They don't ,actually believe that, but if Cheney and fellow-travelling pols and pundits' raving illogic is followed to it's logical end, that's where it leads.

They hysterically proclaim that if given due process, the terr-rists will be released to KILLUSALL!!!!. Given all the statuatory and logistical advantages a federal prosecutor has, and the deference given to government, especially in terrorism/NatSec cases, by most judges, the government case has to be sorely lacking for a prisoner to be released.I.e., the person almost has to be clearly innocent. Therefore, "logically", the authoritarians must be absolutely

convinced of the prisoners' innocence. Yet these defenders-of-freedom want them imprisoned for life .Their own positions refute themselves, but they don't give any hint of noticing. "Depraved" ( &"Deranged"?) is an accurate description.

Also, I thought the GOPers ostensible political philosophy is a basic mistrust of government. Why do they blindly trust government on these sorts of issues? ( The ones most prone to mistakes and injustice; i.e, where one should be most skeptical IMO)

It's up the Bush Administration,and now the Obama Administration to define words, and NPR's ( & other "journalists") job to adopt those definitions unchallenged? Sheez!!! She actually said that!? Had to listen to it twice, to make sure I heard that.

Re the latest proposed travesty,( as I said back in '01) somebody should inform these depraved a-holes that Kafka didn't intend to write a #!&^#@!!! how-to manual.

Ran across this from Human Rights Watch :http://www.hrw.org/en/node/11610/section/3

( from a link from RMP?) Old news, but worth reading, if for no other reason than gives lie to the 3-prisoners--a-little-waterboarding meme. That's just one account, at one camp in Iraq (full story at sig) . Extrapolate(possibly) through Iraq and Afghanistan , over a longer period, and the glaring question is " How many do we not konw about?"

One quote from an officer, concrned about detainee treatment : "...They burned them.The exact quote was, "They (the soldiers at Abu Ghraib) were getting in trouble for the same things we were told to do, so we destroyed the pictures."

Where did he find these guys? (Did he?) Is it possible that, knowing Klavan's predeliction for MANLY-MANESS, other guys egg him on with such tales? Or (more likely) , it's the usual wingnut duet of projection & plain ol' makin' shit up?

When I hear/read these tough guys , I usually think of Tool.(@ sig - Is that him in the video?:) Had 'em pegged .

"...I LIKE TO WATCH THINGS DIE! {from a good safe distance} Vicariously I LIVE! {while the whole world dies}...."

http://www.keepgitmoopen.org/

which leads to the even more surreal American Principles In Action petition site : http://www.vocusgr.com/gr/WebPublish/Controller.aspx?SiteName=AIPA&Definition=ContactLegislators&IssueID=163

" Thank you for standing up for principle" :-0

Youngservative , questions :

1) Why are all you tough guys so cowering-under-the-bed-wetting-your-twisted-knickers scared of evcerything and everybody?

2) Your supposed philosophy is based on fundamental mistrust of government . Why do you trust government to imprison and torture, on just their say so? Where did this blind trust in the rightness and goodness of government come from, and why is it so selective?

Re the McClatchey article you posted , notice the quote ( by the usual anonymous government official) about al Maliki's reaction to potential photo disclosure. It's almost identical to that for the meeting between Bernake and the Congresscritters, justifying the TARP bailout. I 've read it at least once before ( where?) on another subject(?).Seems to be SOP , straight from the Official Scaremongering Manual. Of course, nobody has directly asked al Maliki for confirmation .

Also, ( as I posted on a previous thread) the whole assumption behind the "endanger the troops" argument seems to be false. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/68302.html( &@ sig)

Some other reporters from McClatchey committed some actual journalism, and asked Iraqis about the subject. The general opinion of those asked is that the photo release would make no difference.

Ran across an article in McClatchey : http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/69213.html

The claim is that al Maliki was scared of the consequences of the release, and that wa tehe reason for Obama's reversal. The money quote :

"When U.S. officials told Maliki, "he went pale in the face," said a U.S. military official, who along with others requested anonymity because of the matter's sensitivity."

Substitute "Congress" for "al Maliki", and "TARP" for " photo release" , and it's almost identical to the official line from last fall . No direct quotes from al Maliki, just 3rd hand "reports" from anonymous sources. Further perusal of McClatchey turned up this act of actual journalism, where reporters asked actual Iraqis about it http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/68302.html. The general consensus : the release of the photos will make little difference.

I call bulllshit. Don't know who by, or about what exactly, but eau de barnyard is out there somewhere.

BriGuy301 , I was wondering the same thing, re ex post facto laws . ( Such as telecom immunity) It might not apply, but it would be nice if somebody would take the case to court and attempt to find out.

She's one of those judges selected "for their readiness to discard the rule of law whenever emotion moves them," claims the highly credible legal scholar Karl Rove today in The Wall St. Journal.

Must be in the new bulletin from Wingnut Central. Jon Kyl started( as far as I can tell) that line of attack , before Obama announced his choice. http://wcbstv.com/national/senator.jon.kyl.2.1018228.html

Can't be too careful. Everybody knows how emotional and unstable the womyn get, especially the ones with funny names.