Does Obama share Mme. Albright's inhibitions? What do his advisors Z. Bzezinski, M. Bzezinski, Powers, and Malley think?

At the risk of sounding contentious when I don't intend to be, I guess you're an "eye for an eye" kind of a guy? In my view that leads to a world of blindness.

While I certainly understand the vehement feelings against these atrocious people and their horrifying actions. The rage is understandable. The urge for annihilation is instinctual. But if our actions are driven by our rage, how are we different from those who triggered that rage? And who gets to draw the line between who "deserves" due process of the law and who does not? Is it anyone who takes a life? Or is there a threshold number?

My mother tortured me nearly every day of my childhood. I had numerous serious injuries and live with lifelong psychological scars. I was, quite literally, terrorized by her violent mania. You can't damage a person's ability to bond and trust people more readily than when your tormentor is your mother. Does that exempt her from the right to due process?

I'm trying to understand how you can support a murder for murder philosophy. Is it just that you don't think legal systems are adequate? Frankly, I think a long, life of confinement is more of a punishment than the sweet release of death. Especially for someone with a religious fervor that believes in martyrdom. What truly concerns me is the perpetuation of the right to kill because we abhor someone or deem them unworthy of living. Isn't that exactly the frame of mind that the perpetrator operates from?

If we want, hope, strive to make the world a less violent place, we must first believe in healing and the practice of non-violence. I don't mean condoning or ignoring. And I understand that some people may not be able to walk the path of healing and may need to be kept away from others for safety purposes. Still, to pursue real change we can't imitate that which we say is unacceptable. Trust me, it doesn't feel good to become the ugliness that was beset upon you.

All of this said, it does seem that Mughniyah's death mirrored his life. Certainly attempts to capture him failed and he manged to avoid any chance of being treated to a legal system. I would imagine he wanted it this way. It perpetuates his life view.

May it bring somebody somewhere a little peace.

You know, Marty, they say those who remain enemies too long become one another.  Well done!  You've now sunk to the level of your enemies and are advocating the simple justice of the blood feud.  You'd fit right in with the Arab World.  

It's not that I think that Mossad or the CIA or whomever shouldn't kill Bin Laden or Imad Mughniyah given the chance, they are combatants in a savge war of their own creation after all, it's just that I also see the value in upholding the sanctity of due process if these monsters happen to be taken alive.  We did so at Nuremberg, and the perpetrators still ended up dead.  Not that you are any longer concerned with such nuance.  

Well, asnevitt, as a n American Jew, it brings me much peace and comfort to know that a monster who had as one of his life's goals to murder as many innocent Americans and Jews as possible is now dead. He can't do what he did again.

I don't need to change my view on justice to acommodate or give credence to the Jihadist belief in martyrdom.

I'm sorry for what happened to you as a child, but the majority of your post is utopian, relativist nonsense. It belongs in a philosophy class but that's about it.

Kbower, you agree with the targeted assasination, right? How is this position different from Marty's? I'm sure that if Imad "just happened to be taken alive", Marty wouldn't advocate bringing him to American shores and shooting him in the head when in custody.

jswnes, nobody who knows me would call me utopian. I'm very pragmatic. To mete out your kind of justice means that we have to devote some portion of our populus to the task of killing. And there have to be people who get determine which people have become unworthy of due process to the law. All of this is a slippery morass. It's all about destructive power.

As I stated at the end of my post, I can see that the death of this man would bring relief. I still don't believe sanctioned murder is any more noble than non-sanctioned murder.

Your utopia is simply different than mine.

and wouldn't it have served the same purpose if this man was imprisoned?

I think it's relativist to believe that legal systems are only for those whose crimes are relatively less heinous.

Of course there are people who get to determine which people are unworthy of due process. The Commander in Chief is one such person. On a lower level, the soldier who takes out an insurgent is another.

States need destructive power. This will never change.

If you don't see a difference between the assassination of this terrorist and the fact that he blew up 80 civilians in a community center, there is no point in further discussion.

It's actually the exact opposite of relativism to see that prisons are better for some than for others, though.

I am happy to agree with Mr. Peretz on this issue:

"It is he who is primarily culpable for the atrocities against the Israeli embassy in 1992 and the Jewish community center in 1993, both in Buenos Aires, which took the lives of more than 100 people.  And these are only the beginnings of his murderous hand."

This in itself was enough to take him out.

jswynes said:  "Kbower, you agree with the targeted assasination, right? How is this position different from Marty's? I'm sure that if Imad "just happened to be taken alive", Marty wouldn't advocate bringing him to American shores and shooting him in the head when in custody."

Yes, apprehension and trial would have been preferable. But that was never an option in this case. We are talking about enemy combatants who are not about to let themselves be taken alive. And why should they? Their fight is ongoing and they believe that they will win.

Our task is to make sure they don't win.

This isn't just about justice; it's above all fighting against people who have declared war against you.

The rest is commentary.

So if a mobster were accused of being responsible for 80 mafia executions, then it would be OK for the police to just blow up his car?

See, that's where the relativism comes in. At an animal level, everyone is going to applaud the killing of a very bad guy. And if this particular bad guy was in effect engaged in fighting a war, then his death on the battlefield is fair game.

But to the extent that this bad guy committed actual crimes, then of course a civilized person's preference must be for his capture, trial, and punishment according to the rule of law. We are civilized, they are barbarians, and that's precisely why our side is worth fighting for. If nothing else, capture and trial, where possible, achieve two positive goods that simply killing the sumbitch does not:

1. A trial documents and proves the crimes alleged, and holds the perpetrator to public account and humiliation.

2. Civilized values are based on the supremacy of liberty over mere survival, so holding the bad guy in bondage, even if only while awaiting his trial and execution, exacts a greater punishment on our own terms than simply killing him.

If killing any particular terrorist is the only way to stop him, fine. But on the whole, I would rather terrorists be captured, tried, and punished like the pathetic gangsters they are. And I just don't think that preference makes me "crazy" or weak -- it just means that I believe that civilization and the rule of law are stronger than barbarism and tyranny.

It's not killing this guy that troubles me. I mean, talk about people the world is a better place without! What is troubling is to hear the preference for upholding our civilization's values described as "crazy."

"Yes, apprehension and trial would have been preferable. But that was never an option in this case. We are talking about enemy combatants who are not about to let themselves be taken alive. And why should they? Their fight is ongoing and they believe that they will win"

I think this captures more of my position. Clearly, this man chose a path that included his destruction at the hand of others. He knew that he was wanted for his crimes and preferred to be killed than processed. So, I'm not sitting here mourning his loss or upset about the way it happened, per se.

What I found disturbing was the notion that due process should be thrown out for some people once you give them a label. Clearly when someone is actively pursuing more destructive acts and has become masterful at eluding capture, you may not have a choice but to kill him without any kind of trial process.

But, I didn't hear Peretz say that "apprehension and trial would have been preferable." He outrightly states "no courtrooms for terrorists."

And I'm not naive enough to think that states don't need military forces capable of destroying those that threaten them. But laws and the commitment to adhering to them and applying them equally to every one are the only thing that keep the potential for that kind of power to be kept in check. They are what separate us from the socio-paths we seek to protect ourselves from.

Rhubarbs you are a total idiot.

Mobsters in the US operate in a context of civil society.

Jihadist  terrorists don't,  they operate in a context of warfare.  

The mobster analogy isn't even close, because the Constitution does not apply to Imad.  Anyway, we're talking as if the US did this. I highly doubt our intelligence services played an active role.

Dershowtiz explains it much better than I could:

"Mugniyah has been indicted by the FBI for the murder of hundreds of Americans. Syria, where he made his home, was unwilling to turn him over to the United States for justice. He continued to engage in terrorism. The case for targeting him is compelling - legally, morally, religiously, and militarily. By any reasonable definition of that term, he is a combatant who has declared war on the United States, Israel, France and other countries whose citizens he has killed. Although he did not wear a uniform, he was a general in the terrorist war. Under the laws of war any combatant is a proper target, so long as the means used to kill him are "proportional" -- that is, he can be killed without disproportionate harm to non-combatants. When that condition is met, targeted killing is highly preferable to more conventional military means that have been employed over the centuries.

Throughout history, when one nation has been attacked it has been responded by counterattacking the attacking nation.  The counterattack often takes the form of military invasion, air attacks and other conventional military means. Inevitably these military attacks cause large numbers of civilian casualties. Targeted killing on the other hand, if done properly, does exactly what its name suggests - it targets a combatant who is involved in ongoing terrorist attacks, and by killing him prevents the death of innocent civilians. Yes it is "extrajudicial" killing, but all military deaths are extrajudicial, as are conventional killings in self-defense and killings of armed felons who are escaping or resisting arrest.

What I am most opposed to are judicial killings, namely the death penalty for people who are already in custody. When a person such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is already in custody, there is an alternative to killing him - namely confining him for life. When a terrorist like Imad Mugniyeh is not in custody and cannot be captured, there is no reasonable alternative to killing him. Targeted assassination is the option of choice. "

From today's Jerusalem Post....

Rhubarbs, you're way off on this one. Marty and Jack are right, and I think this is a pretty easy call.

Mafiosi exploit opportunities to extract rents and attain some power within a state; they don't seek to bring down that state or expel its forces from other lands or otherwise attain political outcomes. Their crimes are completely a-political.

Mughniyah was not only a warrior seeking political outcomes antithetical to the interests of free peoples, he was a _gruppenfuehrer_ who commanded many other warriors both directly and indirectly, through the cellular organization of his particular war machine. To kill such a gruppenfuehrer is to strike a major blow against that war machine. May we see more successful blows like this.

Mafiosi do not

So, because mobsters target civilians - strong-arming law enforcement officials - without directly trying to take down the government - they just operate their own government within the borders effectively making our state meaningless - they deserve better treatment than those that forthrightly make it known that they're trying to bring down our government? They kill and terrorize our citizenry at far greater rates than people on foreign soil. But because they're not "political" they are due more legal process?

Sounds like they're brilliant! Some loophole they're exploiting there.

I guess I am an idiot. (I'll just save you the time of flinging your personal epithets at me. Such a respectful, constructive, intelligent approach to dialog.) To me both types of terrorist are equally heinous. And the preferable course is capture and process. But I understand how that is sometimes not possible and protecting further lives can mean killing rather than apprehending.

Mobsters do not strike at the security foundations of the state, and do not threaten the survival of the Republic. Global warriors like Mughniyah, ObL, KSM et al do.

asnevitt, we owe zero due process to a foreign citizen who is not in custody and in a state of war against the country. This shouldn't be so vexing.

Sorry, every time I get on board my CTA train, I'm not worried about the Mafioso blowing it up. I'm sure this equally applies to an Israeli sitting in a cafe in Jerusalem as well.

Actually, the terrorists have exploited quite a loophole; they've managed to gain international legitimacy  and sympathy by much of the world who believe they must have SOME legit grievance to go to such lengths.

I don't believe terrorists have a legit grief. They're sociopaths.

I do believe that insidious organizations like mobs threaten our security foundations. They're just coming at it from a different direction. When I lived in NYC in the 80s, I had every reason to worry about random shootings. Especially near Italian restaurants. People who live in some neighborhoods of Boston have their basic security threatened every day. They don't find that any state power is making their life safe. Gangs have effectively claimed a sovereign space within our land.

I also happen to believe that due process is for every human being. I have never understood why it's okay to dehumanize people because they live across an imaginary line. (I know, I'm a utopian, relativist idiot.)

Side note: I don't think the Mossad or the US was behind this.   Not their style.  This strikes me far more as an internicene killing or, perhaps, Nasrallah, not happy with the way the Lebanese government is shaping up, forging his insane idea of a casus belli.

Neither here nor there in this discussion, I guess.

The one reason I'd give to put these people in prison?  They'd be fascinting studies of evil.  Could it be explained?  Could it be captured on a brain scan?  Moreover, far more hellish than being hung, or being exploded, which takes a fraction of a second, would be living in a cage (preferably a dark one) with, say, fifteen minutes a day of solitary fresh air.  No books, no TV, no visitors, no contact with anybody.  Finally, they wouldn't be up for martyrdom, which might be the greatest revenge of all, given that this is a kind of glory unto itself.

Then again, is the above any more civilized than killing the fuckers?  

Anyway, I agree with anybody who says that these people are enemies of the state and therefore merit annihilation.  

You guys are kind of boring and not thinking much.

My initial thought is that Syria was deeply involved in this one way or another.  Basher Assad could have offered up Imad Mughniyah as a precursor to some Amercian or Israeli overtures.  Syria is hurting and could use a little help if they want to get rid of Iranian influence, or shut downt he UN Inquires into Lebanon.

If Syria didn't do this directly, it should explain to the world what this murderer was doing in Damascus.  Who else do they have.

Imad Mughniyah is a hero to the Lebanese Shia and was the architect of the Iranian Shia revivial in Lebanon.  They out manuevered Sharon in the early 1980's and really changed American foreign policy in the region.  I once had a Jordanian Muslim tell me how much he respected and trusted Hizbollah for what they did in Lebanon.  That is a stunning story.

Hizbollah is planning a retaliation.  Israel & America are planning contingincies depending on what gets hit.  This could get ugly fast.

Goofy argument.  The whole discussion of judicial procedure versus extra-judicial procedure misses the substantive point entirely:  it has become necessary to define a class of persons --call them illegal combatants if you like -- who have the ability and intention to inflict military-scale damage but do not fit the historical definitions of combatants entitled to be treated under the laws of war.  And it is necessary for a democratic and humane society to have rules about how such people are to be treated -- whether and when by rules that are similar to the laws of war and when and whether according to ordinary criminal law.  

The whole courtroom ,non-ccurtroom thing is a complete red-herring meant to obscure the fundamental problem:  George Bush and his goons are primarily interested in advancing their monarchical to fascist views of executive power and only incidentally interested in protecting and defending the United States, if at all.  Therefore, the have sought for seven years to wage war against Congress and the courts -- making ridiculous assertions of executive authority -- rather than seek from Congress the necessary authority in a manner the courts would clearly respect.  Whatever inherent authority the president may have to repel imminent invasion, seven years is more than long enough to have established a proper legal regime for dealing with terrorism.  But what matters to Bush is that he alone be able to determine the status of individuals according to rules or no rules and to decide the fate of those whose status he has determined.  The battle over criminal procedure is absurd, but can be understood insofar as it is a proxy battle over the definition of combatant status and its implications.  Bottom line:  these are not procedural issues, they are substantive issues and substantive law is made by the Congress of the United States or not at all.  We are mired in this argument because Bush and the neo-fascist John Yoo do not accept that basic truth of American Constitutional government.

What should the law be?  For starters, we do need the ability to hold indefinitely, as prisoners of war, people who are armed combatants but don't fight for a state, wear uniforms, etc.  If they are prisoners of war, they can be held so long as the conflict persists.  If that is forever, so be it.  But the manner of incarceration should comply with the Geneva Conventions because we are choosing to define these persons as combatants.  As they are illegal combatants, it should also be possible to treat them under the criminal law, but in the latter case, they must be entitled to all the normal procedures of criminal law.  So, let's define, by law, a class of persons who can be treated either way, but not have combatants who are treated other than as prisoners of war, with all that implies, or criminals who are not treated as subjects of the criminal justice system, with all that implies, even if the government is given the choice as to which way to treat them -- under suitable circumstances.

How to define the class of persons?  For starters, we ought to exclude anyone taken into custody in the territory of the United States or under its juridical control, or in the juridical and actual control of countries with which we have extradition treaties.  That means that illegal combatants have to be persons either captured or targeted for killing in lawless places -- battlefields or countries where our writ cannot run or parts of countries that are not under state control -- Waziristan for example.

Define the crime of terrorism, get other countries to agree to extradite terrorists or, in those places where we cannot enforce, de jure and de facto, a legal regime, define those who organize to commit violence against the US and its allies as illegal combatants subject to summary killing or capture on the field of battle.  

Finally, if someone is captured in a lawless place, as defined, and routed -- by judgment of a military commission if that is what Congress authorizes and the executive chooses -- into the POW system rather than the criminal justice system, there is not the slightest reason not to permit them to challenge their status in Federal court.  There is this bizarre notion out there that because someone has a right of appeal that the courts will be tied in knots.  Not a bit.  Appeals made without some serious basis are dismissed out of hand.  The courts aren't suckers.  It would not compromise the system in the slightest to allow normal habeas corpus process and other appellate process to supervise the action of military commissions.

The nonsense kicked around on this topic is tedious in the extreme, and none of it, especially that emerging from the Bush administration, is helping us face real threats in the slightest degree -- and Bush doesn't give a rat's ass about that.

Guys, the problems with "trials" in these situations is that it perpetrates a myth that we are some how engaged in a police action amongst our own citizens, as opposed to an asymmetric war.  Trial and lawyers are "rights" we safeguard for our own citizens, be they mafia hit-men or even worse.  But to bestow the rights of citizens upon our worst enemies whose hands are literally dripping in blood, as if there were some common universal international law that we could all be judged by, it's simply a joke and not a very funny one at that.

Now, if the US undertook a diplomatic initiative to create an international anti-terrorist treaty (perhaps with an international treaty organization to accompany it) ratified by the congress and would, together with all the signories, apply sanctions to all those countries who a) haven't signed and/or b) are actively supporting terrorist groups and/or c) are not turning over wanted terrorists who have committed acts terrorism elsewhere, ok so at that point you might be ready to create a legal forum for captured terrorists to be tried.

The danger of pressing forward with trials (such as the 9/11 trials) without such a framework in place is that it sets an extremely dangerous and to my mind untrue precedent, namely that terrorists are equivalent with fighters in an enemy army.  The equivalence does not hold water morally, practically or legally.  Terrorism is a new evil and as such will require, much as piracy did in it's time, a clear legal & diplomatic context before any such trials can be taken seriously.

Of course, this is what we should've been doing for the last 6+ years, but hey.  Who's counting?

Obviously a hostage-taker holding a gun to the head of a civilian is eligible to be killed by a sniper.

The question here is not what M had done, so much as what he clearly would be trying to do in the future. Part of the challenge is that M wasn't the triggerman, but a planner and giver of orders.

Pre-modern legal systems also recognized the legitimacy of the "redeemer of blood," who had license to kill the killer of a kinsman, pretty much wherever and whenever he found him. Even the obligation to do so.

Not merely pre-emption (a sensitive term nowadays) but also deterrence, a matter perhaps as genuine as consumer sentiment, would call for cutting down such as M,for the protection of civilians.

Such an outlook even exists among civilized Western law enforcement, it seems. A few years ago a biker, Robert Simon, shot dead a NJ state trooper, Insabella, at a traffic stop. NJ hasn't executed anyone for 40 years.

After his conviction Simon somehow ended up in a prison in Pennsylvania. There was an apparent emergency on his maximum-security cell block -- a smoke alarm went off, or something of that sort, and all the inmates were rushed into a common exercise yard for about 20 minutes. During this brief interval another inmate, jailed for five murders, quickly killed Simon with a few blows.

In this case, pre-emption would not apply. But the episode has a quality of deterrence.

" Part of the challenge is that M wasn't the triggerman, but a planner and giver of orders."

Do your homework FBC. Mughniyah has personally killed people.

May he rest in suffering - I hope it hurt.

I think Peretz is correct in his statement, 'No Courtrooms for Terrorists.'

While most people think of Imad Mughniyah as an individual or leader of a small cell of terrorists, he really embodied the rise of Iranian Foreign Policy.

Prior to the 1980's Iran had no power outside of oil economics.  The Shah really lead a weakened country and the revolution was too chaotic for Iran to project any power.

By 1983 though things changed dramatically in Lebanon.  Iran took this country on as a sponsor and proceeded to use their state power through proxies to attach their enemies Israel and America.  The surprise was how successful they were.  Drove UN Peacekeepers out, killed hundreds of Americans and Israelis and disrupted Intelligence Operations throughout the Mideast.  They owned Lebanon and had a lot of control over Syria.

You can put a man on trial, and you can use diplomatic means to negociate with a country.  But these terror cells run in a middle ground.  Until the countries that back these terrorist and use these techniques to attack other countries get their reciprocal warfare, there will be no end to this.

Imad Mughniyah is hated and reviled in the west.  In the Muslim countries he represents James Bond and Gandi.  Until there is escalation, both sides willl continue on with their delusions.

He was a military adversary in a global war, and therefore a military target. If he had been captured, he would have been subject to, and entitled to, due process. Instead, he got killed, which happens to combatants sometimes. Nicely done, I say. End of story.

From that--from the death of a military adversary--Marty gets to a wild-eyed and hysterical position that basically undercuts everything America is fighting for: rule of  law, human rights, due process, common decency.

It boggles.

Mughniyah was a combatant, engaging in violence, physically beyond the jurisdiction of the systems he was attacking none of which had any realistic possibility to apprehend him.  There was absolutely no ays.  He is just venting his unending supply of bile.  In his case, it is meaningless and basically harmless as he wields no power.  Unfortunately, however, for the past seven years, we have had people as empty-headed as Peretz actmoral, legal, or other reason why any society could not kill him if the opportunity arose.

But what if he had somehow been caught by such a society?  Let's just imagine that he was swept up with others on a battlefield in Afghanistan and then, after he was in custody, his identity was discovered.  What would Peretz do then?  Summary execution?  Torture?  Even the high level Nazis were given trials.  Even Eichmann was tried before being executed.  These were among the worst criminals in history, responsible for innocent deaths, not to mention extreme sadism, several orders of magnitude worse than anything any Moslem terrorist has ever pulled off.  

As usual, Peretz is just venting his endless stock of bile.  He hasn't really thought through anything he sually running our country.  Liike him, they are enchanted by their macho slogans.  Like him, they are incompetent.

Treating countries that harbor terrorists as enemies was an appropriate response.  As evidenced by the world-wide support for our invasion of Afghanistan, it might have been the foundation of a successful campaign to isolate such nations and cost terrorists their base of support.  But Bush turned it iinto a hunting license against any country he didn't like -- Ira, which was not harboring terrorists -- and has thereby exhausted both our diplomatic support and our military while doing nothing to intimidate terrorists.

No courtrooms for terrorists?  What we need is a courtroom for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Tenet.

Just from the quiki-wiki, M was a sniper in Arafat's Force 17 early on, but the article doesn't mention whether he killed anyone. In any case, he was deployed against Christians in Lebanon. From then on, M seems to have operated as a planner and commander.

The article also says there were US operations to arrest M, but these were thwarted by French and Saudi non-cooperation.

In addition to being on the FBI's wanted list for the TWA hijacking, he was formally charged by Argentina for the AMIA bombing. He wasn't formally charged for the Beirut barracks bombing or other events to which he was linked, apparently.

So there was some effort to proceed legally against M.

As a particular target for assassination, M wasn't selected because of some sniping attacks he may have made against Lebanese nationals. Although the US and Argentina were pursuing him for crimes he was accused of committing, killing him probably had more to do with attacks he was likely to do in the future. More a military than a police motivation. Seems he is considered difficult to replace. Like Yamamoto, perhaps. Also as a message of deterrence. Killing such people actually became famous in this region, where the term "assassin" was coined.

So was it wrong for American authorities to try Tim McVeigh, the Unabomber, and the DC-area snipers in criminal courts and sentence them to criminal punishments? So Israel was wrong to capture and try Eichmann?

That's my problem here. Not with the outcome of this case. I would sincerely prefer that the United States had been involved in Mugniyeh's killing. That's a job well done for whoever did it. But I don't see how a person can be said to believe in the moral value of the rule of law if he does not prefer to capture and punish bad guys according to the law when it is possible to do so.

High-seas pirates are also understood to be engaged in acts of war and subject to summary military action just like any hostile military force. But for more than two centuries, the civilized world has also held that pirates are to be captured, tried, and then put to death where it is possible to do so. This hybrid military/criminal approach is responsible for the only past example of a successful human enterprise comparable to stamping out terrorism: the suppression of the Atlantic slave trade from 1807-1860.

Further, terrorists like Mugniyeh see themselves as engaged in state-level historical and/or military activity. So trying them like common criminals has the further benefit of demonstrating the triviality of their actions.

But again, I'm not arguing against using military force where necessary. "Kill the bastards" is a perfectly acceptable outcome as far as I'm concerned. I just hold that "Kill the bastards" should be our second choice, when the option of "Treat the bastard like a common criminal" is not available to us. That's all -- not an argument with outcomes, but with the moral preferences of civilized people as opposed to barbarians.

Roid, I was just about to make the Nazi argument, but you obviously got there first. I will add, though, that these trials weren't just "fair,"  they were effective.  The world got to hear, in detail, his crimes against humanity.  The horrors of Nazi Germany were made very real.  They were given a specificity; it wasn't just numbers, but victims on the witness stand recounting their trials.  Somehow, that's always more effective than numbers and generalities.  (i.e. hundreds of Jews were gassed on a daily basis.)  Not to mention the effectiveness of the sight of Eichmann in a glass cage.  The pity is that Mengele never faced the same lashing.   And the pity, too, that M. will never be forced to sit under that kind of scrutiny.  In fact, he'll be martyred.  What better ammo can these people get.

Roid, your argument, in my mind, especially convincing when it comes to creating a new class of combatant/criminal.  Let's get it all on paper.  Let's set up a protocol so we're not sitting around arguing these points around a campfire, especially because the Mugniyeh's of the world will continue to turn up again and again.  Wasn't this point of Talmudic scholarship:  Clinical, distanced reason applied to any situation on earth?  The Jews are not about blood lust.  That's the other side's game.

That the slimeball is dead is sufficient, but here's an interesting take by CNN's Jim Clancy:

www.cnn.com/.../index.html

Rhubarbs:  "...not an argument with outcomes, but with the moral preferences of civilized people as opposed to barbarians."

Beautifully stated.  When you say, "I don't see how a person can be said to believe in the moral value of the rule of law if he does not prefer to capture and punish bad guys according to the law when it is possible to do so,"  I wonder.  The rule of law is a practical norm, it's not really a moral value in itself, is it?  It furthers morality by specifying rules of conduct in a consistent, accessible way, so that the citizen and state can more reliably fulfill the social contract, namely justice in exchange for good behavior.  (This is why felons lose their civil rights.)  This is more than splitting hairs, I think, because sanctifying the rule of law turns lawyers and judges into high priests and thus sacrosanct.  I believe we accord the legal profession -- and the judiciary, which have become no more than lawyers in robes -- far too much deference on that account.

When you have those who have placed themselves outside the law on a continuing basis, haven't they forfeited the right to due process?  I have in mind the old defintion of outlaw, where anyone under sentence of outlawry could be killed on sight by anyone.

I should think this would be the case with terrorists.  As you say, bring 'em in if practicable; otherwise, kill 'em.

When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

Or, our version of it: speak Arabic to Arabs. They don't understand English.

Oh, and BTW, there's no comparing with the Nazis. When Germany lost the war it had instigated, it didn't go around demanding revenge, it didn't become a nation of "freedom fighters", it didn't demand to get back all the territories it had lost in its defeat. It behaved as a country should behave after losing a war. Therefore Eichman and the Nuremberg trials were effective.

There's also no place to compare to domestic criminals.

As usual, comparisons are nothing but cheap demagogic arguments  (and even more so is invective tossed against writers of opinions one disagrees with, but you already know this roidubouloi, don't you.)

The West has no business applying its set of rules, ethics, principles, ideologies on beastly terrorists. They are not crazy criminals or violent muggers. The basis for their actions is either nationalistic or religious. They kill consistently, systematically, and in as big numbers as they possibly can.

In any case, all this "civilized" jabber is nothing but condescending colonialist bullshit. It's also extremely ludicrous for the terrorists and their supporters. Yes, why not. Put them in jail, aha. Then they can start kidnapping and negotiating these prisoners. And don't forget the rights of the prisoner! they're entitled to this and to that.

Someone mentioned here that a policy of an eye for an eye will lead to total blindness.

It won't.

This Western pampered, quasi-civilized, patronizing, superior talk is blindness incarnate.

The very definition of blindness inflicted upon self centered, self admiring, over satiated human beings.

It's almost nauseating.

Babs:  Effective to whom?  Who gives a shit what a bunch of terrorist-sympathizing animals think.  Let the world see how monstrous these people are.  Otherwise you get a bunch whining liberals from the Guardian saying that Israel has blood-lust, is lawless vis-a-vis the Palestinians and the rest.

And you know what?  I prefer not to sink to their level.  Sorry, but I'm not God--and neither are you--so neither of us gets to decide who's dealt rough justice.  

Do you not see the immorality of torturing these people?  And guess what? Many of the tortured were innocent.  I don't care why they kill or how unreasonable they are.  And frankly, neither does your government, at least the rational side.  Because ultimately, there's the world's court of public opinion.  

That said, if targeted assassinations are the only way to get 'em, then target away.  If they can be lanced extracted (like a rotten tooth) from the general population, then haul them in and let the world listen to their rants and raves and Charles Manson-like wild-eyed faces.  Or let them see them as they sit there, staring ahead, with no remorse.  And let the world see that in Israel's case, they are not committing genocide.  They are simply defending themselves.

Shabbat Shalom.  

So, Molly, are you suggesting putting these subhumans on trial just to shut up the Guardian angels? What if you can't prove anything in a satisfactory way for a court? What if Israel doesn't want to reveal its material that lead to the conviction that he was the one? And who the fuck cares about those liberals? Also, what would convince anyone already set against Israel, no matter what evidence is produced?

Israel has a war to conduct here, not some subtle fencing with "useful idiots" in Europe.

How did torturing ever get to this discussion? Torturing can be sanctioned only for a hope of saving lives. Nothing else.

It's ridiculous to see Israel as committing genocide because it targets individual relentless murderers. Anyway nothing will change the minds of people who claim so (see ND et al.)  The world listens only to what it wants to listen. It's deaf to whatever contradicts its settled opinion.

Two more points: today Mashal and A-Zahar started talking about cease fire of some sort. Probably a stupid sort. Still perhaps they start feeling the heat under their feet.

IS GOOD!

The second one is that while we were talking here another one (Islamic Jihad) was targeted and killed along with 5 of his comrades.  Israel doesn't know anything about it. If I'm not wrong Israel also denied having to do with M's death.

If Israel starts lying now more or less consistently - I'll be grateful for this. It's about time.

In this Rome the Romans lye and murder as a basic life style. Better learn and adopt it as fast as we can, and the hell with our Western morality.

Enough.

Babs, so nice to hear from you.  Were you upset that I said Martin Peretz is "empty-headed?"  I wouldn't be. Its a love-tap compared to the things that Peretz says about people he disagrees with.  Let's not be too sensitive on his behalf, shall we?

As for the substance, it is really pretty simple.  Where the state has juridical control, in its own territory or territory under effective control by treaty with cooperative states, assassination ought to be off the table.  I don't believe that Israel tolerates assassination, let alone sanctions it, within its own territory.  If it knows of a terrorist there, it is bound to arrest him and try him.  If the individual is question is beyond juridical reach -- and some standards can be embodied in law so that people like Bush don't run amok, go kill them if you can afford the political fallout.  War is war.

What is unacceptable, or should be, is to treat a terrorist as a criminal but conduct a kangaroo court.  It is equally unacceptable to hold terrorists as prisoners of war without applying the legal standards -- the Geneva conventions in particular -- that apply.  The only think peculiar about terrorists is that it is appropriate to allow states the choice, as necessary, whether to hold them indefinitely as combatants (suitably determined) or to try them as criminals, a choice that is not otherwise legitimately available.  POWs who are legal combatants cannot be tried as criminals; that would violate the law of war.  Criminals cannot be held indefinitely in the United States, and most civilized nations, without being charged, tried, and convicted.

I hold no brief for terrorists. They are enemies who must be stopped by all necessary means.  But we also ought not delude ourselves that their type of asymmetric warfare is any crueler than the sort we conduct and therefore justifies barbarism on our part.  The United States has doubtless been responsible for more civilian deaths in Iraq alone than all of the terrorists in the history of the world.  

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has made me aware that he agrees with Mr. Peretz that there should be no courtroom for Terrorists.

He is recommending that they be tried under Sharia Law under a Plural Jurisdiction.

roi, I was not upset. Just wondering about the sense in offending anyone you disagree with. I'm wondering even more now about the explanation you've provided, namely that Peretz also resorts to abusive language. Is this where you got your license to also do it?  In any case, I haven't seen him to lash anyone personally INSTEAD of providing valid arguments. But of course everyone is entitled to choose his own level of argumentation. Personally, as soon as I see such expressions as you've used here, I no longer attribute any depth or intelligence to the rest.

Regarding this lengthy and irrelevant speech you've given about juridical control and barbarism, I think I've summed it up already. When your enemies happen to be what we call "savage" and "barbaric" you better "stoop" to their level. This arrogant preaching about your own exalted set of standards from an imaginary peak of a fantasized elevation of self-superiority is out of place. Coz you and your principles are not really superior to them and their ideals, which we call barbaric. I will remind you that they describe your culture in the very same terms as you describe theirs.

They know that they're right just as much as you know that you are.

Plus, I assure you that it only takes so many "9/11"s to make even smug civilized and highfalutin law-oriented people like you to start talking like me.

I hope we'll never find out exactly how many.

Yes, Babs, I think Peretz, the serial abuser, should be abused at every opportunity.  If you haven't noticed Peretz "lashing out at anyone personally," you haven't paid attention to more than two lines of his oeuvre

I laughed out loud, really, at your post.  On the one hand you ask, whether Peretz's abusive language is license to treat him in kind.  Then, with no apparent sense of irony, you preach that the barbarism and savagery of the terrorists makes it necessary to "stoop to their level."

Go ahead.  Stoop Babs.  Be as savage as you like.  You apparently want to live in a country where "enemies of the state' are summarily executed (you have plenty to choose from).  I don't.  Nor do I believe for a moment that such a place would be more rather than less successful in defeating its enemies.  Rather, they would multiply.

I'm sorry though that you don't attribute to me any depth or intelligence.  But please feel reassured that you are fully living up to my expectations for you.

roi, and you don't see the reverse of what you're complaining at? That you are willing to stoop to Peretz' level, which you consider far lesser than yours, but not to your enemies'.

I stop seeing either depth or intelligence after such invective as you have used, because such words don't argue anything. They're nothing but abdominal reactions. They don't negate, don't contradict, don't present any opposition to anything said by your opponent. They're just a result of gland secretion, not brain activity. It provides no information or insight. Nada.

I didn't say Peretz was never lashing out at anyone, i said he didn't do it INSTEAD of presenting arguments. As a representative of this superior civilization, I expect you to be able to read at least.

As I said, it only takes so many terror attacks to change that highly civilized song regarding war against your enemies, and I repeat my wish that I may never be proven right (or wrong).

As for the other words spilled there, predicting how savage behavior would effect the enemies, I suppose you know what you're talking about. Why wouldn't you? You are not just an improved and more appropriate sample of the human race than they are, you are also far more intelligent. so much so, that you don't need any factual basis to rely on. You just know.

It' OK. It fits great the abusive language you use.

Babs, I'd love to make sense out of that, even if it is an attack, but it's completely incoherent.  However, I got this much:  I do aspire to be part of a civilization superior to that that the terrorists want to impose on us.  You continue to make it cleat that you don't, that you want to be part of a world that is as barbaric and savage as theirs.  Well, good luck to you.  You shouldn't have trouble finding such a place to live.  Kenya might be nice right now.

By the by, you are not really much good at sarcasm.  it requires a bit of subtlety and irony to be effective.  I would try a different rhetorical approach if I were you.

jm_rice --

Seems to me the rule of law _is_ a moral value in itself. Among the reasons:  It is a necessary step in achieving an egalitarian society, rather than a Darwinian arena. And it cools conflict by slowing it, by formalizing where nonviolent conflict takes place, and by codifying and limiting damage awards and punishments. This in turn reduces the occurrence of lasting grievances. Seems to me also that lawyers and judges don't become anything like "priests" (which evidently is a negative epithet). The egalitarian aspect of law means that lawyers and judges themselves can be held to account before the law

Equal before the law -- may be the most realistic and practical concept of equality.

That said, I like the introduction of the concept of "outlawry," itself a legal concept. An outlaw in some systems in a sense was a "walking dead man," who could be killed by anyone without legal penalty to the killer. In Biblical law, this license to kill was confined to the "redeemer of blood," typically a blood-relative of the outlaw's victim. Tho perhaps this right could be delegated. And applying the concept of outlawry to the present sort of case could have its own challenges.

Oh god, roi, put a fucking sock in it. I'm so tired of your wannabe elite patronizing bullshit.

I don't want to be part of anything. I only maintain that savages should be handled savagely. I can't put it any simpler than this.

You don't pay attention to anything you read, and when you do, you don't understand what you've read, and if you rarely do, you make sure to distort it so as to ridicule whomever wrote it.

You are too limited to to be worthy of a decent discussion, you are nasty and mean when you talk about other people (in this case it was Peretz, but I've seen you do it to others as well) and you pose as some kind of lofty intellectual, which you are clearly not.

You invariably resort to personal attacks, since you don't have what it takes to argue seriously.

Don't give me marks on my various capabilities. You are in no position to do so. You never will be.

You are shallow and simplistic, predictable and boring, you don't bother to think, you just spurt out your gut juices and hope no one will notice.

If you ever have a point to make that doesn't consist of personal offenses, it'll make a nice change.

Until then, shut up for god's sake.

Babs, so nice to hear from you again.  

Try re-reading all these posts.  See if you can determine who is making serious arguments and who is merely spewing bile.  I don't think you look very good on that count.  You, my dear, are really in no position to instruct anyone on good behavior.  You are obviously frustrated that you cannot successfully land a nasty punch.  That's not my problem.  You impute all sorts of intentions to me.  That's not my problem either.

You are, however, quite clear on at least one thing, your belief that savages should be handled savagely.  I, on the other hand, believe that savages should be handled effectively, so that they cannot harm or threaten to harm the rest of us.

It would be nice to have Hezbollah's Hassan Nasrallah and Hamas Haniyeh's killed. I hope they are killed, not captured. I don't want these mass murderers in a court room with assorted ONGs helping their defense. I want them dead under a ton of TNT.

"An Eye for an Eye leaves the whole world blind. "

"No Eye for an Eye leaves a terrorist with 2 good eyes and you with none. "

Not very appealing alternative eh?

Kill 'em all.  They wouldn't hesitate to have us all done in.  If they had their hands on nuclear weapons, you think they'd show the same restraint as we have?

I hope it was a Marine that planted that bomb and I hope that SOB had a momentary recognition that he was going to die.  Hell's a bitch ain't it you scumbucket?

Alright Asnevitt, have it your way.  Let's execute mobsters too under the assassination decree.  I'd love to see Marine snipers taking out the dirt.

babigail

Ignore the pro-terrorist idiots.  They've never had to face reality.  As Orwell said, "Good people sleep soundly in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. "

I don't doubt that they're sincere (though misguided) in their belief that they're holding true to "higher principles. " (odd though that these people are seldom religious) They may even want to handle terrorists with kid gloves when bombs go off in Grand Central.  They're able to do so because they're never truly in danger thanks to burly American soldiers with machine guns ready to guard their right to their shrill opinions and pinko affections.

Speaking of "stooping to their level," killing terrorists is not stooping to their level.  Their level is about 5000 levels below that.  When we start purposely aiming to kill little old ladies buying fish in a market, that's when we've hit their level.

jwl2672:

Very interesting that only "religious" can have "higher principles."  That seems not at all to explain the history of the world, but don't let reality get in the way of your ideology.  After all, that's what ideology is for.

I do not recall reading a single poster here who took objection to the assassination of a terrorist who was beyond the juridical reach of the state or states under assault and threat by that terrorist.  None. It is a typical reactionary rhetorical trick to attribute to opponents some mythical position in favor of terrorists and then to attack them for it.  The issue that sensible people were discussing here was whether terrorists who are within reach of capture should be captured and whether terrorists who are in custody should be treated according at least to either the criminal law of the law of war -- or, as you and some others would seem to prefer, summarily executed, tortured, or treated to some other unnamed "savagery" -- would boiling alive be okay?  Having their brains eaten before their eyes a la Hannibal the Cannibal?  Just what would satisfy you as sufficiently savage so as not to be understood as coddling terrorists?

Although there is a moral difference between aiming to kill little old ladies in fish markets and not, there is not much difference between that and conducting an illegal, aggressive war, under false pretext, in which a lot of little old ladies buying fish in a market are killed as "collateral damage."  Indeed, the former is a crime; the latter is a war crime.  The reactionary right winds itself up against ordinary criminals while extolling the virtue of war criminals.  And this, we are told, is some expression of high religious principle.

The smug self-righteousness of the right that any crime rhetorically in the name of self-defense, freedom, virtue, God, whatever, is not still a crime never ceases to take my breath away.  

Oh, and nice flourish jwl2672 referring to those who do believe in the rule of law as possessed of "shrill opinions and pinko affections."  Clearly, you have a well thought out position on this, elegantly expressed.  Thank you for sharing.

@babigail

"I only maintain that savages should be handled savagely."

Herewith Babigail enunciates the fundamental argument of Al-Qaida, and just about every other perpetrator of genocide, human rights abuse, injustice and atrocity throughout history.

"They're not like us, so we can kill them indiscriminately, for crimes real and imagined. I'll get my club."

You should consider a job writing copy for Bin Laden. Trust me. You're qualified.

Idiot.

I've been busy these last days, and that's how I've missed the ultimate reasoning and brilliant argument lanced at me: Idiot!

I didn't think it was that bad, but now that you've explicitly said the "I" word... well, I finally see the light.

So, now Iran's chief of the revolutionary guards, or whatever they're called in English, wrote to Nassrallah that he's sure that soon they'll witness the disappearance of this cancerous germ called Israel.

Vintage Hitler speak. The then-Chancellor of the Reich would be proud of him.

And so, sullydog? How's it going with the civilized legal procedures up there in the UN building? Has Iran been expelled from this dignified organization yet? Coz' you know, the UN charter forbids threats made by one nation to annihilate another one. Oh, I'm sure you know why. The Holocaust triggered the world nations to formulate this article.

And what do we see now? A member of the UN threatens to extinguish the Jews again, and not a word is spoken. We are civilized. Let's give the Iranians a chance, huh? Maybe try to calm them down by giving them something, as civilized peoples should do. No, they don't need the Soudetts region, so what shall we give them? How about some hunderds of thousands of Jewish bodies?

You know, just to keep them quiet. I've leaned my lesson dog, and I don't wanna be called an Idiot again.

So what's your suggestion, oh, representative of the civilized educated aristocratic non-violent law-adhering western society?

WHAT DO WE GIVE THEM, SULLYDOG?

HOW DO WE APPEASE THEM THIS TIME?

Sullydog, I'm sure you like bringing them to court, so that Amnesty International protests that their ice-cream wasn't cold enough.

Funny enough, your kind never suggests how exactly to apprehend such bastards - who only live in terrorist countries and are protected by terrorist governments. So if monsters like Mughniyah cannot be served a warrant and read their Miranda rights, then it's better to let them roam the earth and kill some more Americans and Jews. God forbid that Americans and Jews defend themselves.

Tell you what: I'm glad he was killed and, if I had a chance, I would have gladly pushed that button. And if it doesn't fit your appeaser's thinking, tough luck - there are enough of us in US and Israel to reason and act like that. I served in the army and, while I served in pretty quiet times, I would never hesitate to kill such a bastard if the situation asked for it.

My mentality is that of the Warsaw ghetto youngster - make sure to take as many bastards with you as you can.

Okay.  This thread has now hit rock bottom.  You go sleepy!  And take as many with you as you can when you go.  Babs, while you don't do much with sarcasm, you have a wonderful flare for melodrama.  I have this wonderful image of all the posters here piling up Jewish bodies to appease Osama bin Ladin.  Nothing can  compare to your clear-eyed realism in defense of civilization.  Have you submitted any screenplays anywhere?  You should.

"Sullydog, I'm sure you like bringing them to court, so that Amnesty International protests that their ice-cream wasn't cold enough."

Actually, no. I prefer to bring them to court so that America can demonstrate that, unlike our adversaries, we respect the rule of law and basic tenets of human decency. Your ice cream reference is trite.

"Funny enough, your kind"

My "kind?" Screw you.

"never suggests how exactly to apprehend such bastards - who only live in terrorist countries and are protected by terrorist governments."

Actually, I have, on Talkback. In fact, on this very thread, I have stated that, as a military adversary, he was subject to summary assasination, and that I'm glad we got him. What I'm not glad about is the flush of bloodlust that's got all of you panting and turgid with glee, and saying insane bullshit like "no courtrooms for terrorists" and "treat savages savagely." I'm sure that kind of talk makes your dick all hard and tingly, but as a basis for American civilization it leaves much to be desired. And as a way to conduct a war against an enemy who lives and dies by its ability to sell anti-American propaganda to another generation of would-be suicide bombers, it frankly sucks.

Strength and civilization are a terrific combination. What so many people don't seem to understand is that either one, by itself, is doomed.

"God forbid that Americans and Jews defend themselves."

Except I never said that, did I?

"Tell you what: I'm glad he was killed."

As am I, as I explicitly stated  earlier in this thread. He was an enemy and we got him. Good show. From there to conclude that it's okay to torture and hold people without due process and "treat savages savagely" isn't just specious. It's evil. It's the same kind of evil that's practiced by our enemy. It's the EXACT SAME EVIL that lies at the core of Qaeda doctrine. And if you don't see that, you're evil, too.

"And if it doesn't fit your appeaser's thinking,"

I'll say it again: screw you. You don't know anything about my thinking. This forum is just an excuse for you to talk tough. Big man. Big deal. You're not willing to engage this at any thoughtful level, to ask how the policies pursued by America and its allies might make things worse, or even undermine our own democracy. You're not even willing to think about it. That doesn't make you a patriot. It makes you a putz, or worse. It makes you part of the problem. It makes you part of Qaeda's Fifth Column: Americans who are willing to deconstruct their own civilization in the name of fighting terror.

"I served in the army and, while I served in pretty quiet times,"

And I served in the Marine Corps, doggie. Which makes neither one of us exclusively qualified to say twat. So what?

"I would never hesitate to kill such a bastard if the situation asked for it."

Nor would I. What you don't seem to grasp is that that's not what we're really talking about. What we're talking about are the core values of our civilization. Being brutal is easy--as Al Qaida, the Taliban and you and babigail have ably demonstrated. Being a great civilization? That takes REAL guts.

"My mentality is that of the Warsaw ghetto youngster - make sure to take as many bastards with you as you can."

Oooh. Thrust that chin out. You're SO tough!

Everyone who has followed your demented messages knows very well that you are incapable of screwing anyone except for yourself - which you do on a regular basis and publicly on the pages of TNR. You are an interesting case of exhibitionism. I also very much doubt you'd have the guts to use such words if we met face to face. Most likely face to face you shit in your pants, brave boy. You're lucky you can hide behind anonymity.

So far your thinking has been that of an appeaser who also bullies anyone who doesn't agree with him. So shut your potty mouth up and go back to your Socialist Worker cell, where everyone agrees with you.

You show how stupid you are by not indicating how exactly is one supposed to get such bastards before an American court. Most often the choice is between letting the guy roam the earth freely and killing him. It only shows how idiotic you are if you don't understand that kidnapping a bastard like Mughniyah and getting him out of Syria or whatever other terrorist country you like is simply be impossible most times - while killing the bastard IS possible.

You also show how morally bankrupt you are in your equalizing of terrorists and of those who kill them. By your ass logic, Hitler and Roosevelt were the same - perhaps Roosevelt was even wprse, since Americans killed the more Germans than Germans killed Americans.

Take some lithium, boy. It will calm your nerves until the ambulance comes.

So far your shitty courage, Sullydog, has been to insult mollysimon and me. That's what you served in the marines for, to bully a woman like mollysimon?

Interestingly, in the army I knew some women who were trained such that dogs like you, sully or not, would lose their teeth in a close encounter. Maybe one day you insult face to face one of these -since you're soooo brave and sooooo macho that you insult women- and thereafter you'll spit your deranged diatribes between the gaps.

"So far your thinking has been that of an appeaser who also bullies anyone who doesn't agree with him. So shut your potty mouth up and go back to your Socialist Worker cell, where everyone agrees with you."

Yah. I admit, I hurled an insult or two--because stupidity pisses me off. But at least I leavened my outrage with some, you know, thought. But this--this quote above--this is the level of your thinking and your argument. Sneer and spit all you want. One thing I've noticed--once you get called on your stupid, posturing, superficial take on the _issue at hand_, all you've got left is spittle and threats. You'd make me laugh, if I didn't know there aren't a whole lot more out there just like you. Some of them are running the country.

You know, I have concluded that for sleepy, babigail, and a handful of others, it is a deliberate tactic to derail any discussion they don't agree with by diverting it into a flame-festival, bedizened with all sorts of irrelevancies.  Here is sleepy -- ignoring for the moment the hissy fits -- carrying on about the difficulty of getting terrorists before judges.  Yet, no one who has posted here has expressed any qualms about assassinating terrorist who are beyond the reach of the law.  No one.  Rather, the thrust discussion was about whether we should be seeking to bring to justice terrorists who are not beyond our legal reach and what both constitutes justice for accused terrorists and affords us the greatest security,  

Neither sleepy nor babs has added anything coherent to the conversation, but, as ever, they contribute lots of pyrotechnics, insults, and bathos while diverting us from the subject at hand.  (Well, maybe babs's "Savages should be treated savagely" is coherent, but it is not by itself an executable program.  What would be savage enough?  Who knows?)

I would like to specify that it is quite obvious that in any bare-knuckled fight, sullydog could take on both sleepy and babs, at the same time, one hand tied behind his back, blindfolded, and still beat the point spread.

roidubouloi, has anybody asked you anything? Or are you meddling just so that you tell us again how much money you make? It also shows how much of a man you are when you suggest a fight with babigail - who is a woman. Just because you and Sullydog like the idea of beating women, it doesn't mean everybody else likes it. Perhaps that's why you are both appeasers. After all, the terrorist countries you're so fond of have an apocalyptic record  of treating women.

As for the fight, you may believe whatever you want. It's not surprising you side with a Sullydog, a pompous, foul-mouthed and histerical coward like yourself.  

By the way roidubouloi, I looked at that bullshit institute where you are so proudly on board. They clearly took you as the rich man with no brains but enough money.

Sullydog, go back to threatening women, as you did before here.  That's all you can.

Your debate style a regular fellow-traveler, just like your other self-righteous friend, that wretched creature called roidubouloi (roi, eh? il est modeste le mec!) who also likes threatening women. Anyone who's not on your far-Left corner must be right-wing, as you idiotically (but not surprisingly for a far-Left Demento) concluded.

What does surprise me is that  you haven't yet hurled at me anything about neocons, Likudniks and other code words that are well-understood in your far-Left asylum. Isn't it cold in your Che Guevara T-shirt on this weather? Maybe you can protect yourself with your Arafat scarf.

You also have a reputation as a mentally deranged bully, roidubouloi, in the outside world (in your own county), not just here on TNR. I will refrain to say where exactly can this be found (for the sake of anonymity), but you know it very well - and it makes for mighty entertaining reading, especially since it dates from the same period where you wrote various mouth-foaming contributions on TNR.

sleepy, you slay me!  If you had bothered to read this thread before shooting off your mouth, which you obviously didn't, you would know that it was an intelligent conversation that I was having with a few people, including molly simon, until babs came along with her usual beside the point insults and hysteria.  And here you have arrived at the end to hurl more of your beside the point insults and lift the hysteria levela few more notches without understanding the first thing about what was being discussed.

Oh, poor little sleepy!  You still have not the slightest sense of humor, cannot detect even gross irony in English (do you have a sense of humor or irony in Hungary or do you just have a permanent poker up your behing).  On top of that, you're such a child!  Are you actually a 12-year old pretending to be an adult on this website?  Come on, you can fess up.  You're really quite articulate for a 12-year old you know.  

I am sitting here in my Che T-shirt and my Arafat scarf AND my bin Ladin robe laughing at YOU, as ever.

As usual, roidubouloi, you're shooting off insane messages. You do that in the outside world too, not just on TNR. You sound like the patronizing nincompoop you have ever been.

It's q