Just saw on foxnews.com that 75% of their viewers (non-scientific poll) think the bomber should NOT be afforded his rights as a US citizen, but rather tried as an enemy combatant.

It blows my mind that people who claim to be all about individual rights vs. invasive government feel this way. Is it just the difference between "my" rights (defend those tooth and nail) and "your" rights?

And while on the point -- how can we be making slippery slope arguments about gun control ("I support background checks, but am against them because it's a slippery slope) when at the same time NOT making slippery slope arguments about trying American citizens outside the normal justice system?
_________________________
The charm of fishing is that it is the pursuit of what is elusive but attainable, a perpetual series of occasions for hope. -John Buchan