Presented the Bush Administration with an "ethical dilemma". For the Bushies an "ethical dilemma" would seem to be an oxymoron.

Do we go for the French information and NOT kill him, or do we go with what we no and DO kill him.

Now, don't misunderstand me, this guy flunks my standard, which is the likelihood he would ever do something violent again if freed. On the other hand there is only circumstantial evidence he planned to do something, and no evidence he did do anything.

When I suggested pre-emptive bombing of WMD facilities, the right-wing jumped on me because of their belief in "innocent until proven guilty" doctrine.

How about here, and can we give a death penalty for thinking about doing something? On a hot summer day at the beach I think of a lot of things for which a person could go to jail.

But "ethical dilemma"? I like that.

Arf