JIB

The Attorney General wants to try suspected terrorists in Federal Court rather than Military Tribunals. This will force the government to give discovery to defense attorneys and terrorist suspects, possibly including top-secret documents related to our national security. Since Mr. Holder knows that choosing to try the terrorists in this manner will force him to hand over sensitive information that could jeopardize our national security, it seems that he could be charged with some sort of crime. He has other options that would allow him to keep our secrets safe. I'd like to hear from people with a legal background on this.

Shouldn't you say "I couldn't care less" if you don't care about something?

In my state, DUI(DWI) offenders are required to have a breathalyzer installed in their cars before driving privileges are re-instated. The device prevents the car from being started if they test is failed. Should states begin to require all cars to have such a device? Would the potential for saving lives be worth the inconvenience, or would this be too intrusive on people's freedom of movement?

It seems that this "argument" is thrown around with no thought to the meaning. While there can certainly be legitimate debate about whether an embryo or fetus is a human life or at what point it becomes one, biologically the statement that it is the woman's body is just false. Although it is an appealing statement for obvious reasons, should pro-choice activists abandon it since it holds no biological truth?