3) Does the President unilaterally have the right to determine when a foreign entity is or is not a party to the Geneva conventions? I think he's the first one who has ever asserted that if we don't recognize a government, the fact that the country they govern has signed the conventions doesn't make them a "High Party".

Now I'm really confused. If we didn't recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan prior to our invasion, why would we have communicated with them regarding our desire that they turn over bin Laden (or else!)? Were we just writing them notes (It's my understanding that we sent formal diplomatic notes to the Taliban demanding that they turn over binLaden.) or did we, in fact, not recognize them as the legitimate governing force in Afghanistan and just send the notes to be nice? Didn't other governments formally recognize the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan?

We didn't recognize their government (as in formally recognize it). Only Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and I think Yemen did (whether or not Unocal recognition means anything is debatable). But all three of those are both recognized by us and signatories to the Geneva Conventions. We don't recognize some other governments in the world either, but I've never heard that that de-legitimizes them w/respect to those treaties (I may be wrong, but I haven't heard that). We "pass notes", diplomatically, to lots of governments we don't recognize (Iran comes to mind, as does Taiwan).

Projecting your personal animus onto me still doesn't address the points I raise. I've lost track of how many people's arguments you've misrepresented on this thread alone.

Why, none of course.

You read things into my words and then make up stuff from whole cloth. I understand that is is just the raw hatred that consumes you and your small (3 or 4) band of hate mongers, but it does no one any good to pretend you are anything other than an attack dog.

You have a long history of it, though, I see. Raised in the Jefferson "small government" tradition that never even tries to explain the Louisiana Purchace.

It is just this sort of garbage that fingers you as a moron. You are attacking me because I did not mention the Louisiana Purchase? You are an idiot. If you care to ask about it, then ask you little minded hate-monger, but do not pretend that I 'ducked it' or some such.

I did not claim to like antiwar.com. Like I said, I was not expressing an opinion one way or another.

I see; so you are a hate monger and a war-monger. Good for you.

No one has ever practiced pure laissez faire because it is an impossibility.

That is one hell of an assertion. Any evidence for this extraordinary claim? This should be a lot of fun, since you are obviously a moron when it comes to history.

Except for all those nearly system-destroying panics and depressions, which the post-WWII managed economies of the OECD have utterly done away with, that is. ...You see, somehow you missed the part where you're not God. The fact that you keep saying things doesn't make them true.

Now that combo is funny. You make the most outlandish claims with no proof and then claim I do it. Children, can you say 'projection'?

Regardless of which political party is in office the intelligence/corporate junta's agenda continues unabated by reason, history, and principle.

It is an agenda driven by avarice, racism, crime, and cowardice that are the product of a highly destructive callousness that proves the junta is not sane enough to lead the modern world.

First-shooter, you are nothing more than a repuglican troll. Shut up after you remove your feet from your mouth.

You are representative of the problems this country is facing, and one of the main reasons we even have debates about torture and Guantanamo; if it were not for people like you having voted so overwhelmingly twice to put the two goons we now have in office it would be a far different and better country.

Then, to put it politely, I was referring to the piece as an "op-ed" because it was a published opinion piece run in the editorial section of the NY Times. The format might be young, but the idea of an editorial from an independent voice is not.

Lastly-does this forum always have to degenerate into a name-calling, slanderous, malodorous spitting contest?( yes, I know, but I can be a hypocrite with the best of them!)

The only comic relief I ever get is from be-bop-o, who has the decency and intelligence to not cover himself with the slime that everyone else is throwing. ( I don't even know if be-bop-o is male or female, but whatever!)

I was making a statement, and got called onto the carpet for how I characterized a letter. Too damned bad some people have no better things to do with their time than to criticize other people's way of writing.

I wonder if GG ever really reads this forum, and if he gets as tired as I do of this shit. Wouldn't surprise me at all.

You pose a good fundamental question about security in the stateless society. I don't really want to respond to that at any length in this forum, both because it's waaaay off topic and because I'd much prefer to limit my interaction with the folks on this forum who aren't particularly interested in reasonable discourse.

But if you'd like to have that discussion, give me an e-mail address.

I hate abusing Glenn's hospitality, but I don't really mind being attacked; it does tend to sharpen one's attention. Then again, I'm not an anarcho-capitalist, and therefore rarely have to cross swords with more than one antagonist at a time, at least not in this venue.

I'd enjoy the debate, but would prefer to have it in public. Perhaps you know of a blog where it wouldn't be disruptive?

In any event, timberman at-symbol cableone.net should get us started.