Subject:
|
Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 24 Jan 2007 18:13:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3004 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote:
| |
So, in effect, Gonzales is arguing to the point of *total* arbitrarity.
|
Agreed. By being literal. But I think he did so to counter Specter’s obtuse
literalism.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
115 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
