when they rejected those very rights and protections by thier actions. Soldiers act under orders from thier Superiors who follow the mandates of thier respective Governments. Terrorisits may follow orders from thier superiors but are following the mandates of no Government. If a Government is found to be directing thier activities then by default that Government lies outside the protections of the Treaties and Conventions because they broke the rules and are considered an Outlaw State because the acts were carried out in such a way that no other nation could readily identify which nation was responsible.