Most of the examples of trials in other countries are good, but Eichmann did not get a trial in his own country where he committed his crimes. His abduction from a third country and "trial" in Israel is hardly a good example. The Mossad agents who captured him would seem to have the same status as the U.S. agents in Italy.

Were any war crimes trials ever held in Germany, by Germans? War crimes trials by the Allies in Germany and Japan after WW II were largely symbolic and formalized affairs.

Giving terrorist suspects a free and open trial does not solve all problems. First, a trial with a jury drawn from U.S. residents in New York City would hardly be fair. Could the defendent request a change of venue to someplace outside the U.S.? On the other hand, insurgents and terrorists use open trials whenever they can to make their own propaganda points. An open trial in New York City will likely be farcical on several grounds.

It is almost impossible to treat terrorist suspects as ordinary criminals and treating them as military prisoners of war is not accepted either. One could say that if a state of war exists the 9/11 terrorists and those in the U.S. associated with them (if caught) should be summarily executed as spies (they were not in uniform), but obviously many of the Guantanamo prisoners were not involved in any actions in the U.S. The whole subject of how such people are to be treated needs to be reconsidered, not forced into frameworks created for normal criminality or ideal chivalric war.

The State Department definition of terrorism includes the requirement that it must be carried out by a "sub-national" organisation. This is necessary to exclude the U.S. from terrorism for its bombings of civilians during WW II and Vietnam (among other wars).

These things are fairly normal for major wars, when the executive is in practice given extraordinary powers. Formerly these came to an end with the end of the war, but now wars are never declared and never end.

The key is the abandonment by Congress of its responsibility to declare war and end it.

Is this exciting or what? Brown could go on to be a Presidential candidate.

Why is the decision to continue the war or not up to Obama? Why aren't journalists and others putting this up to Congress, which has the Constitutional authority?

Does Davidson think that Ikea should be banned because he doesn't like to assemble things or the style of the store? I have never seen an advertisement for Ikea, so I don't think it is being forced down anyone's throat. If there were any sort of serious purpose to this article Davidson would explain what a good furniture store should look like and how much he expects to pay for furniture.

As humor this piece is about as feeble as it gets. Ethnic jokes usually have some sort of punchline, not just phony exaggerated accents.

Gold mania occurs periodically - in this case it was probably kicked off by the credit crisis, not anything Beck or Fox did. Prices typically drop faster than they rise, so this type of speculation is one of the most efficient ways there is to lose your shirt.

If you could find out what Rupert Murdoch is investing in you might have something.

This piece has it backwards with respect to the kinds of threat of terrorists. Bin Laden would use a nuclear bomb at the drop of a hat since his intent is to provoke armageddon. Even including 9/11 the actual damage done by foreign terrorists is small compared to everyday dangers such as driving a car (excluding 9/11 the danger would be less than that of being struck by lightning). Shoe bombs and automatic weapons do not constitute an existential threat to the U.S.

Anti-terrorist effort should be directed toward the small possibility of a very major event such as a nuclear bomb, rather than the larger probability but very small actual effects of attacks by conventionally-armed foreigners. Effort should also be directed toward domestic terrorism such as Oklahoma City - terrorism of all kinds is much easier for U.S. citizens than for foreigners, and some are as crazy and ruthless as Bin Laden.

I was pleasantly surprised by Clinton's evidently sincere desire to redeem his campaign pledges, if bounded by political advantage, and unpleasantly surprised by Obama's immediate and blatant reneging on his. If dont'-ask-don't-tell was the best that Clinton could do, this is obviously not the case now.

Broken pledges probably do matter among those independents and others who supposedly judge candidates on character rather than on partisan issues.

The contradiction mentioned in update II is obvious - why haven't the MSM questioned the real people responsible for the NIE report - that is the agency people involved - about it?

Sounds like Olbermann is smarter than Mike Madden. He spent his show getting people mad about the current state of health care (or trying to) and then proposed doing something important about it - holding the swing Senators accountable. Madden himself admits that those Senators are the holdup.

If Madden does not think that what Olbermann advocated - direct pressure on the blue dogs - is a good thing, what does he recommend? It is Madden's post which is wasted.

Leaving the decision to make war or continue it to the President is of course contrary to the very explicit letter and spirit of the Constitution (as explained in detail by several of the founding fathers). Another issue on which conservatives are opposed to originalism.