If they blew off the rules of the Geneva Conventions and then still expected to be treated according to them when captured, that would be undeniably two-faced (although the U.S. in general flouts a lot of the international treaties it has--or has refused to--signed so can't say it's surprising). Isn't a lot of the controversy that many of those held at Gitmo are not demonstrably guilty?

I didn't mean in an existing civilian prison per se; they could have a separate facility. Although naturally nobody would want that in their back yard.

To say that they voted in Hitler is grossly oversimplifying the issue. He was appointed--not elected--prime minister first.

So after Hitler had twisted Hindenburg's arm into making the Reichstag Fire Decree, they physically barred the opposing voters from entering the voting chamber and voting down the last barrier. But yeah, it was all democratic.

I'm interested to hear what you think the U.S. voters should have done if none of Bush, Gore, Kerry, Obama, McCain, or Romney were worth our votes (not that I really disagree with you on that point).

Inside the U.S. in a prison system or something that actually obeys the laws we've made for keeping prisoners. The whole point of Gitmo is that it's not inside the U.S. so we don't have to follow our own rules, right?

FTFY

So *that's* what the ??? always stands for! It all makes so much sense in retrospect.

*eliciting

You both have a point, but you don't need to be so in our faces about it. They have entire teams of people working on making interfaces more friendly.

Just because he broke local laws doesn't mean the U.S. isn't also out to get him.

Interesting link, but the article doesn't say they hijacked the aircraft, only that they boarded and confirmed there were prisoners onboard.

I'm also trying to figure out what they mean by "carried out without the knowledge of the Americans." If the Americans knew about it, why would the Swedes even bother going in undercover? Unless they knew about it and chose to do nothing I suppose, since it sounds like it was on Swedish soil.

Gitmo shouldn't exist at all. The fact that is does means I don't assume those in charge will studiously adhere to their guidelines about who they can and can't illegally detain there.

I'm not entirely convinced that a governmental group thoroughly bungling an operation proves that they weren't attempting the operation. Assuming that conspiracies have to be totally effective seems unrealistic. It's like saying that because the Masons didn't take over the world, they weren't a secret society. No, they just didn't accomplish their goals (that we know of).

But deciding whether the rape charges were a happy coincidence or a happy "coincidence" seems to be more or less a matter of paranoia at this point.

Asking for evidence of favors is also rather iffy. It's a favor; of course they're not going to document it.

Probably because if we could pick and choose which channels we wanted and there were no barriers in the way, several dozen better channels than the big ones would immediately pop up and "steal" all the money. Can't have them destroying the big guys' market.

When you spend all your effort on legally quashing competition instead of trying to offer a good product is when you lose any sort of ethical standing. Fortunately, money is a decent substitute for ethical standing these days.

I bet the current entrenched entertainment industry would have loved it if all these restrictions were around when *they* were first getting off the ground. C'est la vie.

I love all these comments that equate to, "Well, you Americans should just stop doing that. Duh!" It's not like there's an entrenched multibillion-dollar industry dedicated to preventing that exact eventuality or anything.

http://principiadiscordia.com/...

Funny, I missed the part where he said anything other than Firefly's cancellation was fact.

"Good" and "famous" are both entirely subjective and thus opinion.

You're being pointlessly pedantic. That was obviously what AK Marc was talking about.

By that logic, only one copy of any given movie or album would ever be sold, because the person would promptly throw it up on the torrents. And that "should be" legal.

Not that that doesn't already happen to some degree.