Republicans scold Liz Cheney and Bill Kristol for DOJ smear

[Wild Cobra]

Typical fear-mongering in that article. Oh my goodness, there's a supposed 20% recidivism rate!

etc. etc...

In a way I agree with you. Now once we get all the Extremists to vow they will stop attacking us, and others in a holy war, I say we release them.

What do you think? Afterall, it is normal to release the captured enemy when the war is over.

Of course, we have to be certain that they will have integrity over the issue.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Gitmo's Indefensible Lawyers


I think this issue is far from over...

so says liz cheney's associate. you're right, the issue will live on in the right-wing blogospere--but it will be seen for the bull that it truly is by intelligent life.

[PixelPusher]

The three lawyers (two conservative and one moderate to left-leaning) have been discussing this over at Powerline for the past couple of days. I didn't see the commercial but, in following the discussion here and there, I think this latest post -- commenting on the letter that is the topic of this thread -- kind of sums up their position with which I can't disagree.


Getting it partly right on the DOJ 7


I think that's a reasonable position.

lol, you know it's bad when Yoni has to carefully cherry pick the posts of his favorite right wing blog;

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../03/025821.php
At this point, it may be useful to compare (a) the relationship between al Qaeda and leftist lawyers of today and (b) the relationship between Soviet Communism and those American leftists who were falsely accused of being communists during the McCarthy era (I'm mindful that not all of the accused were falsely accused). Many of the wrongly accused leftists thought very badly of the U.S. Some I knew and have read about were appalled by racial segregation, deeply offended by the way income was distributed, and unhappy with important aspects of our foreign and national security policy including aspects of our policy towards the Soviet Union. But they didn't desire the expansion of Soviet power and they didn't favor the imposition of a communist system in the U.S.

In my opinion, these individuals have much more in common with communists and the professed values of Soviet Communism than today's leftist lawyers have in common with al Qaeda and the Islamists. Yet, it was wrong to accuse them of being communists, pro-communist, communist sympathizers, Soviet agents, etc.

I think it's also wrong to suggest that those lawyers who represent al Qaeda members and who also condemn American policies and favor radical change in this country are, by virtue of this, al Qaeda (as in "the al Qaeda Seven"), pro al Qaeda, or pro Islamist.

[Yonivore]

lol, you know it's bad when Yoni has to carefully cherry pick the posts of his favorite right wing blog;

I think you need to read the entire train of posts, by all three at Powerline contributors, before you accuse me of "cherry-picking." They've had a spirited debate on the issue; analyzing the opinions of others -- with whom they disagree and agree. Paul happens to be the moderate of the three.

I posted the sentiment of one of the three with which I agreed. And, I stated so. It's not my job to make your argument for you.

Where did I cherry-pick that post? I posted a link to the entire Powerline post and said I thought it was a reasonable position.

What's your beef?

[George Gervin's Afro]

I think you need to read the entire train of posts, by all three at Powerline contributors, before you accuse me of "cherry-picking." They've had a spirited debate on the issue; analyzing the opinions of others -- with whom they disagree and agree. Paul happens to be the moderate of the three.

I posted the sentiment of one of the three with which I agreed. And, I stated so. It's not my job to make your argument for you.

Where did I cherry-pick that post? I posted a link to the entire Powerline post and said I thought it was a reasonable position.

What's your beef?

so you cherry picked the blog.

[Yonivore]

so you cherry picked the blog.

No, I posted a link to an opinion, posted by the more liberal of the three, with which I found common ground.

I've posted a lot of stuff from that blog; if that post was cherry-picked, it was cherry-picked in favor of a position I more, than not, disagree with.

[PixelPusher]

I think you need to read the entire train of posts, by all three at Powerline contributors, before you accuse me of "cherry-picking." They've had a spirited debate on the issue; analyzing the opinions of others -- with whom they disagree and agree. Paul happens to be the moderate of the three.

I posted the sentiment of one of the three with which I agreed. And, I stated so. It's not my job to make your argument for you.

Where did I cherry-pick that post? I posted a link to the entire Powerline post and said I thought it was a reasonable position.

What's your beef?

My bad, Yoni. They were both from Paul Mirengoff, so egg on my face.

[LnGrrrR]

In a way I agree with you. Now once we get all the Extremists to vow they will stop attacking us, and others in a holy war, I say we release them.

What do you think? Afterall, it is normal to release the captured enemy when the war is over.

Of course, we have to be certain that they will have integrity over the issue.

You and I both know that you'll never get "every" extremist, meaning the "war" will never end. Does that justify locking up anyone who MIGHT be an extremist for an indefinite amount of time with access to limited legal resources at best?

[Wild Cobra]

You and I both know that you'll never get "every" extremist, meaning the "war" will never end. Does that justify locking up anyone who MIGHT be an extremist for an indefinite amount of time with access to limited legal resources at best?

So you don't have an acceptable solution at most people either.

[Winehole23]

So you don't have an acceptable solution at most people either.

Death solves all problems. No man, no problem.