also, when Jesus returns, it's going to be a lot worse for unbelievers than anything George W. Bush can do.

Let me guess: you had a near-death experience, heard The Voice of God, and now believe the New Testament is an accurate account of everything occurring between 4 and 50 CE. I'd laugh, but a take the central message of Jesu Ben Joseph to heart.

Exactly which branch of Christianity do you follow anyway, given your advocacy of the legalization of torture a short time back?

Revelation 9:1-21

I do realize the entire New Testament is the single most successful piece of partisan propaganda this side of "Mein Kampf", right?

No two 'books' have enjoyed a wider and more twisted following and readership (though I use the latter term advisedly as I doubt many of the former have actually read the material) in the Western world, said followings and readership responsible for more atrocities and horror than likely anything envisioned this side of H.P. Lovecraft's mythos.

In any case, you never did state what your denomination is. I've a good idea, but wouldn't mind some confirmation.

P.S. to IoK -- I don't know what you realize or not, but I have stated by denomination: Southern Baptist.

Thank you. That's what I thought.

A good faith argument to enforce the Commander in Chief’s warpowers is not “lawlessness” since EVERY WARTIME PRESIDENT IN HISTORY has had the power to spy on the enemy. Especially if the ROBERTS Court approved.

If you had been paying attention, son, you'd know from the outset this nonsense of "power to spy on the enemy" was never the damned issue.

The issue is that the President has ordered surveillance programs enacted that have been judged as operating OUTSIDE the legal authority of the Executive Branch as defined by both US Code and the Constitution of the United States!

In short, the President is knowingly and deliberately breaking the law.

What, precisely, is so difficult to grasp about that?

I am indeed "one of those guys" who think it's O.K. for the President of the United States to protect American lives whatever the cost, even if it means his impeachment.

Careful, son. Selling your soul for pocket change invariably leaves you shortchanged.

Besides, its not George W Bush or his crew who are actually 'paying the price' for their poor decisions; its the rest of us.

But you don't think that way, do you? Your eyes are fixed on The Afterlife, aren't they?

A sensible approach to fanatics.

Says the deranged Bush fanatic.

There's something profoundly sad about this.

Don't be obtuse. The whole incident shows that the rendition of Masri was fully justified. He was indeed a violent jihadi.

Provide evidence of this statement.

The mistake was letting him go. As for putting him in a mental hospital, that is just a transparent effort by the German government to cover up this public relations disaster.

You meant to write " this latest Bush Administration disaster", given it was they who were behind Masri's rendition, correct?

Or are you attempting to absolve them of responsibility for their actions and policies?

Re: the request for evidence that Masri was "a violent jihadist" before his abduction:

I already have. Please read my post upthread and follow the provided link.

This link provides no evidence Masri was redisposed to or already involved in any kind of violent action or group. If anything, this is further evidence of how useless torture and rendition is as a counter-terrorism tool, creating more problems than it could possibly solve.

Are you that desperate to believe you're on the side of the good and right that you're willing to excuse techniques practiced in the Bad Old Soviet Union, son?

Are you that dead inside already?

It's not going to happen because most of the allegations trumpeted here either aren't true, or don't matter because they aren't crimes.

Except of course that the allegations are real and crimes have indeed been committed.

But then you've already admitted the Rule of Law means nothing to you.

Re: the lack of evidence of Masri's being a 'violent jihadist' prior to his abduction.

This takes willful blindness. As they say "res ipsa loquitur" - his actions (i.e. large scale arson) speak for themselves. Your implied excuse, "George W. Bush made him do it", is utterly pathetic.

I made no such excuse. I have simply pointed out the lack of anything in the article you quote from to even suggest Masri had any violent tendencies prior to his abduction.

Deal with it.

God bless President Bush for looking after our safety.

Uh-huh. Keep telling yourself that. Maybe you'll even actually believe that, in complete defiance of all rationality and evidence to the contrary, one day.

Of course there was evidence -- that's why he was rendered in the first place.

Of course there was "evidence". There is always "evidence".

Just as there was ample "evidence" of the heroism of Comrade Ogilvy's after Big Brother had it manufactured.

Now, quote directly from any of my responses to you showing where I excused Masri's recent behavior, or please just be honest and admit you're the one making excuses here.

I doubt you have the moral courage to do so, son, but feel free to surprise me.