I just finished up a course in Public International Law, and I remember the professor saying that the right to acquire territory by conquering it no longer exists. So I would also like to see a link. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I want to see something post-WW2 (and hence the formation of the UN) that says a country make take territory from defeated enemies. International law is still rather young, and quite a few of the old norms were done away with after Nuremberg (the principle of non-intervention replaced with infant human rights law, Geneva and such), so I would like to see something from the last 50 years if possible.

Ah, so they have not permanently acquired the land; it is just theirs pending a treaty. Sort of makes it de facto theirs forever, doesn't it. International law is fun!

It is interesting that trolls feel the people who post here love terrorists because we don't take time out from every letter to discuss how much we hate terrorists. It's like saying that we couldn't discuss rape cases in Criminal law without stopping every five minutes to reaffirm that rape is a horrible crime. It is generally accepted that killing civillians is wrong! What kind of amoral people would we be if we thought there was so much of a question on the issue that we needed to keep making these statements?

I have heard Bush say a few times "torture is wrong." Followed closely by "we don't torture." The internal logic is impeccable: We don't torture, because torture is wrong, and we are right. Therefore, we couldn't possibly torture. So when we put a person in stress positions, simulate drowning, or inflict some other lifelong trauma on an alleged terrorist, its not torture, because that would make us bad people (of course the real wingnuts would even dispute that), which we are not. And we will keep repeating "torture is wrong," to acknowledge just how much we do not torture.

I think I would be more suspicious of the UT community's supposed kinship with terrorists if we felt the need to continue condemning killing every time we had something to say. Civilized people don't need to continue bringing up the basic principles of civilization as if they were the subject of controversy.

Of course, since I hesitate to characterize these collected trolls as civilized, an observation: there has been a lot of reporting, here and elsewhere, about the deaths of children during Israel's ongoing offensive. Since I have not seen any of you explicitly mention that you are not in favor of killing children, I can only assume that you come from a very pro-killing children point of view.

On an unrelated note, it was always a bit frustrating that one of the most visible graduates of my school (Crawford) worked for Bush and company. She made me just slightly more proud with that interview, though.

Good advice, but considering the history of the one who is supposed to be receiving it, you might want to consider the next verse:

Matthew 7:6 (NIV): Do not give to dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.

Regarding Evangelicals who want to bring about the end times, another passage from the same sermon seems appropriate:

Matthew 7:22-23 (KJV): Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity (Jesus speaking, still).

Its gonna be a good day for Bible quotes, I can tell; and apparently misquotes as well.

Proverbs 1:7 (KJV): The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Shame on you Sherman.

Who keeps Steve Gutenberg's career alive? We do, we do!

By way of clarification, link at sig

I wholeheartedly recommend reading Vandeveld's entire statement.

I think its worth noting that the "drug war" is one of the few spots where Obama could potentially get support from the conservatives on the Supreme Court. Any federalist worth his or her salt believes that states should exercise police powers as much as possible and the federal government as rarely as possible. Thus, if a state has decriminalized something (medicinal marijuana in several states, plus effective decriminalization of formerly misdemeanor possession here in MA), the federal government should just butt out.

Of course Obama could achieve this quite easily by directing the DEA to not waste resources prosecuting marijuana users or cultivators in states where use is legal. Judicial intervention doesn't even seem necessary. Here's hoping.

There was what sounded like a pretty good discussion on closing Guantanamo on the NPR show "On Point" this morning (I happened to be listening in a cab, so I'm going to have to check it out online). One of the guests was Maj. Frakt, I believe the same one appointed to defend Jawad before the Commissions. He made some good points.

I wholeheartedly agree with you, Benjamin Button doesn't deserve nearly 13 Oscar Nominations. I don't think it deserves any aside from the technical categories (visual effects, costume, whatever). I think you mistakenly substituted "Traffic," which was a tremendous picture but I don't believe won best picture, for the movie "Crash," which was not only not deserving to win best picture, but also had to rip the name off a fine Cronenberg film. In summary, the Academy sucks. But at least No Country for Old Men won last year.