The collapse of the WTC towers is the single most scientifically-studied disaster in world history.

Not because of the 9/11 Commission, or the US government. Because of the multimillion-dollar civil insurance lawsuits that ensued.

Literally dozens of the world's top forensic scientists and physicists were hired by the parties and studied the event for years.

They unanimously found that the impact of the two planes caused the collapses. No other cause of demolition was found.

What political agenda did they all share? What vested interest would two opposing sides of experts have in concealing the truth?

Believing otherwise is just like believing that global warming is a hoax when the scientific community is unanimously against you.

without Glenn's reflexive, "the sky is falling" paranoia that Obama has suddenly and without reason turned into George III.

You are one sloppy reader. That's about the least accurate characterization of how Glenn writes about the Obama administration I've seen.

You are really screwing up the discourse here by posting that kind of crap.

I will be judging a moot court competition regarding torture. I have heard anecdotally that in the past the US has prosecuted individuals (I believe Japanese and Gestapo officers in WWII) for waterboarding Americans. However, I can not find any links to such documents.

Does anybody have any more info? Thanks in advance.

EXACTLY what I was looking for. You folks are an amazing resource. Much thanks.

I know one shouldn't feed the Truthers, but...

...what I find so hilarious about the 7 WTC stuff is the idea that the evil conspirators thought that the collapse of the twin towers and massive attack on the Pentagon wouldn't be enough. Just had to throw 7 WTC in as well to make the day *really* shocking. Hilarious.

re: "Empathy"

I cringed when Obama identified this as a criterion for picking judges and I was pretty horrified when he used it again recently. It's one of his most idiotic pronouncements, right up there with torture as a "shortcut" to valuable information.

It's inexcusable for him not to understand that sympathy plays no role in applying the law, and empathy - with its connotations of vicarious identification with, and imaginative ascribing of one's feelings to, the object - is an even more inappropriate cousin of sympathy, when speaking of judicial qualifications.

Worse - and just like the torture quote - it hands his critics the perfect club to beat him mercilessly.

I generally like the guy, but there are more and more moments when he opens his mouth and I think "What on Earth was he thinking!??"

If we introduced a little empathy or sympathy into the court system God forbid we may not have the most prisoners in the world.

I think you're confused about how the US court system works. It is an absolute bedrock, a cornerstone of American justice that sympathy shall play no role in applying the law.

Perhaps you mean to say our penal code or sentencing guidelines could be less harsh in places, and I might agree with you. But sympathy plays no part in deciding cases.

For which party would you like the judge to feel sympathy? The defendant, or the victim? The big corporation or the small business owner suing them?

See?

Should Sympathy Be Applied In making the laws?

Well, personally I would prefer common sense and fairness be applied, but whatever you think, you need to address the legislature. They make the laws, not the judges.

I was just speaking with a friend of mine who thinks there should be no torture prosecutions, because he feels sympathy for the lawyers who wrote the torture memos. How so you feel about that?

I Feel That using your theory...

My theory? What the hell is MY theory? That sympathy plays no role in deciding cases? That's in every standard jury instruction read in every trial. It's a bedrock of American jurisprudence.

Obama's critics have every right in the world to pounce on his use of the world 'empathy.' It was a wildly inappropriate thing to say - legally ignorant and politically incompetent.

em-pa-thy

–noun 1. the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.

2. the imaginative ascribing to an object, as a natural object or work of art, feelings or attitudes present in oneself: By means of empathy, a great painting becomes a mirror of the self.

Synonyms:

1. See sympathy.

Ick.

I don't want empathy from a judge. I want fair, impartial, intelligent. Sound legal reasoning. I could even go with "merciful." All the qualities you guys are looking for are included there. No need to muddy the debate with mamby-pamby crap like "empathy."

Look, "strict constructionist" is bullshit. It's code for "always sides with the big corporations and law enforcement, and against the little guy."

"Empathy" just sounds like the flipside of "strict constructionist"; knee-jerk ultraliberal outcome-oriented 'justice.' I want no part of either.

So. I'm "afraid" because I don't believe in giving my adversaries any unearned advantages, and a Nazi because I want fair and impartial judges.

That's brilliant. Nice work, folks.

Empathy is a synonym for sympathy. Sympathy plays no part in deciding cases, and that is a foundation of American law. Those, as Glenn likes to say, are just facts.

For those of you who still don't get it: the problem with empathy/sympathy is that you don't know which way it will go. What if there was a torture prosecution and the judge dismissed the case out of sympathy for defendants? Not so hot, huh?

For Obama to list "empathy" as a criterian for a judicial nominee was stupid and wrong.

You did not call me a Nazi. Somebody called Flashheart did. I'm sorry if I gave that impression.