his handle was bebop-o, and that was truly good news, totallyblase

That old nazi was banned, eh? good.

You aren't worthy to be a pimple on his ass.

He had more humanity in one whisker than you will ever be possible of exhibiting.

His sin was anger, and maybe pride. Your sin is a sickness of the soul. And apparently, you weren't above groveling for absolution.

Dignity is a concept you will never grasp no matter how long you live.

He had an astringent spirit, the sort of fellow who uses dehydrated onion when the recipe calls for fresh, not because he's out but solely on principle. ~Emme Woodhull-Bäche

I was more obedient and after a year I was paroled and took the name "calamine" to show my intention of being soothing.

...and doesn't leave unsightly, pink blotches all over the place.

I think killing 3,000 people and planning to kill many more is pretty uniquely bad. If you and others are honest with yourselves, I think you'll agree.

Oh, we agree. It's even worse when you're responsible for millions of murders.

It's going to be a great day when Bush, Cheney and company have their Nuremberg moment, won't it?

My response when I got that one:

Well, good! It gives us something to aspire to, and we're all about aspirations now, aren't we?

It's especially fun if you get to give it in person. Like watching technicolor claymation!

Well, gasoline seems a bit overboard. But I suppose as long as a match isn't included in the mix, it probably won't be too dangerous.

There's a very important distinktion there.

FTFY. ;-}

My neice and nephew (both under 4) call them "oopsie pants".

And your two larger questions aren't mutually exclusive in many cases.

So-called "London"Lad, your use of slangy British cuteisms has gone too far. Nobody actually talks that way. Clearly you are not actually from London, nor very likely even from Britain.

So I just have to wonder, why the cover-up? Why the charade? What could you possibly be hiding that was worth all the effort at a false-handle operation?

It would certainly explain the whiff of thermite-stained underpants that occasionally permeates the thread.

Then again, for those who are looking forward to NYC turning into Peshawar and desire a final days scenario, such a highly charged trial in the midst of American's most famous city would have its allure.

Why do you have so little faith in the National Security State that Bush, Cheney, and now Obama, tell us will keep us safe?

I think the situation you posit is unlikely in the extreme, mostly because of the terrorist trials coram pointed out we've already managed to have. But if it did happen it would sure put the whopper of a lie to all the legislation that's been forced down our throat since, wouldn't it?

I'm thinking you should just move your precious family to some nice midwestern town where you can join forces with pantswetting bigots like Bob.

You're joining them if you support the so-called justice represented in separate courts and procedures.

The fact that you refer to them using the same convicted-without-trial nomenclature, "captured terrorists", as Bob the Carp puts you, and Obama, squarely on their side.

It's why Obama got so much praise from them when he started making noises about indefinite detention.

It would be an interesting experiment to try to see which of your knees jerks higher in response to challenge - the one on the left that belongs to Obama, or the one on the right that belongs to Israel.

Arguing that the 3/5ths compromise invalidates the constitution, so that you can advocate the elimination of the freedoms guaranteed in the constitution.

Actually, I think he's arguing that we need to go back to the 'Good Old Days', only this time the 3/5ths provision should now be applied to Muslims. He would, of course, modify that to 0/5ths.

I appreciate you being willing to do what Jestaplero was not.

But here's the thing: the first fellow said "the defense attorney's job is to get an aquittal" and e.p. said "no, it's to ensure a fair trial."

Say you are on trial for your life. Which attorney do you want? The one who says he will get you off, or the guy who "ensures your fair trial"? --Jestaplero

We're all learning here. And maybe I misinterpreted your intent when you responded to e_prof, but it really came across like,

"Because I am a poobah and I say so!"

Especially since you couldn't be bothered to provide some sort of documentation to back up your assertion (which is what it was as far as e_prof, or I, would know).

What do you think a judge would think of such non-supported assertions in court? I'm just guessing, 'cause, you know, IANAL, but I'm thinking he'd have about as much patience with that as was exhibited in the example you shared.

Feel free to correct me on that too if I'm wrong.

I am not disputing your personal experience. Glenn gives us examples all the time of the difference between what is supposed to be and what is. He also knows which is right and which is wrong. As do I and, I think, you.

I asked for a link because I'd like to know what the legal profession says the roles should be.

It seems like a fair place to start from in trying to get a grasp on the situation, doesn't it?

Why do you object to that?

Is it really all that difficult to point me toward what you consider to be a reputable source that can provide that information for non-lawyers?

remember to use the term "sub-human."

What? And put KSM on an equivalent footing with himself?

Surely you jest.