The man charged with murdering a high-profile abortion doctor claimed from his jail cell Sunday that similar violence was planned around the nation for as long as the procedure remained legal, a threat that comes days after a federal investigation launched into his possible accomplices.Long time commenter Tony Comstock sarcastically asserts:
Clearly this guy needs to be waterboarded, right?Clearly. Bring out the enhanced interrogators.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
The "ticking time bomb" comes to the religious right's doorstep.
How do you know this guy is religious? He might be an atheist - no? Religion is mostly good and helps societies to stay together ethically? No - this guy must be an atheist.
Maybe I missed something, but how does going to shoot a guy while he's at church require a lot of advanced planning? Or accomplices? I guess you have to find out where he goes to church, but it seems like the sort of thing that you could just wing from that point on.
No, no, no! You don't understand! This man isn't a threat to our way of life!
TNC keeps feeding us and I keep repeating myself. How come that this guy and his friends are not on the FBI most wanted list? Instead we have an animal rights activist who has never killed anybody right there next to our enemy numero uno Osama.
Oh, I know the answer to this one - the animal rights guy is a Bush legacy. They used DOJ assets to get Greenpeace labeled terrorists, while letting bombers run loose working for operation rescue.
How come a guy who commits a political murder of an Army recruiter in North Carolina is charged with terrorism, but a guy who commits a political murder of an abortion-provider in Kansas is charged with 'regular' murder? Either, but then both-or-neither...
Deleted. Make your point without the silly personal attacks.
Waterboarding is ethical when the suspects are Muslims, because they're all terrorists and lives will be saved. Waterboarding is immoral torture when it's some homicidal home grown white guy who says he has friends that are going to kill other people. I understand now.
It's pretty simple, actually. This guy isn't wanted. He's in custody. As to his friends, I don't know if there's any real evidence that his friends are guilty of anything. The guy you're posting about is wanted in connection to the successful detonation of three bombs in public places. Setting bombs, whether or not anybody dies in the act, is an act of terrorism. Not activism.
Oops. Was directed to Hugo.
Baker
This guy has made sure that nobody was in the labs when the bombs went off. Clearly he could have waited for humans to be there but he did not - on purpose. There is a huge difference to the abortion murderers? And careful - I am not saying that it is not terrorism. But that is not saying much either. Germany who were protecting Jews were traitors. Some of them terrorists. One has to judge the whole thing case for case, time for time and context for context?
@Miles Ellison
Those who were pro torture are also those who are pro-life. I can guarantee you that all (southern) factory farmers in the US fall in this category and they spend their $15 billion in subsidies that they get each year - recession or not - to strengthen their political power. It is only a few who get government money to push their point of view?
* Religion
* Factory Farming
* Southern State rights
* Anti-abortion aka pro-life
* Our way of life
this is the news equivalent of fastfood, who cares what Tony Comstock says, or anyone who works for Fox or any of the other talking loud but saying nothing "commentators" out there, why does it matter?
And yet here you are, scarfing down the quarter-pounders. It's a blog dude. Every item isn't an essay. Sometimes it's ten words. Sometimes it's a thousand. Every item won't interest you. It's just what I'm thinking. Nothing more. Nothing less.
(squall of feedback, followed by static and white noise) "...said, 'I'll have a big mac, large fries and an ice tea.' Did you get that? Also, don't give me those nasty limp fries, and don't skimp on the salt, please."
Do you think my order will have extra saliva and sebum included?
To strengthen your analogy, this post wouldn't be a quarter pounder. It would be more like a snack wrap.
not sure how this answers my question, which had nothing to do with length or whether or not I was interested in a topic but more in line with your earlier observation that: The airwaves\blogs\books\magazines are filled with fucking idiots who just cherry-pick to make cliche point after cliche point, by which I am referring to Comstock and all, but have it your way...
Not even--have it your way.
In all seriousness, I post anywhere from six to twelve times a day. If I'm lucky, a third of that thinking will be original. The rest will likely be fulminations, rants, contemplations, simple links, and replies to e-mail. That's generally what a blog is.
Don't like the sound of that? Truly believe that most of what you read here--and elsewhere--is fast food? Then allow me to extend the metaphor-- pay 14 bucks a month to typepad, and start cooking at home.
Don't like the quality of conversation in media? Then stop complaining, go get a blog and make it better. That's exactly how I got started--14 bucks a month to typepad. I'll even give you your first link. There is no excuse, in this era, for people displeased with the conversation to not be about the business of improving it.
But it's more fun to log in and quip, "slow news day?" dontcha know.
The ongoing public debate about what constitutes terrorism, and what constitutes an appropriate response to terrorism, is not cliche or fast food. You may not like the answers people give, or the attitude, but you seem to imply that the issue is somehow closed. It's not. Your 'oh, blah blah blah' attitude is useless and puerile.
Silly rabbit. Torture is for Arabs.
This:
And then this:
After 15 years on the internet, my ambitions are finally realized! Someone doesn't care about what I say enough to say so out loud and not to my face!
I am, officially, a pundit!
See y'all tomorrow. I'm taking the rest of the day off!
Since Roeder was in regular touch with his pal at Operation Rescue (she's their "senior policy advisor" or somesuch, and herself a convicted clinic bomber), she supplied him with regular updates on where Tiller was to be found....
There's at the very least a solid case to declare OR a terrorist organization, freeze their assets, and investigate anybody who ever donated to them. How many wingnuts' heads will explode when they must turn to the ACLU for help?
Fun thread. Law prof Jack Balkin got there first, and Wash MOnthly's Hilzoy seconded it. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_06/018454.php
Jack Balkin thinks, as I do, that the person who killed George Tiller is a terrorist. And he has some excellent questions about what that implies. Here are some of them:
"(1) Should the United States be able to hold Roeder without trial in order to prevent him from returning to society to kill more abortion providers? If we believe that Roeder and other domestic terrorists will plan further attacks on abortion providers and abortion clinics if we let them free, can we subject them to indefinite detention?
(2) The Obama Administration is currently considering a national security court to make decisions about the detention of suspected terrorists, with the power to order continued preventive detention. Should this court be able to hear cases involving U.S. citizens, whether they are Muslim or Christian? (...)
(4) One of the most important reasons for detaining terrorists (suspected or otherwise) is to obtain information about future terrorist attacks that may save lives and prevent future bombings. To procure this information, can the government dispense with the usual constitutional and legal safeguards against coercive interrogation? Should it be able to subject Roeder to enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding and other methods, to determine whether Roeder knows of any other persons who are likely to commit violence against abortion clinics or against abortion providers in the future? Would your answer change if you believed that an attack on an abortion provider or a bombing of an abortion clinic was imminent?. . .