To: Mary Cluney who wrote (121916 ) 6/24/2005 9:26:37 AM From: Lane3 Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793888 I could be wrong, but so far, you sound like you are trying to suck up to some one elses political agenda. If you just look at yesterday's colloquy, I suppose it might sound like that. But in context, I think one would have to come to the opposite conclusion. I am well known here as not being a fan of Bush or his administration to the point where I have had to fight off perceptions of being a mindless Bush hater rather than a thoughtful critic. And I'm on record here as having vigorously disagreed with the decision to invade Iraq and particularly with the way that war was sold. So why would I all of a sudden be sucking up to their agenda? That would be the last thing anyone should expect from me. The more likely explanation is that I have done a lot of thinking about this and soul searching, as I explained in a post to Ed, that I really believe what I'm saying. Since I am speaking contrary to pattern, maybe what I say warrants a fair hearing. I am hoping she is saying that we need the rule of law I should think so. I'm saying that, too. The only question is which law? Deciding which law applies is something that government officials do all the time. For example, we've seen cases where there was a choice between prosecuting under state murder laws or federal civil rights laws. Or cases of whether to try a war criminal under international law, the law of his country, the law of our country, or what? Or cases of whether to file a civil suit or file a criminal complaint. The question is not whether or not we follow the rule of law. That's a given for me and I think for you and CB, as well. The question is which law best applies. We are in an unprecedented scenario. We have a fish and fowl problem so we need to figure out whether our widgets belong in a cage or a tank or if we need to invent an entirely new type of enclosure in order to be both effective and true to our values. I've been trying to explore that.