Shame on you for cock-blocking me that way.

vital intell

-- NeoConCabal

Such as?

Thanks for sharing your POV too. Cheers.

against Geneva? Sorry, Kid. Which part of Geneva protects irregulars targeting civilians not in uniforms of a nation's army?

Those who got KSM to spill vital intell on his water stained sweatshirt deserve--in the words of the Evil Neocon, Dr.Krauthammer--Medals.

With Malice Toward Some.

"If I gave voice to any moral objections to a tenet of Judaism, would I be anti-Semitic?"

No, you'd be called a Jew.

Don't take that bet. It a trap.

If it is attempted to prosecute the Bush admin for acts taken to protect the country from the likes of al queda there will be protesting that will make the vietnam era look like a picnic.

I'd guess you meant the "vietnam era" as in Ayers and the Weather Underground we've heard so much of from the RW foaming Cheetohs-eater brigades....

Are you threatening insurrection there, Farry? "Bring 'em on...."

Cheers,

I've got $100 that says Bush commutes the two Border Guards.

I'll even give you even money!

If I gave voice to any moral objections to a tenet of Judaism, would I be anti-Semitic?

Not as such. What tenets of Judaism do you have moral objections to? Can you be specific?

Personally, I am hoping that Buhs pardons Bill Clinton for pardoning Marc Rich... LOL

Would that shut Rush up? We can dream...

at the time the A-Bombs were delivered. Total rubbish. They were NOT. Nor were they intending to do anything but slaughter hundreds of thousands of American soldiers, sailers and marines.

Focus, fool:"The Supreme War Council..was making every possible preparation to meet[an American]landing. They proceeded with that plan until the Atomic Bomb was dropped, after which they believed the United States would no longer attempt to land when it had such a superior weapon--that the United States need not land when it had such a weapon; so at that point they decided that it would be best to sue for peace."...Kantaro Suzuki, Prime Minister of Japan, April-August 1945.

Note, Scuzzy: The Japanese DID NOT sue for peace after Hiroshima on August 6th. Only AFTER the Nagasaki Bomb of August 9th did they do so.

Further note, Scuzz: Your "Thou shalt not kill" reference as your watchword is based upon the Commandment. Further reading of Old Testament Law will show you that "kill" means MURDER. As in, "And the murderer shall be put to death".

Indeed.

Just a teensy weensy fraction of the American public might be wondering if that is taxpayer's money well spent.

OK, so what?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17595.html

"That's fairly stupid."

No, it is never stupid to define terms.

"Antisemitism is hating and fearing Jews for being Jews. That is,

1. Hostility toward or prejudice against Jews or Judaism.

2. Discrimination against Jews.

It's no different from discrimination against black Americans or Indians or Chinese. I'd say it only has its own name because of its peculiar history, and because of the peculiar history of the Jews."

Everybody’s history is is peculiar. This is just Jewish Exceptionalism.

Okay, I agree with your definition, minus a few corrections --

1. Hostility toward or prejudice against Jews by virtue of their being Jewish.

2. Discrimination against Jews by virtue of their being Jewish.

I took out "Judaism," because Judaism is a belief system, and in a free and open society, we should be able to have our own opinions and draw our own moral conclusions on different belief systems. I do not have to agree, or accept, or morally support, all the tenets of Christianity. Nor do I have to agree, accept, or morally support all the tenets of Judaism. Would you agree? And if I voiced those disagreements, if I gave voice to my moral objections to specific tenets of Christianity, would I be anti-Christian? If I gave voice to any moral objections to a tenet of Judaism, would I be anti-Semitic? Is the act of voicing both of those objections morally equivalant?

On your definition again, what if Jewish identity was the basis for criminal behaviour? In other words, what if a Jewish person or group of people commited crimes against another, their actions being based upon their Jewish beliefs? Would the victims of those crimes be anti-Semitic if they then feared, or hated, Jews?

10 Bush pardons to watch for

Here is a list of 10 cases that could come under review by Bush, and Politico’s look at the odds Bush will wield his pardon pen:

1. Military and CIA interrogators of war-on-terror prisoners:

Politico Odds: 4 to 1

2. Former Chief of Staff to Vice President Cheney, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby Jr.:

Politico Odds: 1 to 2

3. Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales:

Politico Odds: 5 to 1.

4. Former American Israel Public Affairs Committee Lobbyists Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, Former Pentagon Analyst Lawrence Franklin:

Politico Odds: Rosen/Weissman, 10 to 1; Franklin: 20 to 1

5. Pardon Prospect: Former Justice Department official Bradley Schlozman:

Politico Odds: 4 to 1

6. Pardon prospect: Former junk bond king Michael Milken:

Politico Odds: 2 to 1

7. Commutation Prospects: Former Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean:

Politico Odds: 3 to 1

8. Commutation Prospect: Former Governor George Ryan (R-Ill.):

Politico Odds: 4 to 1

9. Commutation Prospect: Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard:

Politico Odds: 20 to 1

10. Commutation Prospect: Randall "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.):

Politico Odds: 50 to 1

Just a teensy weensy fraction of the American public might be wondering if that is taxpayer's money well spent.

"Does this mean a trial would be a open and shut case?"

-- Jelperman

In a just court, goddamnit, YES. Anyone who says otherwise is hopelessly irrational or lying.

For nearly six years, Haji Bismullah, an Afghan detainee at Guantánamo Bay, has insisted that he was no terrorist, but had actually fought the Taliban and had later been part of the pro-American Afghan government.

Over the weekend, the Bush administration flew him home after a military panel concluded that he “should no longer be deemed an enemy combatant.”

Asked about the panel’s decision, which was not publicly announced and seemed to acknowledge a mistake of grand proportions, a Pentagon spokeswoman said, “Mr. Bismullah was lawfully detained as an enemy combatant based on the information that was available at the time.”

The decision was part of a pattern that has emerged in the closing chapter of the administration. In the last three months, at least 24 detainees have been declared improperly held by courts or a tribunal — or nearly 10 percent of the population at the detention camp in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, where about 245 men remain.

And later in the article:

While hundreds of suspects have been released from the detention camp in the seven years it has been operating, the recent decisions came after the Bush administration said it had reduced the population to the most dangerous terrorists.

While Mr. Bismullah’s case was decided by a military panel, the rulings for the other 23 detainees occurred in habeas corpus hearings in federal court. Since a Supreme Court decision in June gave detainees the right to have their detentions reviewed by federal judges in habeas cases, the government has won only three of them. The government is appealing some of the rulings it lost.

From "Rulings of Improper Detentions as the Bush Era Closes", NY Times, January 18, 2009

I do hope he liked the food though...