I agree that 250 years is an overestimate. And certainly we can afford to burn only a small fraction of the available coal because of the CO2.

if everyone is guilty

which is an argument made soundly, then by definition there is no one who can prosecute, and you can't punish everyone... so we should end the policies and move on.

Nobody said that everyone in the justice system was guilty. Nor is anyone arguing that everyone should be prosecuted.

It is the will to prosecute that is lacking.

wrote: At least "waterboarding" generally causes no permanent, long-term harms (aside from doubtless-traumatizing memories)!

Of course it does, if it is used to fully break someone down and extract "information".

wrote: I think you will have a very hard time selling to many, perhaps most people, the idea that principles of justice and fairness, and human rights for all, must be always respected, even if this implies harm for our families.

Nonsense. You have to show them that those principles are what protect their family members from ending up in jail like many who are darker than a whiter shade of pale. Even a near idiot can understand that there are far more people in jail because the law protects them not than could ever be harmed by terrorism. You must explain it carefully and repeat several times a day. We heard recently that racial equality is coming, that is, if we continue down this fascist road. All of us will be treated badly.

Notice how some of the trolls are complaining that Glenn is repeating himself? It is starting to sink in, despite their worse natures.

I read two things from Andy McC. His little rant in the NYT was bad enough; now this delightful little burnt cream puff Glenn quotes.

Eman: I just put a comment on the earlier thread that some of the trolls are complaining that Glenn is repeating himself, and that this means that the message is starting to sink in. And here you are doing it.

(from the second letter Bamage linked to just above,referring to the inhabitants of Gaza) The civilians are the target here, because they hold ultimate responsibility for their situation.

No, they do not, neither in a practical nor moral sense. Killing by either side is wrong.

wrote:

So citizens of any group or nation are merely sheep that have no responsibility for the actions of their leadership? So my contention that Palestinians are mind-numbed robots and no better than children is absolutely true? Thanks for the support.

I was thinking that people in both the US and Israel have a much better opportunity to make democracy work than do the Palestinians. An opportunity wasted in the recent past.

It is interesting how your description of those whom you would trash resembles so much the image you project here.

Do you think that it is possible that Glenn is reasonably unbiased on both topics, and that you are a bit irrational on one of them? It happens to the best of us.

Unbelievable!

Ondelette: It is a grave breach of international humanitarian law for either side to target civilians.

Shooter: No, it isn't. ..... legalisms are useless here.

So you favor total anarchy in international relations, particularly war? Think about it.

It is now known, and replicated, that myriad influences (including environmental ones) influence how any gene expresses.

So what? This would not make the technique useless.

To continue to believe transgenic crops will save mankind from starvation is to continue to believe in the Easter Bunny.

There are many valuable techniques that will not save man from starvation. We use them anyway.

Additionally, moving as rapidly as possible toward local food farming/manufacture reduces .. creates huge carbon sinks.

These things are not Monsanto's goal, but the basic technique that produce transgenic crops can be used in many ways.

The downside? Far fewer profits for Monsanto and Syngenta, not to mention Cargill, et al. Small price to pay for the above mentioned benefits...

The downside? Loss of a valuable technique that can be used properly.

Attempting to prohibit a potentially useful technique, one that will be used in any case, rather that urge its proper use and regulation, is counterproductive.

wrote: My point was not that prosecutions shouldn't go forward. Although the fact that they didn't go forward 5 years ago gives the whole affair a closing of the barn door after the horses have run away feel.

Hardly. One does not expect the administration now on the way out to have put much effort into prosecuting the guys who authorized the torture. When the AG considers himself the president's personal lawyer, what do you think is going to happen?

The emotional impact of the crimes gets lost with time. Support for prosecution can be lost. But I do not agree about the definition of torture. That comes from the international agreements that the US has signed. It may be that the administration advocating torture as a policy justifies it by use of a creative interpretation of the definition. So what? The international definition is reasonably clear, and any investigation or prosecution needs to be based on a reasonable interpretation.

Excuse me, but the printer says that the toilet paper is meant only to be looked at, not used.

wrote:Are you saying it is a crime to waterboard those guys if we capture them, but it is legal to kill them with missiles?

You asked this just last week. The answer was that there are rules governing how you treat those who have been captured.

And actually that has nothing to do with whether it is legal to kill them with missiles.

You need to think up a new question.

Certainly reasonable people do disagree. I am hoping it is not enough in this case to impede prosecution.