No need to apologize; it just seemed to set off a good number of posts in French. I might have done what you did too, and in fact have employed commonly understood French phrases. But it got a bit out of hand, not necessarily because of you.

But when I see, say, huge quotes in German of which I now little, I know it ticks me off. (Glenn reads German and/or speaks several other languages, tho not French. I do not speak for him, but do think as much as possible we should stay in the language of the blogger. Again, exceptions being foreigners who might read English, but are poor at writing in it.)

Or write it for that matter. That is what google is for!

J'aime l'odeur de ma propre farts

No one here is writing about liking the smell of their own flatulence. And moreover, Google and other translation sites online, are often full of mistakes. If we have a commenter who only can write in language X, that's one thing. But otherwise I keep mine to English as all should (we are, after all, reading Glenn on American policy), and I do not post grafs that will make no sense to many without taking the effort to resort to one of those iffy online translators.

En bavardant en francais, ou autre langue que la plupart ne comprend point, on demontre le besoin urgent d'

augmenter l'ego fragile d'une personne faible. Je vous comprends bien; votre arrogance et betise beaucoup moins. Arretez-vous, s.v.p.

Or: "Speaking in French, or any language that most do not understand, demonstrates the need of a weak persons's fragile ego to build itself up. I understand your words, less so your arrogance and silliness. Please stop."

Now maybe I'm being overly critical, but I read French well enough, and used to speak it almost fluently, and still have my days. Some are not translating, however, and I suppose those who do could be excused by a desire to set forth the original. Still, I really don't think this is a forum where we need show how very smart and multi-lingual we are. (Kinda like I just did! But I translated.)

Oh yeah, let's hear it for the good old days of snake pits. Now, I'm not saying that deinstitutionalization was good for all the mentally ill -- but I've worked them and have a disproportionate number in my family. Most do not need to live in asylums. (Altho in point of fact, mental hospitals continue to exist for the most severe cases of mental illness.)

If the funding for community living in the least restrictive environment had followed deinstitutionalization adequately, there would no problem, except for those paranoid schizophrenics who will often refuse all help and who want to live on the streets.

Whatever the issues with the mentally ill in this nation, an excess of "empathy" ain't one of 'em. Guess if I know that, it makes me one of those hated libruls. Day by day, I become surprised at how someone who was long considered a right-leaning libertarian (me), is suddenly left-wing.

By the way, are you aware that every day in this country, criminal convictions go up on appeal, and appellate review courts find that while Constitutional violations occured, the remaining evidence of guilt was compelling enough that the appeals courts decide to leave the convictions undisturbed?

Coming to this discussion late, but:

Why not attempt trial in a federal district court, and see if a conviction can stand notwithstanding the constitutional violations? There are myriad ways the constitutional infirmities could be found and a conviction yet upheld.

Otherwise, release KSM and have CIA folks stay on him like white on rice.

So, out of curiosity, Mona, would you classify someone who held a bakesale for a charity that was later classified as affiliated, and therefore material support, for terrorism as a violent, or a non-violent offender? Should such a person be kept in maximum security without bail and subjected to strip searches and cavity searches?

As I admitted a few threads below, in my relative and naive youth I gave $$ to Irish causes that were eventually exposed to me as purchasing as much guns and bombs as political power and butter. At that point I ceased my support.

But the salient point is this: Under out system of justice, one may not employ the fruits of torture to convict. This puts Obama in a very difficult spot; some of the Gitmo detainees are innocent. Others would do 9/11 redux. This is not Obama's fault, whatever other criticisms we (and I certainly) may hold of Obama.

The initial finding of wrongdoing in KSM's case was uncovered almost half a year before his arrest, and he'd been under surveillance for many years before that. Not applicable.

If the evidence against KSM has nothing to do with torture-induced statements per se, then Obama's Administration could and should try him with untainted evidence. If you are correct.

But what of the many other detainees? Is all that "evidence" torture-free? If not, this is a problem for Obama.

I don't think you [Glenn] are fairly appreciating the very legitimate political and justice concerns that Obama is confronted with.

Agreed; for reasons I just posted. And I am hardly an Obamabot.

Coerced information isn't just inadmissible because we don't believe in coercion, it's also unreliable. If you can't convince the jury you have the right guy without availing unreliable evidence, then you might not have the right guy. Period.

Not so. The "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine holds that if the initial finding of wrongdoing was uncovered by violation of law (especially the 4th), all evidence flowing from that is inadmissible. (With exceptions, such as that the evidence would have been discovered anyway.)

Obama really may be stuck with dangerous people in a situation where we cannot try them. Bush/Cheney have left him in a quite possibly awful predicament.