Yes, you're overwhelmed...

Because you can't grasp the idea that sometimes a troll actually says something of more substance than some of the serious posters.

Example:

Paul tries to equate rape with torture. I chime in and say, "Rape is Clinton, torture is Bush. Get your presidents straight."

Thanks for that shining example of how you are a troll and are here for the purpose of absurd claims-making to disrupt the thread. (FYI: comments aren't trolls; those making the comments are.)

Was that a troll? Or was it a comment rooted in the fact that 30% of America seem perfectly willing to rally around a rapist (provided he's in their party), while another 30% seem willing to rally around torture (provided that his is of their party).

In all seriousness, do you really not know the definition of rape? Because if you don't, I suggest you look it up before you try making the following argument:

Justice is subjective in the US, as it is in the rest of the world. Which of the two Presidents mentioned above deserves to be behind bars most? It's hard to say. Bush had the decency to have his attorney general say that torture was legal. Then again, Clinton had the decency to commit the rape himself, rather than delegating it to others.

By the way, it is true that justice is subjective, as are all values. However, the laws of a society reflect the agreed-upon principles of that society, as do other instruments like the Geneva Conventions.

I'll leave that for the real ethics professors of the world to decide.

Well, bully for you. From here on out, I'll leave my comments for people who are intelligent, logical, and get their information from somewhere other than Comedy Central. And for the record, I never questioned your claim to be military or have family in the military. I trust that you are who you say you are; I just don't trust a single word that you post.

If you-all keep engaging steveindallas, you're going to force him to pull out his Ace of Trumps:

Bill and Lady Ma'Clinton's murder of Vincent Foster.

I'm no fan of the Clintons, but I'd hate to see my fellow Greenwald commenters suffer such a devastating loss of face.

It's bad enough that we're constantly overmatched by reactionary Israelophiliacs, urbane and supercilious realpolitikers, and self-professed Security State mavens, homo feroxes who understand well that politics and warfare are simply elaborations of Might-- that is, Power, springing from the nape of the neck.

That is all.

No to criminal justice principles and no to Geneva Convention applicability.

You are in no position to make that statement. Rather makes the rest of what you wrote...

Well, I'm too polite to call it what it was. Plus which my newborn is sitting nearby and I (unlike some) take my parental responsibilities seriously.

And intelligent people can read my words and know that I am not justifying or arguing for any inhumane treatment of any person or people whatsoever.

So, what do you consider the proper response to the Jews, if they have taken up a leading but subversive column in our media courts and government? What should we do about, for instance, the fact that Jewish children are still indoctrinated with the same ideas you point out? And that these webs of Jewish influence, to the extent you posit they exist, are deeply entrenched, powerful and dedicated to their own purposes.

The information you have been giving us about Jews is powerful and alarming. What, Steele, is the proper response to this information. What do you think we should do?

You answered my other question so well, and I'm counting on you to answer this one, too. I'm sure the beauty of your moderation will come through.

Okay, Steele, unlimber your vouschafer, and let fly! (I'm encouraging you to talk.)

Sorry to disappoint, but I never bought into the Vince Foster story. Or the Mena Airport stories. Or the "28 associates who died under mysterious circumstances." Juanita seems credible, though. At least she seems more credible than Bill.

Good. We're getting somewhere.

KSM is a matter of war-fighting and not law enforcement.

KSM, an illegal combatant, is also outside the Geneva Convention.

Further, Eric Holder's scripted P.R. song-and-dance with Pat Leahy in the course of a committe hearing hardly has the force of law.

Whether KSM is an illegal combatant is not the issue. The CAT does not allow ANY exceptions (war or otherwise) to justify the use of torture on KSM.

The law enforcement as you call it is a result of the US, being a signatory to the CAT, to enact US laws prosecuting those who torture KSM.

HTH.

Trainman, RE: 60% approval rating?
So you're saying that justice is based on approval rating?
Dude, you're making my point about subjectivity and selective enforcement. -- steveindallas-fortwhipitouttheass

It sure looks that way to me. You seem to have a knack for riling the easily confused.

And, Obama wants to maintain his popularity, which is why there will be no serious follow-up. -- steveindallas-fortwhipitouttheass

This is likely, but not a given. Repeatedly stating it as a given will not, somehow, change that. And, bringing in beloved bait-and-switch topics like the Terrible Clenis won't cast a Magick spell over the issue either.

Time will tell.

wrote:

Good. We're getting somewhere.

KSM is a matter of war-fighting and not law enforcement.

KSM, an illegal combatant, is also outside the Geneva Convention.

Is it warfare if all of the combatants on one side are illegal?

Which combatants on KSM's side were legal?

Are you implying that the US military or CIA can capture anyone it wants, and no rules apply for those who are not part of the military of a recognized country?

.."You've written about a dozen pages on "Salon.com". You haven't said shit."

And yet, you reply. And reply. And reply.

Careful, Kitt, or you will end up like Chris, who continues to wail at me, even though I stopped responding to him about 20 pages ago.

HEATHER: You are right; it is not a foregone conclusion. However, everything that I have seen about Obama tell me two things: First, that he is very much a pragmatist (rather than an idealist). And second, that he would very much like the spotlight to be on him, rather than on Bush cronies.

That being the case, to me the safest bet is that either nothing will be done, or that a rather innocuous investigation will be held, producing a document that says that bad decisions were made, but not resulting in any type of trial or hearing that will allow for both prosecution and defense to make their cases.