"I find arguments I disagree with unpersuasive."

That pretty much sums up this:

I don't like that case [US vs. Spawr Optical Research], but it's one of several reasons why I find claims that the Bush Administration is exercising unprecedentedly broad powers unpersuasive.

Well, let's take a look back at what Putz said about President Clinton, after Oklahoma City (from Orcinus):

Glenn Reynolds, he claims, is really not a right-wing blogger at all but a libertarian one. Of course, Reynolds has made this claim for years as well, but those familiar with Reynolds' track record of uniform support for conservatives and their agendas, and converse animus towards liberals and theirs, tends to belie the claim. The decisive factor for me has been Reynolds' uniform support for the Bush administration's seemingly endless undermining of civil liberties, supposedly the heart of libertarian ideals. I have in my possession an e-mail that Reynolds sent in 1997 to a listserv I was on, attacking Clinton's post-Oklahoma City push for bolstering law-enforcement efforts for intelligence gathering on domestic terrorists and claiming that he didn't think any American should be willing to give up their privacy rights for the purpose of preventing terrorism; and yet his track record regarding the Bush administration has been precisely the opposite (uniform support for the Patriot Act -- which made the Clinton initiatives look minor in comparison -- and its sequel, as well as Bush's use of NSA for domestic surveillance).

So, to recap: Clinton moves to bolster law-enforcement efforts post-Oklahoma City, Putz screams about privacy rights. Bush holds hundreds of prisoners indefinitely without charges and spies on millions of Americans in violation of FISA and it's just dandy.