Note to all you liberals out there:  If you forget history, you are condemned to repeat it. 

Let’s look back a bit, here.  I remember in 1998, discussing Libertarianism (the party and, more importantly, the philosophy) with some lefty friends of mine.  They were, to be charitable and understated, guffawing at the notion of running a government first and foremost on strict constitutional principles, erring always on the side of freedom and liberty.

Two years later, when John Ashcroft was sworn in as Attorney General, these same people were suddenly very libertarian – provided that the “liberties” in question were the freedom to burn the flag, make statues of the Virgin Mary out of dung, and see breasts on statuary during news conferences.  This sudden (and oh so sincere) concern with liberty was transferred after about 2003 in toto to two major demographics:

1. Suspected terrorists
2. People in the US receiving calls from suspected terrorists overseas.

(The left remained silent on the civil liberties of gun owners, conservative talk show hosts, and the data privacy of plumbers who dared to ask questions of their overlords).

But now the left holds nearly-untrammeled sway on the levers of federal power (and if Norm Coleman loses the recount, it won’t be trammeled at all).  And I think things are going to be changing soon.

News stories I think we’ll see before too terribly long – say, along about 2010:

Conservatives Decry “Preventive Executions”

Washington (AP) – As the Obama Administration institutes its’ “Audacity of Death” policy on accused terrorists, liberal pundits defended the Administration’s news appraoch.

The policy, which would allow the State Department to execute accused terror suspects without trial, FISA warrants or notification of any sort of oversight, have drawn flak from conservative critics, although they have broad approval from the Democrat-dominated Congress in an election year.

“It’s just like a bunch of conservative pantywaists to whinge and moan about the “rights” of terrorists”, said Paul Begala.  “I think it’s because they secretly want to be stuck in a toilet stall with Osama Bin Laden and Larry Craig”.

And I expect to see this comment in my comment section shortly thereafter:

PlacqueMonger Says:
November 16th, 2010 at 9:34 am

You neo-nutzies are sooo soft on terror!  What happens – your’re are now longer in power, and soddenly you want to go all soft on terrorr?

Terrrrrorrrists have no rightsts.

Am I being hyperbolic?

Well, doyyy.

But given the way the left seems to toss sweeping statesments of principle down the memory hole when confronted with reality…

Now, as Mr. Obama moves closer to assuming responsibility for Guantánamo, his pledge to close the detention center is bringing to the fore thorny questions under consideration by his advisers. They include where Guantánamo’s detainees could be held in this country, how many might be sent home and a matter that people with ties to the Obama transition team say is worrying them most: What if some detainees are acquitted or cannot be prosecuted at all?

That concern is at the center of a debate among national security, human rights and legal experts that has intensified since the election. Even some liberals are arguing that to deal realistically with terrorism, the new administration should seek Congressional authority for preventive detention of terrorism suspects deemed too dangerous to release even if they cannot be successfully prosecuted.

…I really don’t think I’m being that far out of line.

We’ll see.

Oh, yes we will.