Did I misquote you?
Nope, but you’re muddling a qualification with “self-cancelling gibberish”.
You’re welcome to attack what I say, but your mode of attack is entirely too brief to mean anything. A sweeping statement of opinion like that means nothing. Either you were simply intent on cheap point scoring, or you didn’t understand my position.
This is not about you or me; it’s about expressing one’s views publicly, and inviting the presentation of competing views. You’ve taken the opportunity to express yourself, and your message, however muddled in its derivation and self-contradictory in its presentation, has been about as clearly stated as it could possibly be:
You repeatedly assert that by endorsing the adoption of procedural rules for the trial of foreign invaders that differ in a variety of respects from those that are more generally observed in civilian trials in the US (but which surely vary from those rules less than they vary from the rules that govern routine trials in other democracies around the world), American officials have exhibited conduct morally equivalent to random mass murder. No sooner do you make this preposterous assertion, you deny that you mean to say that all. You thereupon concede that there is a difference between favoring one set of rules (that DaveStewart does not like) over another set of rules (that DaveStewart prefers) and causing airliners to crash into buildings, but you insist the difference is merely one of “degree” (rather like saying that the difference between night and day is one of “degree”). With that tossed out as “insight,” you blithely reassert your initial proposition: that the conduct OBL and American officials are “equally” reprehensible.
I suppose there might be some people who will find this sort of bullshit persuasive, but I’m hopeful that precious few of them spend much time at this message board.