 | | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) And if you leave the US justice system to sort things out regarding this 'war on terrah', they deport Canadians to Syria (URL) glad *some* senators are calling it what it is-- (URL) "We knew damn well if he went to Canada he wouldn't be (...) (18 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) I have no idea. All I'm saying is that if you hold to a strictly literal interpretation of the Constitution (as Dave initially suggested), you can get absurd conclusions, as both Specter and Gonzales have illustrated. And so the game goes on. (...) (18 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) But they are entitled to certain protections that, by design, are denied to this latest batch. For example, prisoners of war are to be released at the war's end, but Dubya has pretty clearly stated that the War on Terror will never be over. So (...) (18 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) Are you saying that you think Gonzales was joking? Or that he genuinely ought to "fight stupidity with even greater stupidity"? DaveE (18 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) Enemy combatants have never had a right to trial. (...) This term wasn't invented or coined by President Bush, so don't blame him or Gonzo. (...) Is your rant against the classification of "enemy combatant" and its legal status? Or are you (...) (18 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) Agreed. By being literal. But I think he did so to counter Specter's obtuse literalism. JOHN (18 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) Only because no other scenario was imagined. So it would be your opinion that, if a scenario of terrorist attacks like 9-11 were somehow proposed to the FF, they wouldn't include that form of violence in their "invasion or rebellion" (...) (18 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) I guess the distinction I'm trying to make here is that if Gonzales's assertion is accurate, there's no definitions anywhere of what constitutes someone with the right to habeas corpus and someone who doesn't. In effect, it invalidates Article (...) (18 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) Of course not--RW radio mentions it daily, every time they blame Clinton for 9/11. (...) Okay, so two attacks in a decade constitute an invasion? Sorry, but "invasion" implies the insertion of a substantial military presence into the target (...) (18 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) Sure it is, if these individuals are stripped of all rights to trial. Bush is declaring "they're guilty because I say so, so we don't need a trial to hold them indefinitely." Sorry, but that's a pretty abominable statement for the leader of (...) (18 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
