A singular curiosity of the past few years, about which not a soul in the Drive-by Media has been the least bit curious, is the Constitutional dogmatism of critics of George W. Bush's handling of enemy captives in the War on Terrorism.
For the sake of argument, I'm going to adopt the conventional wisdom of elite opinion, by pretending that the U.S. Constitution requires Prisoners of War (to say nothing of Illegal Combatants apprehended on the battlefield) to be accorded the same legal regimen as a U.S. Citizen charged by the civil authorities with a statutory violation. I will further pretend that Constitutional "Due Process of Law" equals the procedure used in U.S. Courts for Criminal and Civil proceedings, and nothing else.
This pretence requires me to ignore history, logic and precedent, but hey, in the spirit of civility, bi-partisanship and collegiality, I want to show a little empathy with Liberals.
OK, why is it that in the Liberal universe, "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged," is subject to Living Constitution modification by Judges, to better fit with the realities of life in modern America? Why is it that "Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" can be tweaked to get attuned to our Pluralistic Society? Why is it that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to The People," is routinely ignored by Congress and the Courts, as the Federal Government increasingly offers itself as the solution to every problem and the arbiter of every dispute? And this just in: the Constitution is explicit that a Representatives must be an inhabitant of the State from which they are chosen, but there are lots of Democrats living in Government City who could add power to Democrats in the House, so the Democrat Congress is proceeding to simply ignore the plain language of the Constitution in the interests of "fairness."
If a "Living Constitution" is good enough for these issues, why can't we have a Living Constitution when it comes to dealing with the Jihadist menace? As understood by Liberals, the Constitution we have clearly does not allow for effective handling of captured enemies, so why is it a problem if the President of the United States simply updates the meaning of the Constitution by whim, to better fit the current circumstances?
Is this Living Constitution thing a game that only Legislators and unelected Judges can play? It's no more unreasonable for the President to make up the Constitution as he goes along than it is for the pnumbra-diciphering black-robed high-priests at the Supreme Court.
So, why all the angst about a couple hundred Jihadis cooling their heels indefinitely at GITMO? Suddenly, the same Liberals who brought us The Living Constitution are the guardians of every jot and tittle. Are Liberals genuinely blind to this inconsistency, or do they just figure everyone has their BS Detectors turned off?