Poor ol'Cr[oo]kischarle--unable to mount a civilized argument, which takes intelligence (not something someone this brain dead could ever have), he (I'm willing to bet that it's a he) resorts to vacuity and lying and assassinating the character of the person whose argument he doesn't like.

As I don't toe the pro-Israeli line (that is, won't fib that the Israelis aren't committing crimes against humanity like he does), what I say can't possibly be "fact". It's an "opinion"; that is, it isn't in line with official propaganda, so it doesn't count as truth--just as a dissident who believed in democratic freedom in the USSR was 'mad' because such thoughts didn't tally with Soviet 'reality'. So the events I describe are only "theory" (you know events like the illegal apartheid wall, condemned by the International court; the massacres at Sabra Chatila and Qara; the 2002 destruction of the Jenin refugee camps; the demolition of family homes in Gaza by the Israeli army; the brutal suppression of all types of Palestinian resistance, including peaceful demonstrations; what is known as Plan D, resulting in the slaughter and expulsion of Palestinians in 1947 & 1948 in such regions as Jish, Lydda, Ramle and Deir Yasin; the systematic devastation of infrastructure in Gaza and slaying of civilians, most of whom are children; the ongoing blockade and starving of the Palestinian population, which Richard Falk the UN rapporteur for Human Rights, has made clear is the very definition of genocide; Sharon's use of F-16's against Palestinian villages in 2001; assassinations of Palestinian leaders in order to provoke counter-attacks, thus providing them with the 'trigger', according to Jane's Foreign Report, that would stimulate Israeli soldiers to avenge themselves on Palestinians, as opposed to becoming Refuseniks; running over protesters like Rachel Corrie with bulldozers--all of which are on record and have been tabled by the UN and have been seen by eyewitnesses. Hardly "theory"! That's solid proof, except to Orwellians who will happily tell you that 2+2=5 and that one's conviction it's 2+2=4 is just an "opinion".

These are all known--only Cr[oo]kischarle pretends these are "unknown facts" (to quote his clumsy expression). As such facts get in the way of his ability to spread lies and propaganda it's no surprise then that this dishonest poster (really a troll) chooses to ignore them. Instead, just shoot such pesky facts down by calling them "blither"--the way fans intimidate the umpire to change the penalty against their team by abusing him and accusing him of favouring the other teams, even as replays show the decision was right. Never mind that just stating something doesn't make it true. Others do the same. Those views they don't like they call 'stupid', while those they approve of they describe as 'intelligent' (and self-righteously feel they don't need to provide proof or proffer argument). Cr[oo]kischarle, for instance, doesn't bother to explain why he may beg to differ, or think differently about matters, rather he employs language to disguise the truth ("fact?", he asks disingenuously, as one might exclaim 'fuck', to make it seem as though I didn't provide any and excuse himself from the burden of having to disprove my claims, which he can't).

Obama also uses language to obfuscate what he really means and to obscure his real intentions. By "tainted" he means 'illegal', not admissible in a court of law. When he declares that they would need to create a court or procedures where such "tainted" evidence can be admissible what he is saying in fact is that material gathered in an unconstitutional way should be allowed. That's the opposite of our democratic justice system. Let's hope he's just appeasing his masters and isn't being serious.

It's not fair to the prosecution to suddenly change all the rules on them, to their great disadvantage, 7 years into the process.

The "rules" were changed 7 years ago by Bush and company. Why didn't prosecutors object to the change back then?

Could it be the sudden improvement in the odds for a conviction?

After all, they are guilty, aren't they?

Iran's Top Leader: We Will Pursue Nuclear Activities Regardless of Sanctions

TEHRAN — Iran's top leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned on Wednesday that the country will pursue nuclear activities outside international regulations if the U.N. Security Council insists it stop uranium enrichment.

"Until today, what we have done has been in accordance with international regulations," Khamenei said. "But if they take illegal actions, we too can take illegal actions and will do so."

That announcement came out prior to the NIE. One would think the spooks knew about it and took it into consideration when they issued their final NIE.

Now, why don't you back to your rock.

"It's not fair to the prosecution to suddenly change all the rules on them, to their great disadvantage, 7 years into the process."

Just a thought but if these cases were transfered to regular Federal District Courts, wouldn't they also have different Prosecutors assigned and wouldn't that pretty much even the playing field somewhat? They wouldn't still have military prosecutors is what I'm either saying or asking.

As far as I'm concerned KSM could walk tomorrow and he'd be a very minor danger. He would NEVER be accepted back into the confidence of al Qaeda after burning people. He'll die a bitter old man but it's doubtful he would be a binLaden asset.

Still, they have evidence against him which isn't tainted (off his computer which they seized) which should be enough to put him away for a while.

I guess the question is whether we're seeking justice or vengence.

I guess the question is whether we're seeking justice or vengeance.

As a nation that imprisons a greater percentage of its population than any other nation, you ask a fair question.

Prosecutors get paid to put people in jail. They may claim to be "just following the law", but that is a powerful pass on their treatment of fellow human beings.

Saint Barack of Obama's comments about Iran's

nuclear "threat" are damn peculiar. His cavalier disregard of the National Intelligence Estimate is hard to understand. Or is it? I detect the evil influence of AIPAC. . . .

George Stephanopoulos--like the rest of his overpaid, unskilled MSM colleagues--is a fawning douche bag.