I'm happy the questions are being asked, but Cornyn's no friend of civil liberties and I suggest you keep that in mind.

But you've completely derailed this post. I think you could have raised awareness about this man while also keeping the discussion on the positive aspect of these questions being asked at all.

This is what happens when defending or attacking people based on allegiance to political parties. All rational arguments in place get lost in favor of ad hominem platitudes.

Only a small percentage of Congress are friends to civil liberties. This is the august body that gave us the Patriot Act, after all.

Funny you should mention that:

    Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act's roving wiretaps. (Feb 2011)
    Voted NO on requiring FISA court warrant to monitor US-to-foreign calls. (Feb 2008)
    Voted YES on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad. (Aug 2007)
    Voted NO on implementing the 9/11 Commission report. (Mar 2007)
    Voted NO on preserving habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees. (Sep 2006)
    Voted NO on requiring CIA reports on detainees & interrogation methods. (Sep 2006)
    Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)
    Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision. (Dec 2005)

Senator Obama voted the opposite on a few of those, but as president seems to have few problems with the Patriot Act and Guantanamo.

So let's not kid ourselves that Congress has much say in the manner.

Congress is THE body which has say in the matter. Obama's attempts to move suspects to the continental US from Guantanamo were suppressed by Congress. If you are going to excuse Congress, then who are you going to hold responsible?

Obama has the power of veto and executive order, does he not?

Every power grubbing slimeball in D.C. is responsible. My only point was that just because Senator X doesn't share your values, don't think opposing him or her is going to make much difference right now.

> This is poisoning the well. There are some good questions in the posted letter. Whatever their political stripes or past failings, at least someone is willing to press the issue instead of dropping it.

Note that if the questioner is generally viewed as someone who would ask such questions merely as an attack strategy (something which is depressingly common in the GOP these days), that's going to make it easier for the administration to avoid giving a meaningful answer; his reputation gives them some cover.

For the same reason, somebody who's viewed as a friend of the administration asking the same questions would be much more painful.

So for better or for worse, it does matter somewhat who's doing the asking...

> The only question that seems silly to me is the last one. Of course a DoJ prosecutor is aware of the concept of prosecutorial discretion. To be fair, it's also a good counterpoint to the current silly "Congress made us be mean" line the prosecution is taking. It's just more of a statement than a question.

Keep in mind, the question is coming from a Senator on the Judiciary Committee. It could be a preemptive objection to having the blame sent back at him, perhaps also a threat to alter the law to reduce the "discretion to charge defendents".

You're right that is is more of a statement than a question. Political letters like this are often calculated more to produce effects than answers.