seems there is a big contingent IF in the justness of hypothetical end actions a) and b). Assuming the alleged law violator (Bin Laden, Bush . . . ) has in fact been tried and convicted in absentia (assuming absentia trials can be fair--in very rare circumstances and overwhelming evidence proving guilt subject to the full panoply of appropriate due process protections)--AND the host country of the "convicted" refuses to honor their mutual legal obligation to extradite then I'd say morally you could do either a) or b). Whether a) and b) would be more prudent politically than c) and be backed by the international legal community without exhausting every means possible over time to achieve extradition, is a separate question.

Do you think if someone tries and convicts Bush et al in absentia AND someone finds Bin Laden, we could have a prisoner swap and try Bin Laden fairly (assuming you could assemble a non tainted American jury)? That would do the soul of justice some good if televised worldwide.

does your statement that "if they don't have the guns to back up their preferences they don't matter . . . ." mean only those with sufficient might have preference that matter and conversely that preferences without sufficient might backing them are irrelevant? In what sense exactly? Is that why the mass of American citizens get the shaft constantly because they don't have the will to use their collective capacity for violence (not necessarily wrong to suggest you're right--given the two tiered legal system in America)?

South Africa, Palestine, Rwanda, Darfur . . .

I don't know why anyone doubts that this was precisely the neoconservative plan all along--"starve government (with the exception of Wall Street and MIC) until we can drown it in the bathtub".

We're at double match point and unless we can serve up a few aces and force another game or set, America will continue to burn. The path we are on is simply unsustainable. The public is waking up incrementally but it'll be too late because too many of our elected "representatives" are the willing slaves (royal functionaries) of their paymasters--with few notable exceptions.

Truth be told our government is a pitifully afraid power seeking violent aristorcratic kleptocracy greedily skimming off every last asset of the American people (and the world's)--pathetically afraid of the other (especially if the other wears funny hats, has brownish skin, isn't Chrisitian), afraid someone might get a helping hand, afraid of reason, afraid of a just and egalitarian existence, afraid of real merit, afraid of the speaking the truth, afraid of being force to "mix" with the "little people" . . . just plain afraid. Sad.

bases all over the world, centurions standing around shooting the shit, periodically kicking in some doors unable to find the people hiding under the table, being poked fun of by the indiginous peoples, stringing up a select few on the "cross" as examples . . .

"Best" most expensive military in the world hasn't accomplished one positive thing in the last 60 years. What a tragic farce. Dollar for dollar the most epic scam the world has ever seen. Too bad for all the little people of the world who get our bombs rained down on them just for being poor and politically disenfranchised. Sort of like our poor and politically disenfranchised whose only option for a viable economic future is training to kill in service of their country.

We need a whole new class of politicians in this country willing to pass enforceable budgetary laws that "shrink the MIC to a size it can be drowned in the bathtub". We need a whole new class of citizens. We need an MLK Jr. of peace willing to organize and demonstrate that killing to protect our collective "way of life" is immoral and in fact impractical and unachievable. Just don't see it happening in my lifetime.

Wow. Who could have known. Not only are you the definitive expert on all things I/P, you're a global warming expert. And your scientific credentials would be? And of course you could cite a climatologist by climatologist refutation of data, methodology etc. etc. etc. given your incredibly "certain beyond question rude" response to Holly. Oh yeah, I forgot you cited the "definitive" internet link on the subject. What was it again http://heruisamoronicprickconspiracytheoriest.com.

Until you can do all of the above I'll trust the vast majority of scientific data.

Now please attack me with the same vim and vigor you did Holly because only you know the truth which is beyond debate on all matters concerning global warming. But when you do please spell check your rants and make sure to scribble little crayola pictures of your ass meeting your hat because those might actually be of some lasting value.

I mean seriously who in their right mind could ever link exponentially explosive population growth, industrialization, rampant greenhouse gas emissions, ecological degredation, species extinction, return of "extinct" diseases, . . . with possibly problematic (for humans and other species though not all--you, the roaches and rats would possibly thrive--scientific data being unclear at this point and understudied?) the changes in the biosphere. Geez Louise we must all be nuts and you, oh great scientific scholar and holder of all relevant knowledge on all subjects must of course be categorically correct--global warming is one giant scientifically unsupportable hoax so says the great and powerful Heru-ur at UT. Nuff said. Discussion over. Return to your day to day existence. And if you live in LA don't mind those smog alerts because its all part of the world wide pollution and global warming conspiracy hoaxes.