 | | Re: WMD, again...
|
| (...) Last time I checked one was *presumed* innocent until proven guilty in this country. JOHN (22 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: WMD, again...
|
| (...) Of course. Guantánamo is still Cuba ;-) Pedro (22 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: WMD, again...
|
| (...) Unless you're an Arab, or have an Arab-sounding name, or have been to an Arabic nation recently, or know someone who fits any of the above criteria. Then you can be held indefinitely as an "enemy combatant," and no presumption of innocence (...) (22 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: WMD, again...
|
| (...) Your response is a tired joke in this case -- I think that Shrub's lack of ability in most areas of his past life show he is not trustworthy. What members of his cabinet do in his name shows me he is not trustworthy (Ashcroft re: Patriot Act). (...) (22 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: WMD, again...
|
| (...) Let's go ahead and ignore all the sweeping support GWB received in the state of Texas, and talk just about his tenure as president. I would say successfully launching campaigns to remove both the Taliban and Husein regime from power was a (...) (22 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: WMD, again...
|
| (...) Could you show me where in the federal Constitution the invasion of foreign territories is explicitly laid out as part of the duties of the U.S. President? I must have missed that day in civics class... Pathetic republican apologists unite! -- (...) (22 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: WMD, again...
|
| (...) his >motivations for those actions or not. (...) "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of (...) (22 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: WMD, again...
|
| (...) If the justification is there it is implicit, not explicit. Pedro (22 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: WMD, again...
|
| (...) How about right in the preamble, "provide for the common defense", or how about "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our prosperity". Bush has his justifications, even if you don't trust in them. You want to talk about (...) (22 years ago, 21-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: WMD, again...
|
| (...) The preamble has no force in law, it is used only as support for interpretting the intent of the legislators. This is similar to how the titles of particular statutes are handled. And if you think the word "defense" means invading a non-nuke (...) (22 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: WMD, again...
|
| (...) cleaning up the messes the previous administration left. North Korea's nuclear program, thanks to Bill Clinton’s foreign policy; Bin Laden never seriously pursued after the first attack on the world trade center, the attack on the USS Cole, (...) (22 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: WMD, again...
|
| (...) A threat to your Nation exists everywhere, should then your President start a world war to wipe out anything that could someday cause a tragedy? If he considers your attitude is a threat to your countries values of peace and freedom, should (...) (22 years ago, 22-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
