We call it "flying by the seat of one's pants" in the midwest.

We have a similar expression in the Northeast.. the anatomical location is the same, but the terms are somewhat, er, saltier.

Those pot-smoking bicycle riding Swiss?

Those are the Dutch you're talking about. The Swiss all do government-subsidized smack in their public parks and have pocketknives with 110 attachments.

Seriously, though... I don't understand how, if they're held in whatever country that they would of necessity, if released, just walk through the door. Isn't there a process of repatriation?

because of the nature of intelligence much evidence cannot be brought forth

Wow, that's a really good point. I'm sure there's never, ever in the history of the United States been a time when there was classified evidence in a court case. You're right, they all have to be let go.

Thanks for bringing that up. That had never occurred to me.

"Most families neither want nor need hundreds of terrorists seeking to kill Americans in their communities.

This is, of course, logically equal (by induction) to the statement "Some families need hundreds of terrorists seeking to kill Americans in their communities."

They're probably renters, these families.

heru-ur uncomfortably nails it again, likely why his post-of-a-post is being ignored.

When someone tries to make an OT point by copy/pasting a large chunk of someone else's writing without providing context, I generally do ignore it. Mea culpa, as far as that goes.

If heru-ur or you would like to take the conversation in the direction of Obama's general warmongering, I encourage you to do so - I tend to think I fundamentally agree with you. I also think I could make the point without a supercilious dismissal of everyone in the discussion, which is not, in my experience, a great way of trying to get people to understand a heterodox point.

So, have you got anything else, or was a drive-by slam all you had in mind for today?

I suggest holding them as prisoners of war,which they are,treating them humanly until the conflict is over.

Good job. You really had me convinced you were serious (if punctuation-challenged) until that last.

That's pretty funny, actually. An abstraction called "Terror" standing on the deck of the USS George H.W. Bush, signing a peace treaty, and all the detainees being released to live out the rest of their live as productive citizens... of Terrorstan, I guess.

I do appreciate you finally pulling off the mask. We'll know from here on out that you're not serious, and can respond accordingly.

IoW's link (from the previous page) should not be missed.

The Obama administration fell in line with the Bush administration Thursday when it urged a federal judge to set aside a ruling in a closely watched spy case weighing whether a U.S. president may bypass Congress and establish a program of eavesdropping on Americans without warrants.

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/01/obama-sides-wit.html and at sig

Please don't go signing ACLU thank-you cards to President Barry before you read this.

Dana Priest's article in tomorrow's WaPo is really slick... he's basically making the case that since people took their "eye off the ball," Obama's just wussying out on the GWoT:

Bush's 'War' On Terror Comes to a Sudden End

By Dana Priest

Washington Post Staff Writer

...Over the next 2 1/2 years, as Democrats gained power in Congress, as the violence in Iraq sapped public support for the president and as the fear of another terrorist attack receded, the debate over secret prisons, renditions and harsh interrogations grew louder...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/22/AR2009012203929.html - and at sig

We could all use the discipline.

You don't see this as a big enough political issue that it could possibly take up too many resources, both governmental, etc., that the supposed cure could be worse than the illness, and that it further rises to dishonesty to even think that way?

Unless the Justice Department can be used to fight climate change, or the EPA has responsibilities to prosecute war crimes, I think we can pretty safely assume that walking and chewing gum is well within the resource base of the Federal Government of the United States of America.

The earth is going to flood. Soon.

Well, as Tool said, "Learn to swim, I'll see you down in Arizona bay."

Well, considering that you're one of my icons, and I'm arguing with you, I'm not sure how to respond to that.

I think you either picked your name very carefully or it's unintentionally revealing. You seem to always stake out some sort of position only marginally different than what everyone else is saying ("There should be no prosecutions! Or... there should, but only if it's not too big a distraction.") and defend it rather vociferously.

Make no mistake, I'll defend to the death your right to have whatever online style you want... but it just seems like trying to be the gadfly without flying all that much gad is tiring.

Most families neither want nor need hundreds of terrorists seeking to kill Americans in their communities.

Classic.

Cause, you know, it's just "most" families. Mine, OTOH, not only wants but needs some American-killing terrorists in the community. Hundreds, preferably.

this most wretched Op-Ed

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/21/AR2009012103215.html

When President Bush left office on Tuesday, America marked 2,688 days without a terrorist attack on its soil. Al-Qaeda is actively working to attack our country again. And the policies and institutions that George W. Bush put in place to stop this are succeeding.

"See this magical device?"

"Yes, what's it for?"

"To kill all the lions on the Highlands."

"But there are no lions on the Highlands."

"You see, it works."

I encourage you to reread Amity's letters, in particular passages like this:

if there are no war crimes trials, then there can by definition not have been war crimes, per se.

and reconsider your question.