I had written: "I have no problems with Omar being accorded the same treatment within the U.S. legal system as any other U.S. citizen ..." to which John McCreery wrote: "Point of information. Is Omar a U.S. citizen? Am I wrong to believe he is not?" Thank you for pointing this out. I assume that Omar is not a U.S. citizen but that 'other' slipped in by mistake. The sentence should read: "I have no problems with Omar being accorded the same treatment within the U.S. legal system as any U.S. citizen ..." John continues: "If, however, one's goal is to understand, without necessarily forgiving or approving, the thinking in question, it may be worth noting the two models of political morality suggested by George Lakoff. In one, the nurturant family model typically associated with those of a liberal or progressive orientation, moral principles, e.g., "We do not torture" are held to be universal in application. In the other, the patriarchal family model typically associated with those of a conservative or reactionary orientation, the application of moral principles is confined to within the family, or the nation state construed as the family writ large." I don't want to mess up that nice binary opposition, but there are some of us who argue for a combination of the two. We believe there are universal norms with universal application but that in the political realm these cannot be realized in practice except through the actions of democratic countries that have law-governed constitutions. For example, we could not have the UDHR without different democratic countries, each having their own constitution and citizenry, ratifying it. Sincerely, Phil Enns Yogyakarta, Indonesia ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html