Larison makes an essential point:

The other objection this Paul supporter makes is more important, because it reflects how readily Palin recites the lines she has been given on major issues:

There was one line at the end that really twisted things for me.  “Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America … he’s worried that someone won’t read them their rights?”

This is a fundamentally misleading framing of the issue of providing detainees with the ability to challenge the charges against them through a judicial process.

There is no one proposing that Miranda warnings be given to members of Al Qaeda, and it is an insult to the audience’s intelligence to claim that this is the issue.  The question is whether the government has the right to seize someone, whether a foreigner or a U.S. citizen, accuse him of conspiring with terrorists, strip him of all legal protections and keep him detained indefinitely without access to due process.  The McCain/Palin position is apparently that the government can and should do this–remember that McCain regards Boumediene as one of the worst Supreme Court rulings in history–and meanwhile it is going to be the practice of the GOP to misrepresent the opposing view in the most absurd way.  Unlike this Iowa Paul supporter, these things do not inspire me to vote for Obama, much less to send him money or change my registration, since Obama has shown elsewhere that he has equally little respect for constitutional protections, but they do confirm me in my view that McCain/Palin represents nothing but continuity with the policies of the Bush administration.  I think it is clear for these and other reasons that dissident conservatives have no business lending this ticket any support.   

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.