To proclaim moral superiority when the consequence is suicide is not very clever.
I like my lawyer costume, because I am comfortable wearing it and because it permits me to pontificate on things from a different perspective than do many others on this site. I recently did so in an article focusing on the legal aspects of "torturing" terrorists to gain information needed to avoid future terrorist attacks.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Clavos
Right! And I'll editorialize you, too, in that case - whenever I want.
You already do, Roger, you already do. Not only me, but virtually everyone else on these threads -- you're a great source of amusement.
And how come it took you half an hour to compose a half-ass response?
I know this will come as a great shock to you, Roger, but I don't hang on your every word, and you're not the most important person in my life.
27 - roger nowosielski
I'm well aware of that, Clavos. You haven't busted any illusions. And I hope you have a good time, too.
28 - roger nowosielski
Clavos,
I don't worry, BTW, as you may, about creating impressions. If what I say amuses you, good for you. I don't think that's entirely the case, though, because there are plenty of times that you take objections.
Don't tell me now? Is it out of your innate sense of fairness or fair play? I doubt that very much. If I JUST amused you, you'd let it go rather than scratch and claw.
So which is it, friend? Have you taken true account lately>
29 - Dan(Miller)
Jeeezzz!
I seem to have taken the wrong path and to have wound up on the RogerBlog. Please forgive the intrusion.
Dan(Miller)
30 - Baronius
rogcritics?
31 - roger nowosielski
Welcome. You may post your comments at any time.
And BTW, Clavos. There's a substantial difference, I should say, between "editorializing" and "spin." But you just can't help doing the former, can you? It's the schoolmaster in you.
But as I have told you earlier - I'm attending the ESLFIC course in the local community college - "English as Second Language for the Intellectually Challenged" - that's called an acronym in the English-speaking world, if I am correct.
So please cut me some slack, senor, but I am working on it. Meanwhile, forgive my deficiencies and poor table etiquette.
32 - roger nowosielski
Actually, Baronius, it's rogerisms. But you're close.
33 - Baronius
"I did not mean thereby to suggest (and don't think that I did suggest) that we should fly airplanes into buildings, hack off heads or use children as living shields. That would be not only bad and silly but also quite ineffective."
I don't think it would be ineffective. We're talking about the Middle East here. I bet if we used those tactics, some people would respect us more, and those who opposed us would fear us more. I bet we'd be more popular in Indonesia and India. But that's not the point. The badness of an action is enough to take it off the table, I believe, even if it would be effective. I don't know if you'd agree. That's what I've been trying to get at.
34 - roger nowosielski
Ineffective and silly are the primary terms of consideration. Forget about "bad."
Who give a fuck?
35 - roger nowosielski
There you go again. My second-grade education and mental impairment are showing: no subject-verb agreement.
I'm so happy BC is so tolerant of illegal immigrants and natural-born scumbags. Otherwise I'd be banned.
36 - Dan(Miller)
Ma R K, re your #14 --
Well, Speaker Pelosi would be a good start.
Meanwhile, today is a holiday and someone cut the fiber optic cable between here and Panama City, mistakenly looking for copper wire to liberate. Hence, traffic is being routed around it and my internet speed is far less than one tenth of normal. It just ain't worth the effort to deal with it -- no matter how much I enjoy some of the entertaining chatter. I shall return (apologies to Gen. MacArthur) in a few hours (days) when it gets repaired.
Dan(Miller)
37 - Cindy
Heck with it. I'll just repost here.
Dan(Miller),
It's is likely thousands of innocent people were abducted and subjected to what you would not call, but I would call, torture. Yet, you continue to act as if it was some small handful of people that are called 'terrorists'. As if only 'terrorists' were taken and locked away and subjected to torture. As if we 'pious' and 'morally superior' idiots were defending people with guns locked and loaded and pointed at us.
It's almost as if, despite the fact of your legal training, you are not some unbiased nonpartisan at all. It's almost as if you are a very biased table-pounding militant, who would feign 'expert' innocence (I'm merely, unbiasedly interpreting the law.).
Do you recognize this distortion when you make it? Am I to think that perhaps even attorneys pound tables? Despite suave attempts to look all legal and impartial?
Isn't law to be designed to protect innocents?
Pardon my naivete, I'm no lawyer. Nor was I trained in Cowboys vs Indians as a child. I haven't really learned well who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. So, it's understandable I might have a hard time believing that the 'authorities' (including politicians and torturers) were all 'supermans' defending truth and justice, while the prisoners (including mostly innocent people) were all 'terrorists' intent on destroying civilization.
Does Panama have torture? Hopefully they won't mistake you or your wife for terrorists. I mean, you know, they have every right to 'torture' you (of course no one could support that, unless...well, maybe if they called it something more palatable...or argued it wasn't really torture at all)...they have to protect themselves and all...and you well, are a gringo, after all.
Those who you denounce for being morally outraged and moved to defend innocent people--I hope you'll never need us.
Ut vos animadverto opportunus pro alius sic licet vobis quoque.
(there is an accidentally made duplicate of this post on your other article at #134)
38 - Dan(Miller)
Cindy,
Lawyers do pound on the law, the facts or the table, depending on which seems most likely to be effective at the time. However, I noted at the beginning of my most recent article that I was removing my lawyer costume for that article. I presented my personal views, be they deemed partisan or not. I did not pretend to offer a legal analysis, nor did I attempt to do so, there.
You say, It's is likely thousands of innocent people were abducted and subjected to what you would not call, but I would call, torture. I am not aware of that. Do you have a suitable link? I would be interested in looking at it.
Yes, the law is designed to protect innocents, and in the United States, at least, has usually done a pretty good job of it. However, I am not aware of any reasonable, factual, basis for describing as "innocents" the people who were water boarded and otherwise treated harshly.
No, Panama does not have "torture." It happened under Noreiga, whom most of us here are delighted to have elsewhere. France is more than welcome to him. Should you be interested, there is a fascinating book by R.M. Koster and Guillermo Sanchez entitled In the Time of the Tyrants.
If you haven't really learned well who the good guys are and who the bad guys are, you might find it instructive to read In the Time of the Tyrants. I also consider people who cause passenger aircraft to crash into occupied buildings to be in the bad guy category. Those who plan such attacks, those who brag about them, and those who plan more of the same I would put into the same category. And, were I in a position to do so, I would authorize "harsh" interrogation to prevent recurrences.
Dan(Miller)
39 - M A rk
Dan, while I might have missed it, I don't recall Pelosi arguing that the Bush administration wasn't aggressive enough in its techniques following 9-11; I do think that she was not diligent in questioning the administration's interpretations of allowable techniques at the time they presented them to Congress.
Do you have some clearer example of the type of person that you have your beef with?
40 - Cindy
Dan(Miller),
I presented my personal views, be they deemed partisan or not. I did not pretend to offer a legal analysis, nor did I attempt to do so...
Yes, you are right. I guess I'm responding to your other article. The one that was presented as nonpartisan legal analysis.
Do you have a suitable link? I would be interested in looking at it.
Regarding the number of innocent victims? Yes I can retrieve the information. Do you plan on looking at it if I get it? If so, I'll be happy to do so. Are you intending to reply to the information I posted to your other article? You said you needed that sort of information. You know, evidence.
I agree about the 'bad guys'. People who would blow up planes are bad guys. In fact I will add that my definition of bad guy is much bigger than yours. As it will also include people who torture innocents, to save themselves from 'bad guys'. It's just your depiction of the law and politicians and CIA interrogators seems like they are so chaste. Hardly like the people found in those notorious photos from Abu Ghraib. (I didn't see anyone with white hats in those photos.)
Regarding your need for the police and being left without any protection:
Where is your community Dan(Miller)? have you no connections? No people, including you, could take turns watching the community while it sleeps? They could play poker, have coffee, pretend to be human beings who care about each other.
Maybe everyone is so used to Capitalism's every 'man' for 'himself'. Even with hundreds of people who could work together, you'll likely choose to stay alone and afraid...almost as if every 'man' was an island.
41 - Clavos
Hardly like the people found in those notorious photos from Abu Ghraib. (I didn't see anyone with white hats in those photos.)
No "torturers," either.
Where is your community Dan(Miller)? have you no connections? No people, including you, could take turns watching the community while it sleeps?
There is none, Cindy. He lives in a remote area of the mountains; there's no town, just widely scattered homes out in the boonies.
42 - Cindy
Dan(Miller),
Sorry for your internet outage. I'll be patient regarding the posts I made to your other article.
Clav?
No "torturers," either.
The people in the pictures weren't torturers? I'd have to disagree. Are you sure we're talking about the same pictures? The ones with dead bodies--people who died being tortured. Live people bitten by dogs, people standing hooded for unbearable hours--arms outstretched--while being told they'd be electrocuted? The 'thumbs up people' weren't torturers in your estimation?
43 - Dan(Miller)
Cindy, re # 42:
Yes, I would like a link to what you characterize as innocent victims who were "tortured." I glanced at several of the links you provided before, and couldn't find much of substances. As I recall, they were in PDF format, to which my computer is apparently allergic and which therefore take forever to load and are difficult to read carefully. What I did manage to read relied, excessively I thought, on anecdotal reports, generally from those who seem to have had axes to grind.
I already know that people were mistreated at Abu Ghraib. Like so many objectionable incidents during time of war, these appear to have been the work of a relatively small number of rotten apples. People in the military, like those in society as a whole, include too many of such types; civilian jails are full of bad apples -- child molesters, murderers, rapists and other violent criminals. However, I would hope that the percentage in the military is smaller rather than larger. In any event, many if not most of those who committed, or failed to prevent, those objectionable acts have been dealt with, through courts martial or administrative proceedings. I very much doubt that history records many comparable punishments by the military authorities of other countries for similar acts. Nor do I think that a reasonable comparison can be made with the acts of, for example, Germany in her concentration/extermination camps, or the Japanese, Chinese, North Koreans or others in or outside of their POW camps.
I agree that people who torture innocents, to save themselves from 'bad guys' are themselves "bad guys." Why would anyone "torture innocents" to "save themselves?" As far as I understand the situation, the people conducting harsh interrogation consistently with the Justice Department memoranda to obtain information needed to prevent future terrorist attacks were not doing that. I have no reason to assume that they were trying to protect themselves; instead, they were trying to protect "innocent" people in the United States and elsewhere from further terrorist attacks by people quite undeserving of the appellation "innocent." Nor have I any reason to assume that those harshly interrogated consistently with the Justice Department memoranda were "innocents."
I do not choose to stay alone and afraid...almost as if every 'man' was an island, and there are far from hundreds of people who could work together. . . here. In our "community," the nearest house is located on our finca and is roughly one hundred and fifty meters away from our house. We provide it for our worker and his family; we would certainly provide mutual assistance were something to happen. Aside from that, there are roughly eight houses, and all are well over a kilometer away in different directions. There simply are not enough adults here for a useful community watch, and this situation is exacerbated by the fact that only a few have cars. Most do not know how to drive, never having had the need or the resources to learn how. In villages of adequate size, there are community watches. People here do cooperate very well on keeping the roads passable, repairing the school or fixing hot lunches for the students. The school is located approximately five kilometers away in a small village. Although the people here are quite accustomed to doing that sort of thing, there quite simply are not enough adults here to have a useful community watch. Hence, it is necessary to rely primarily on oneself.
Dan(Miller)
44 - Cindy
Dan(Miller),
I am not sure what pdfs or any other information (except the photos of Abu Ghraib) on torture I ever would have would have provided. It's possible, of course, but I recall not posting things as I was working on an article. So, I don't really remember anything. (I plead oldness.)
I will be happy to provide information on this subject, if we could just clear up the last subject first please.
In your other article thread, I researched your objections and posted some (but not all the info I have) of the arguments you said were needed for you to rethink your legal analysis. It took a lot of time. There are no pdfs in my links, and my content is not about grinding axes of any kind. It is bonafide legal analysis.
Here is my post 103 (in full):
#
110 - Cindy
Apr 29, 2009 at 11:34 pm
Dan(Miller),
"There appear, however, to have been good faith efforts to stay within the law, while acting within the law to prevent terrorist attacks, when the memoranda were written and relied upon; I think that the memoranda, etc. were well done and accurately reflected the intent of the statutes in question while accommodating the need to prevent terrorist attacks....I have no reason, at least yet, to assume otherwise." (DM)
"To me, law and ethics coincide in the view that to punish people for writing or relying in good faith upon legal memoranda...," would be unethical. (DM)
The two ideas here are the ones I want to give arguments against (for now). I can't do it all at one time, though; so, this post is just a start. My main points are:
1) There was a lack of good faith or professional standards used in the writing of the OLC memos.
2) The CIA failed to rely in good faith on the OLC memos.
In your post to Mark, you reiterated the same thing:
(a) were the various memoranda provided by the Justice Department, as amplified by others in the Administration (and in which those in Democratic Party leadership positions who are now crying "bad!" apparently acquiesced), and apparently relied upon by those unfortunate schmucks in the field, reasonable interpretations of the law and (b) were they actually followed? (DM)
Okay, so I provided information that suggests that both of those conditions were not met, in posts #112 & #113.
Now, I have no problem if a person doesn't want to reply to something, for whatever reason. But you can see, can't you, why I would be hesitant to embark on yet another fact collecting expedition if in the end it ends up being a waste of time. So, if you could at least mention whether or not you'd care to reply to those it would be helpful.
I am sorry to hear you are so far away from help. But I am happy to hear your community actually acts like one.
45 - Cindy
Should read: Here is my post 103 (in full):
46 - Cindy
Good news (to me at least). The Boeing renditions case is back on.
Court allows landmark torture renditions case to proceed
Ruling strikes major blow to Bush/Obama position on state secrets
A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday to reinstate an ACLU lawsuit against a Boeing subsidiary that allegedly helped the CIA transport terror war prisoners to so-called black sites where they were tortured.
47 - Ruvy
Hi Dan!
Welcome to Israel. Now you understand in your gut what we live with here all the time. Keep to the krav magá approach and don't listen to any of the moralizing bullshit you read here. Nobody is walking a mile wearing your shirt. I come closest, and now I'll tell you the difference between your situation and mine.
In your situation, the government has made clear to you that barring something that would really piss on Panama's image abroad - like having heads on spikes around your property - you are pretty much at liberty to do what you need to defend yourself against a bunch of criminal terrorists who are attacking you. They have admitted that they cannot do the job, and rely on you to take the law into your own hands if need be.
G-d forbid we should do that! If some Arab SOB comes on our property, if we shoot him, it becomes an international incident, with all sorts of shit-holes (including self-righteous finger-wagging types here, but more commonly on Desicritics) whining about what evil "Nazis" we have become. And our government will not come to our aid. It will kiss the ass of the self-righteous bastards who criticize us endlessly while they praise endlessly the Arab murderers as "freedom fighters".
Hence the tone of my comments here.
But you and your bride are in my prayers. Practice with the air pistol and make sure you are shooting more than air! Get good at it, and yes, do shoot to kill. It's you or them.
Have a good week!
48 - Cindy
...we should not be so piously stuck up about our beloved moral superiority...
You know, I just noticed something. When people don't agree with one on a moral issue, they seem to use phrases like this one. I could hear say a racist or a sexist using a similar phrase to you Dan(Miller), were you to uselessly attempt to argue against her/his ideas.
So, what do you think when someone says something like that to you, I wonder?
Do you practice anti-racism or anti-sexism for the sake of piously proclaiming your moral superiority?
49 - Ruvy
Dan,
Nobody is walking a mile wearing your shirt. I come closest, and now I'll tell you the difference between your situation and mine.
In your situation, the government has made clear to you that barring something that...you are pretty much at liberty to do what you need to defend yourself against a bunch of criminal terrorists who are attacking you. They have admitted that they cannot do the job, and rely on you to take the law into your own hands if need be. G-d forbid we should do that! If some Arab SOB comes on our property....
Now let's drive that point home with a sledgehammer. First read the "mainstream media" bullshit at Ynetnews about this clash on Shabbat near Bat 'Ayin in Judea. Now read something far closer to the truth at Arutz Sheva. There is a reason I tend to quote Arutz Sheva over any "mainstream media" source in Israel, and this demonstrates the reason. Consider yourself lucky that the Panamanians have the honesty to admit they cannot handle the problem at hand. And again, don't let yourself be distracted by finger-wagging moralizers.
50 - Cindy
What the fuck is wrong with America?
"What kind of fucking country do you live in where you have to debate whether torturing someone is a crime? What kind of country do you live in when you can spend 3 years prosecuting the President for a consensual sexual act but won’t prosecute a President for authorizing illegal wiretaps and torturing people? What kind of country do you live in where the supposed ’spiritual’ and ‘religious’ leaders think it’s OK to torture non-Christians? What kind of country do you live in where you can’t even use the word ‘torture’ but have to say ‘interrogation techniques’? What kind of country do you live in when their Nuremberg defense (’We were just following orders’) becomes the mantra for not holding war criminals accountable for their actions? What kind of country do you live in where a major candidate in a Presidential primary openly advocates for doubling the size of America’s illegal detention centers and increasing the use of torture?
Obama, you won the fucking election. Everyone despises Bush and his administration " they spent 8 years spitting on international law, good sense, and common decency. Fucking prosecute them. God damnit."
That's the best blog post I saw yesterday. It says it just right (I love the cursing too!)
So, Archie, What if you were renditioned? What would you think about that?
51 - M A rk
AC, you've got a serious case of monomania. Also, if you examine the record, you'll find that Cindy has been more critical of Obama's administration than have most 'conservatives'. The 'political vendetta' is against all of the Immorals.
52 - roger nowosielski
Would all the immortals include Archie as well?
53 - Cindy
Lastly. I would never be renditioned because I'm not a terrorist scumbag.
Bush said Guantanamo held the "worst of the worst."
10 people at Guantanamo were charged with a crime--ever! Ten people!
Yet hundreds of people were tortured there and even more were imprisoned. Children among them. And they lied and lied about the numbers.
It's because you imagine that it cannot happen to you, that you ca maintain the opinion you do. You believe you are above those people.You believe you count more than they do. You believe whatever is done to them doesn't matter, because they don't matter.
But you do matter right? If you believed for one moment it could happen to you, you wouldn't be able to maintain those beliefs.
People say we have to attack and torture and kill to protect ourselves from those who would destroy us. But the people who say that are the same ones that do all the destroying. They just won't stop. They just don't see it's them the rest of us need protection from. It's you Archie that human life needs to be protected from.
You just support a different kind of terrorist--a terrorizing nation. Does size make terrorism more legitimate?
Like a zombie robot running on a dangerous program--you make the world a terrible place for humans.
54 - M ark
Would all the immortals (Immorals -- me) include Archie as well?
Isn't there a special level in hell for apologists?
55 - Cindy
Archie,
You think I'm defending Obama? That's pretty funny. As I seem to upset people who do.
I'm not playing with your Bush vs Obama dichotomy. It's something I suspect people do to avoid looking at real issues. That you view it like that means either: a) you haven't been around to read my posts, or b) it wouldn't change your perception anyway.
56 - Clavos
Lastly. I would never be renditioned because I'm not a terrorist scumbag.
You are if the government says you are. Even you have implied that.
57 - Dan(Miller)
Thanks, Ruvy. It is difficult to understand some things simply by reading about them in the abstract, particularly when lacking personal experiences to help relate to them. A brief and hopefully not too harmful introduction to some of the less pleasant aspects of the real world helps. As to Arutz Sheva, I agree. The on line version has been part of my daily reading for quite some time.
Cindy, re your #50: Please read your #s 54, 57 and 58. Bertrand Russell, a "liberal" in the old fashioned sense of the word, commented that one's anger with those of different views is in proportion to the lack of confidence one has in one's own views and in the factual bases for them. It strikes me that Zombie robot thinking is bad for everyone.(emphasis added)
Dan(Miller)
58 - Dan(Miller)
Strangely, comments 21, 41, 61 and the like do not appear until 22, 42, 62 and the like have been posted. Hence, this number 62 to see whether my comment 61 "took."
Dan(Miller)
59 - M ark
Bertrand Russell, a "liberal" in the old fashioned sense of the word, commented that one's anger with those of different views is in proportion to the lack of confidence one has in one's own views and in the factual bases for them.
I've heard similar things said about the use of sarcasm, Dan. Personally, I thinks it's poppycock.
60 - Cindy
#69 - Clavos
"Lastly. I would never be renditioned because I'm not a terrorist scumbag." (Arch)
"You are if the government says you are. Even you have implied that." (Clav)
Quoted for truth (and elegance).
61 - Cindy
Arch,
What if you lived in a country that was invaded by another country. This invader was trying to find terrorists, but as they did this, they were blowing up your relatives and friends (accidentally, of course). Would you support the invader? Would it be okay for the invader to kill your children under such circumstances.
How do you think this invader would view you if you objected? What if you spoke against this invader? What if you were carrying supplies in support of the innocents this invader was attacking and you found yourself 'behind enemy lines'. Can you see how you might end up imprisoned as an 'enemy'?
Just a random thought about 3 young British citizens who went to help the Afghanis and found themselves transported to the desert with no way to leave an outpost. They were swept up and sent to black sites for torture and finally to Guantanamo. One of them kept telling his interrogators that he was on probation the whole time they were questioning him about. That is, he was reporting to the British government the whole time the US interrogator was claiming he was seen on film in another country (a blurry photo, taken at a distance of someone in a crowd is shown to him).
Why didn't they just check with the British government? Why did they just keep him imprisoned and never even check his story? A British officer cam in to question him. He thought this officer was protecting him because he was a citizen.
All this, yet they never checked his story. Why didn't they just check his story?
62 - Dan(Miller)
Here is a link to an article about the "leftist mindset."
Dan(Miller)
63 - roger nowosielski
Cindy's anger is not an expression of lack of confidence in her views. It is more a question of her repulsion that there are still people around who espouse abhorrent practices under whatever guise. It's a perfectly normal reaction when dealing with whom one regards as despicable people.
Mark, as regards a special place in Hell for the apologists? I'm coming to a view that the distinction between acts and speech is greatly exaggerated. I realize I'm breaching an important distinction, but there is a sense in which perhaps it ought to be breached.
64 - roger nowosielski
Which isn't to say they're all like Hitler, not yet. But change the circumstances and give them the opportunity, then who knows? The line is getting thinner and thinner.
But my diagnosis is - it's the last line of defense as the world they know is rapidly fading into oblivion.
65 - roger nowosielski
You are the nitwit, Arch. And yes, Cindy is being repulsed by people like you who think that we have nothing better to do than to protect your hide. Your extreme preoccupation with your own personal safety in nothing but a sign of underdeveloped personality. Anal-retentive, I should say. Why should I think your life any more important than anyone else's?
But don't worry, the Obama van is coming. The one with the hammer & sickle logo. And when they're done with you, you'll be a brand-new man. You'll thank me yet.
66 - Cindy
Dan(Miller),
I wonder about the confidence of lawyers in the factual basis for their own positions, when they hold out their analysis as a sort of expert legal reasoning--whilst disclaiming everyone else as partisans--and yet fail to either look very closely at their peers' criticism, reveal such criticism, or provide counter arguments in their 'objective' analysis.
Maybe lawyers do things differently. I was always taught that one had to do those things to be taken seriously.
I wonder if Bertrand Russell had anything to say about that?
67 - roger nowosielski
It comes with the territory. Lawyers are a class unto themselves. They're immune to ideological labeling and partisanship.
68 - Cindy
Arch,
I wonder how "abhorrent" Cindy and Roger would find waterboarding if it were done on someone that had information to save the life of their spouse or child.
That you continue to believe this despite the fact that the head of internal CIA investigations said it is not so. What does that say about your thinking?
You do know that torturing people actually fuels terrorism and increases recruitment, don't you? If not, why are you refusing to look at that?
69 - roger nowosielski
Good old Archie here can't help but thinking that everybody is like him. It's inconceivable to him that number one is not the utmost thing on everybody's agenda. Consequently, he thinks all such people are from another planet.
70 - M a rk
(Work around: when this problem occurs, go to the address bar and enter the next number where it reads 'comment-page-x'.)
71 - roger nowosielski
This thread has been dysfunctional for over an hour now. The page won't turn beyond the 80 comments mark, even though at least ten have been posted since.
72 - M a rk
address bar: change 'comments-page-x' to 'comments-page-x+1'
73 - Dan(Miller)
Cindy, most of my articles and comments embed intrinsic perceptions of right and wrong, good and bad, along with a belief that society functions better with than without laws. Call it partisan or whatever you wish. I am not, and do not function as, a judge; I normally do function as an advocate, as should be apparent. I do not think that I intentionally omit or twist relevant facts. I do try to ignore spins placed on facts when I think that those spins are absurd or otherwise deserve to be ignored.
Looking at the various comments on this thread, I find it very difficult to conclude that you and various others bring completely non-partisan, unbiased and objective perspectives to the table.
Dan(Miller)
74 - roger nowosielski
Thanks for clarifying this, Archie. So now you're a super patriot, thinking of all of us.
And by the way, how many Islamic terrorists have you met? Are you certain now it's not a figment of your imagination - a kind of bogeymen?
75 - roger nowosielski
Which goes to show that Mr. Miller is no different than the rest of us, still affected by the usual prejudices and biases that are part and parcel of being a human. Except that his legal expertise and mode of expression happens to obscure the rather basic fact because everything is couched with the cloak of objectivity.