I bit back a snarky reply to her myself, but figured since it was your facebook page it was probably best to let you set the tone.
Not that I'm for pampering treatment of convicted terrorists, but I'd like them to be convicted by an actual legitimate court sans kangaroo courtesy of W.
I'm sure that the response you went with is more likely to hit home in the long run. It's harder to change a mind if you're getting their backs up.
As if the only two ways to treat suspected terrorists is to let them live in luxury or torture them.
Yegsactly! And I won't even get into the "how in the hell do we know they're terrorists anyway??!!" part of it!
I think my refund last year from CA was less than $100, so it's not so urgent for me.
Mine's not much more, but I already factored it into my budget, not thinking the state would decide it could just keep it.
I'm tempted to go comment with tommyrot's last sentence, there. But I'll refrain.
Oh, Matt, please don't ever, ever feel like you have to hold back. Her tone was *asking* for a rebuttal, and she knows it. But Theo is probably right; responding thoughtfully might make her actually think.
I think this is another reason I'm happy I'm not on Facebook.
And even for convicted terrorists there is a wide range between "pampering" and torture.
The most interesting suggestion that I've seen about the need for some review of the torture we committed is that we need some fair and open review of the information obtained that way -- as in, was it more than vaguely accurate? Cheney is so sure about how it's been a really useful tool, it only seems fair that we should have a real accounting of what information was "obtained" and whether it turned out to be useful.
When you find out that one of the Guantanamo detainees was 14 when captured -- and according to torture-obtained testimony was supposedly in Al Qaida training in London when he was 11... yeah, I bet it's mostly all like that.
If there's anything nicer than a US jail, it's a prison! That's what I've always heard, anyway....