to the extent the evidence is no longer sufficient to sustain a charge, we let the murderer go, even if it's patently obvious the person committed the crime. That's the price we pay to avoid tyranny. The government must play by the rules.

Frankly, in any case, including the people who supposedly planned 9/11, if the evidence is insufficient to convict them (or even charge them).. they ought to go free today. Any other course leaves us on the slippery slope, and guarantees that this kind of government behavior will be repeated.

And coral reefs. Even whales, since you don't have to do much other than not kill them to accomplish it.

But deserts? Deserts are problems to be fixed, not precious snowflakes to be preserved.

Another point: there are 640 acres in a square mile. Therefore 1 million acres = 1562.5 square miles. There are 163,707 square miles in California. So, "hundreds of thousands" of acres would equate to much less than 1% of California's surface area. Just sayin'.

Let them have a little fun. Then throw W in jail for war crimes.

I don't blame her. I blame fashion, the last few years. *patiently waiting for better clothes*

"The effects of Obama's refusal to investigate Bush crimes"

ought to read

"The effects of an Obama refusal to investigate Bush crimes"

IMO, then.

/Grammar nazi hat now removed, as you were.

When did the guy refuse? Link? As far as I can tell he hasn't said a damn thing about it, and well done.

The western powers created this situation when they carved Israel out of Palestine after WW2. I don't blame the Israelis for how they're acting-- they do what they must to survive. Same thing for the Palestinians.. they were dispossessed, and continue to be impoverished and murdered by the Israeli government.

So, we can wring hands, and hold talks, and watch as they continue to kill one another over there for another hundred years. Or until some radical Islamist group gets its hands on a nuclear weapon.

Or, we could address the problem directly by relocating the population of Israel. I know, it's a crazy idea. I also know it's not likely to happen. But it would fix the problem. In 50 years or so, Greenland is likely to be some prime real estate, as the world warms up. Nobody lives there..

Is let them go, and take our lumps. There's no way at this point we can trust the government to figure out who's been naughty and who is innocent. Therefore.. let them go.

Think on it: Despite the furor in Washington over this issue, has he issued a frank statement saying there will be no prosecutions? No. On the other hand, if he were to come out in the open now, he'd have no political cover. He's challenging us, the people who care about this issue, to create enough support (popular, in Congress among the newer members, whatever) that it's possible for him to move with a mandate.

Or maybe I'm just attributing too much saavy to the guy who crushed the opposition despite being the first black man ever to seriously run for POTUS.

and Salmon said 0.3.. which is a better number (30%). When someone tosses off a number like 3%, I take that as "real unlikely" and leave it at that.

Meaning: if you run the experiment a hundred times, you can expect the thing with p=0.03 to happen 3 times. Without standard deviation it isn't anything more than snark :]

When you're drinking that much and eating salty cured meat! This guy is clearly a superior planner.

Conservation. Yes, it's a good idea. However, our population grows every year. We buy more stuff that consumes more energy all the time.

Conservation is -not- the answer to our energy woes. Massive investment/deployment of renewables and future-looking technology (fusion) is. I sure hope they confirm Chu, but his efforts are only a part of the solution.

*fingers crossed hoping oil prices go back up*

This put a smile on my face.

that that Democrats have been much more the dynastic party over the last few decades. I've never been one to trust popularity contests as a way of picking good leaders. This is evidence to that effect. Voters don't make rational decisions in the main. Down with democracy! ;]

Bargains abound in the markets today, but this is not one of them.

Ultimately, though, the reason leaders torture is irrelevant. It's one of those few absolute taboos, and it's almost as immoral to seek to dilute that taboo by offering motive-based mitigations as it is to engage in it in the first place.

It's more immoral to enable people to torture human beings, whatever their crimes, without fear of retribution. This is because it not only excuses crimes in the here and now, it encourages them in the future.

At least the torturers have the questionable cover of professing belief that they were protecting innocent people. The ones giving cover to the torturers.. are just protecting torturers.

I thought this post was useful merely because I don't read the guy cited, and now I have. Thanks.

Wrong. Endless, counterproductive compromise with uncompromising, hypocritical, backstabbing scumbags is the problem. If you seek examples, look at the massive success the Democratic Congress has had the past two years in terms of the demolition of civil liberties in the name of "compromise" and "bipartisanship".

Sometimes, people, even large numbers of them, take positions that are just wrong. When that happens, the appropriate thing to do is to call them on it, not appease them.

Sure, he hasn't been proven guilty in a court of law, but that doesn't mean he can't be vilified in the court of public opinion!

He lets Warren give the inauguration, then formally directs as one of his first acts to end the "don't ask, don't tell" policy of the armed forces, like Spaulding said over in Salon Radio. Fair and balanced, no?

The cartoon heading the article=awesome.