P.S. Pedinska is no dude.

Oh, let him go. It just proves how clueless he is and what sensational reading comprehension he exercises in pursuit of his cluelessness.

Next thing you know, he'll be calling Kitt "Little Woman". ;-}

Right. Khalid Sheikh Muhammad needs a good lawyer, and Glenn is just the guy.

Does anybody remember what he actually DID?

-- Elephantman

Because in America, only innocent people get good lawyers. (We have special people -- real Americans all -- who determine, pre-trial, who is innocent and who isn't, so no mistakes are made.)

Any point you made was subsumed by your pointless fabrications. You know, anonymity is a great responsibility. It allows you to interact without taking responsibility for what you do. Its a sign of character when people don't abuse that responsibility. It makes no difference if they find the forum stupid, or silly, or useless. Its an even greater sign of lack of character if they use the latter to excuse their behavior.

Civilization is made by voluntary cooperation among willing and knowledgeable humans. Progress comes the same way.

The aggressive use of force destroys civilization and retards progress. That it makes the history books does not mean it is desirable.

Did you ever read any real history? I do not mean 11th grade text books, I mean the writings of historians.

"The 72 virgins myth is a Zionist-constructed propaganda technique to make Americans belittle and hate Muslims."

Just a quick one to clarify. In my last post I was only taking the piss, as we say in England. I don't know what part, if any, Arabs played a part in 9/11. All I know is that they sure didn't plan it.

Folks here seem to be much more interested in posturing (and about vagina grenades) than they are about what is going to happen.

If you were a real he-man you'd have two, and we'd be discussing the tinkling of glass instead.

Your credibility, such as it was, was already on its way out the door even before you came up with the grenade story. And there's a difference between 'mocking' and 'posturing'. You should look that up.

"If", despite it's length, is one of the biggest words in the English language.

You claim we should torture people because we think or believe that they are terrorists. Fair enough. Let's say that torture works, and it's morally justifiable.

What is your position on torturing people who are in fact innocent? Or is it your position that the same people who brought us the fallacious intel on WMD, and who completely missed the plan to attack America on 911 are infallible and that "we" would never torture innocent people?

Keep in mind that most people who are tortured would probably claim their innocence, and that even an innocent person would "confess" in an attempt to make you stop. But you wouldn't stop would you? Why spoil all that fun?

BTW Your hero's name is spelled Nietzsche. So much for rightist infallibility.

Here's what another one of your heroes said about that.

'Til the infallibility of human judgements shall have been proved to me, I shall demand the abolition of the penalty of death.

Marquis de Sade

Ah, not just, as Barth said "the Pole Star all men's needles point to", but actually explosive! Certainly, a healthy respect for, as Bongwater, I believe put it, "The Power of Pussy" is warranted.

And then, there's "snarge". "Snarge" is the un-identified, crushed remains of deceased birds left on aircraft. You send snarge in for analysis, sometimes, or in the case of a crash.

The emotional impact of the crimes gets lost with time. Support for prosecution can be lost. But I do not agree about the definition of torture. That comes from the international agreements that the US has signed. It may be that the administration advocating torture as a policy justifies it by use of a creative interpretation of the definition. So what? The international definition is reasonably clear, and any investigation or prosecution needs to be based on a reasonable interpretation.

Think I'll sign off and watch the mid-day rerun of the Colbert Report. You know -- that goofy show that throws out some trolls, but at the same time strangely seems to make a point or two.--steveindallas

Well I am over-f*ing-whelmed.

Excuse me now, while I go back on "Pardon Watch".

Here I was, enjoying the last full day of the worst administration in history and you had to spoil it by bringing up the "p" word.

By the way, did you get the OS commemorative gifts I sent you and Mrs. bamage?

The law is clear, and it must apply to all, or "American justice" is a joke.

If the Obama administration doesn't legally pursue these top level Bush war criminals, as a change for the better they will be an obvious farce for all to see.

Farce, not force.

Excuse me, but the printer says that the toilet paper is meant only to be looked at, not used.

http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1056648.html

How far will they go? Is it beyond them to fill comment sections with all kinds of anti-semitic tropes purely to confuse or obfuscate the issues?

On the other hand, the classic kinds of anti-semitism still exist.

So why should we think Steele is anything but a clever Hasbarist?

Steele, I think you should reiterate for us the awful things the Jews did to you. I believe you made reference to them a while back, but refresh our memories, please, would you?

Reiterate means "to tell again", you see.

Could you do that, so we can understand you better?

This is the only article I've read that understands how politics and justice do not necessarily coincide. The idea that somehow a political will is required to carry out the tenents of the law is anathema. The law is what it is. It should never be subject to political interference and if for some reason it is then the appropriate measures should be taken to charge whatever politician was involved with obstruction. Simple isn't it or it should be. Politicians stay out of the judicial system and let it work the way it is supposed to. End of story.