Editor's Notes

I've made a few adjustments to James' post, to clean it up a bit and support the right team.

(Go Spurs. And Ginobili.)

And the links in Emery's comment are fixed.

A few things to keep us on the right track, and some questions from the editor:

For James:

These terrorists operated in direct contravention of the rules of war.
They didn’t wear identifiable uniforms. They targeted civilians. And so on. Under the Geneva Convention, they are not prisoners of war and have no legal protection.

How would you respond to the following protests:

1. The United States targeted civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and so arguably "targeting civilians" is not ipso facto contrary to the rules of war;
2. The US, before it was the US, did not wear identifiable uniforms when fighting the British (unless "earth colors" qualify), and so arguably a lack of consistent uniforms is not contrary to the rules of war either, and;
3. Given that the United States knew beforehand that it was fighting an unconventional enemy ("terror" rather than a country), and still declared war on Iraq the country, how are the "insurgents" not proper representatives of that country?

(I'm currently of the humble opinion that the Geneva Convention still qualifies.)

For MG:

Same question, how would you respond to the following protests:

1. "For each person we torture, 10 recruits sign up for al Qaeda" needs a citation. I ask only because the reading I've done suggests otherwise. The attitude suggested by this man is aptly summarized in the Iraqi saying, "if death comes to greet you at your door, introduce him to your brother" (long, long post; quote is near the bottom).
2. "Maybe you’ve read the Bill of Rights? How about the part about cruel and unusual punishment?" The Bill of Rights refers to American citizens, which at once rules out most of the guys at Gitmo.
3. "And killing faggots! Don’t forget the dirty, dirty faggots!" What?
4. "There happened to be one document that they were unable to accurately source, but it was also never proven false (on Rathergate)." It's (nearly) logically impossible to prove something like this false. To successfully do it, you'd have to show that there was no way that such a document could be physically created at the time it claims it was, which is pretty much impossible. But what can and has been done is to show that the Killian documents have traits that are nearly non-existent with other contemporary documents.

(To me, the funniest thing about the Killian documents was O'Reilly defending Rather, in a column I'd link to were the site free.)

For Emery:

Again, same question, the following protests:

1. You mention economic hardship, and the Bush Administration's hand in it. Though I don't doubt for a second that he's made it worse, you paint the situation as if he's caused it all. Inflation was present well before Bush and Co. took office, with the result that, mathematically speaking, it was nearly impossible to work hard enough to keep up with the dropping value of the dollar. Blaming Bush is an easy out that diverts attention towards the administration, while masking the roots of the problem, which will not go away when Bush does.

For Emery and MG:

1. Both of you have mentioned (inadvertantly) the allegations against Kerry during the election. I'm assuming you mean the Swift Boat Vets. If so, here's my question: why was the Left so up in arms about the Swift Boat Vets and their accusations and utterly silent about Michael Moore? (Perhaps they weren't, but I have yet to come across one.) Moore has been a documented deceiver since way before F9/11, all the way back to Roger and Me, and no one but the Right uttered a peep about him. I ask only because the condemnation of one without condemnation of the other smacks heavily of partisanship, whether Right or Left, and much less of a commitment to the Truth.

(And speaking of the Swift Vets, I have yet to hear a good explanation of the reason why their loyalties were so sharply divided: almost without exception, those in Kerry's own boat favored him, and those in other boats did not. That seems too odd to be coincidental.)

James, again:

I'm really curious about your answer to the following issues raised by MG:

1. Downing Street Memo, and what it says about the "bad information" that Bush acted on;
2. Whether or not you're actually "pro-dead children," and the pros and cons of socialized medicine, and;
3. The Swift Boat Vets, and whether or not they're the bastards they're purported to be.

MG, Emery, these from James:

1. The "Missing Explosives" story, which is summarized here (and which did disappear after the election):
2. How the media could be right-leaning when "80%+" voted for Kerry (need a citation too, James).

That's all I can think of. Will chime in on gay marriage later.