Sorry, couldn't help it.

If it was Ronald Reagan who signed it in 1988... at that point he was utterly non compos mentis, his wife's astrologer was running the country, so he could not have given informed consent, and the law or contract is non-binding. Next question...

The real reason Truman nuked Japan was more complicated than you indicate.

You see mookie, life and history is not only more complicated than you understand; it is more complicated than you can understand. But that's okay, we understand. It's not your fault that you are stupid.

Mokusatsu (黙殺) is a Japanese word formed from two Chinese characters: "silence" (moku, 黙) and "kill" (satsu, 殺) and means the act of keeping a contemptuous silence. Some argue that the word was misinterpreted by the United States when the government of Japan used it as a response to American demands for unconditional surrender in World War II, which may have influenced President Harry S. Truman's decision to use the atomic bomb against Hiroshima and Nagasaki.[1]

Premier Suzuki Kantaro used mokusatsu to dismiss the Allies' Potsdam Declaration in 1945, during World War II

Though rarely used these days, the word was employed in the morning edition of the Asahi Shinbun during World War II on July 28, 1945 to designate the attitude assumed by the government to the Potsdam Declaration. Later that day in a press conference, it was used by the Premier Suzuki Kantaro to dismiss the Potsdam Declarations as a mere rehash of earlier rejected Allied proposals, and therefore, being of no value, would be killed off by silent contempt (mokusatsu). Suzuki's choice of the term was dictated perhaps more by the need to appease the military, which was hostile to the idea of "unconditional surrender", than to signal anything to the Allies.[1]

The expression can also mean to just let a topic or subject die by refusing to follow up on it. The reasons for the "mokusatsu" response could as easily be contempt as embarrassment, discomfort, or even simply not knowing what else to do in response. - Wiki

It's kind of like this, if I ask a Japanese guy where the money he owes me is, he might say, "Mokusatu". If I were Japanese I would understand that he means it is too embarrassing or difficult to talk about, and we would both understand that he will pay me my money. Understand?

Truman's people took "Mokusatu" to mean, "Nuts!" or something like that and nuked Hiroshima. Nagasaki was bombed purely for revenge, to test the plutonium bomb, and to send a message to the Russians...

Certainly reasonable people do disagree. I am hoping it is not enough in this case to impede prosecution.

Assume that 100 terrorists were subjected to waterboarding and one out of the hundred made possible an intervention that caught an otherwise viable plan to nuke New York City, thus preventing the deaths of several million people. Would you still want to prosecute the one who waterboarded that terrorist?

-- Ray Walker

Is that you, Dick? "Go fuck yourself" with your ticking time bomb. Geebus! Did you honest to gawd think we'd never heard that crap before? About a million times before?

"Assume that 100 terrorists were subjected to waterboarding and one out of the hundred made possible an intervention that caught an otherwise viable plan to nuke New York City, thus preventing the deaths of several million people. Would you still want to prosecute the one who waterboarded that terrorist?"

Yes. No one is above the law.

Fact of the matter is, we should torture EVERYBODY taken into custody.

You never know who might actually BE a terrorist, and tell us about the nuclear bomb behind door #3, thus saving millions of lives. Right?

to even "Get" your query. They're very...errr....complex and subtle and multi-layered and DEEP, don'tcha know. In a world of 'asymetrical war' new ways of approaching combatants must be used, as you ably point out.

IF a little 'sold on the market' Iranian made nuke goes off in mid-Manhattan during Bammy-time, do ya s'pose the deeply subtle and complex slicks here will even disapprove?

Nope, probably just blame us for too much aggression.

A Moral Wilderness is what they inhabit.

maybe they had a rational reason for their prejudices. Maybe they had rational reasons for their stereotypes.

No. There is never a "rational reason" for prejudice or stereotyping. You can blame something for something they did. Blaming someone just because a member of their ethnic group did something is just rationalizing bigotry.

Come on, so I really have to explain this in 2009?

Maybe the Jewish population in certain societies did things and said things that were unfair, and criminal.

The whole population? Every last man, woman, and child?

We can see the overwhelming representation of Jews in our media today.

No, "we" can't. You can.

We can see the overwhelming influence of Jews in our financial industry today.

No, "we" can't. You can.

We can see the overwheling influence of Jews in our foreign policy and defense establishment today.

No, "we" can't. You can.

Maybe in certain sectors of society in Europe in the late 19th and early 20th century, Jews were practicing favoritism, and oppressing and ripping off people on a massive scale? Ya think it is possible? I do.

Be very clear what you are saying here. You are rationalizing the institutional anti-Semitism of Eastern and Central Europe. The pogroms, the Pale, the ghettos, the camps. All of it.

This is an ugly topic, and I don’t feel too comfortable talking about it

There is a reason why you feel uncomfortable: because you're spewing hatred of your fellow human beings.

You have way bigger problems that "the Jews," Steele the First. You have a problem with your humanity.

2) U.S. Code can be overridden by our secret Court system; such override is not challengable, nor do you even get to know about it.

Wow. You're quite right. We've set up a Sooper-Sekret Court System, with unknown and unchallengeable decisions just so we can deal with the more troublesome people effectively. What I want to know, David, is who the traitor was that let you in on the secret. Didn't they say, "I'll tell ya', Dave, but now I'll have to kill ya"?

3) U.S. Code is not binding on the Chief Executive to the extent it would interfere with his absolute mandates to manage the Executive and to keep the Nation safe; mandates unchallenged since they were first asserted in 1980.

I think you're off by a year. Saint Ronnie wasn't inaugurated until '81. But your sources are wrong; it was Nixon who amended the Constitution to say, "when the preznit does it, that means that it is not illegal...."

But my major point is you should stop writing of these issues as if they had something to do with International Law. The United States is outside International Law.

And outside U.S. Code too. See above.

Cheers,