I can read between the lines -- apparently you can't (not sure you're even reading the lines themselves) so you have to make up things to stuff between the lines.

Bottom line: You quoted and linked to an article to support a specific premise -- that Litvinenko may have been/was probably a terrorist. Whether that premise has any possible validity or not, the article you rely on doesn't state, imply or support your premise. In fact, it undermines your premise. Someone who was on Law Review ought to be able to do better than that -- you'd be laughed out of court if this was the kind of authority you relied on.

Oh, but that's right -- you weren't really on Law Review. You're just a poser.

What is this, RUMSPRINGA gear?

Hey Hoosier--do you write porn about Ann Coulter, too?

why would an american conservative make apologies/defences for a posible political assassination/murder that was alleged by some to be orchestred by the current executive branch of the Russian Federation?