[Radar]

That's pretty sick. For someone who claims to hold natural law and its expression in the Constitution in such high regard, you sure seem to have a callous disregard for the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

In my opinion it's not cruel, especially when compared to how she treated her children, and I'd be willing to use this on several of the most vicious and heinous murderers out there. The rule is that punishment must be cruel AND unusual so a punishment might be unsual or cruel and still be Constitutional.

I also recall in a thread a few months ago that you had called for the ebola-enhanced, shattered-glass anal enema for President Bush.

I know. I was being nice on him back then. He deserves far worse now.

Your fascination with extreme torture is... well... interesting and a little unsettling.

What can I say, some people are interested in collecting stamps; I'm interested in torture.

Since you do not mention it as a remedy to any observed inadaquacies in the justice system and given the carefully crafted and downright gleeful descriptions you have provided here and elsewhere, I gather that this is just something that would give you great personal satisfaction to either witness or personally administer.

What can I say? Some people just need killing and are so vile, a standard killing won't provide adequate justice for their actions. I can tell you without being ashamed in the slightest, that I would be genuinely happy if George W. Bush were rightly convicted of treason and I were given the opportunity to pull the switch.

Fortunately, we do have a legal system that stands between convicted criminals and those who would have their way with them.

I agree. I do offer the presumption of innocence to those being tried in a court of law who I personally don't know whether or not they committed a crime. I know the two women I mentioned committed the crime, they admitted it themselves and the punishment I suggested would be adequate justice. Bush deserves something far worse.