@J. Harden, I’ve seen plenty of post by Justin commending and thanking our troops. You seem to think that pointing out injustices is somehow disparaging our own troops. When our government commits crimes and injustices in the name 9/11 THAT IS disparaging to our troops. When our government commits crimes against humanity that is disparaging our nation! No one here is saying we shouldn’t be fighting a war against terrorism or punish those who are found to be guilty. We are simply saying do not go outside the boundaries of international law to do so. We have done just that. You want to thank the troops? Send to a country that deserves to be invaded. Give them guidelines that are internationally lawful and most of all abide by the highest moral code in which this country supposedly adheres by. You, sir, do not love your country more than me simply because you are patriotism blind. I wear consult my patriotism in my heart. You seem to consult it on your sleeve. Just my opinion. But nonetheless I realize you have your right to yours as much as Justin has to his. It doesn’t make him a “Terrorist lover” because he wishes to point out the obvious discrepancies in our rhetoric vs. our actions. 9/11 isn’t a blank check for human rights violations. In fact, it’s a glaring example of what is wrong with this type of ideology.

We should be skeptical of these accounts even if we also believe that some detainees have been held unfairly or mistreated and/ot we think US policies in this regard were unacceptable for moral, practical or any other reasons.

Unfortunately, we’ve come to a point eight years after 9/11 when the extraordinary rendition of an al Qaeda suspect is taken as proof certain of illegal torture and “shredding the Constitution.” This attitude conflates very separate issues and obscures what should be clear thinking about keeping America safe from future 9/11s. CIA’s rendering a terror suspect from Indonesia to Egypt or US custody somewhere was expressly authorized by President Clinton in 1995. It was used infrequently before 9/11 — perhaps too infrequently, given what we now know about the threat that was looming. It was used far more frequently after 9/11 — perhaps too frequently, given what we now know about the opposition it would evoke and the way it would serve the propaganda needs of jihadist radicals.

But we ought to remember that we’re viewing these events with the benefit of hindsight at a time when we are no longer deeply worried about follow-on attacks. Much as I have a distaste for George Bush and many of hus works, I have never had a shadow of doubt that President Clinton or Al Gore as President would have been less aggressive than Bush in prosecuting the war against al Qaeda — rendition, secret detention and all the rest. They might have done many other things better, but no President would have shrunk from using brute force to ensure against another devastating attack.

a professional reader of the Koran

I actually applied for this job, but it was already filled. Luckily there is a fairly high blow-up rate among “professional readers of the Koran” so I’m still hopeful that I get the position. It is truly a profession with a lot to offer — 9 wives, 72 virgins, lots of automatic rifles, cool ninja bajama suits, ext.

Yes, everything changed after 9/11

Yeah, that is why we see so many posts about the family members and victims of 9/11 coming from you. That is why we see so many positive posts about the bravery of our military from you. That is why we see so many stories from you about, not just the American or Isreali victims of jihadist, but the Muslim victims of jihad. You’re super-balanced.

And good luck Mr. Muhammed — let me introduce you to the Ferris Doctrine and a big ole’ cup of F-you.

I really don’t like George Bush and I completely disagree with most of his policies, but this is just so ridiculous I can’t fathom why he was able to get away with it (Democrats, I’m looking at you too!).