 | | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) "Single attack"? Do you forget (among many others) the first bombing at the WTC, Dave!? Maybe this debate needs to begin with the idea of whether or not we are at war. Are we? JOHN (18 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) Well, not considering 9-11 an invasion would be a literal interpretation, no? (...) The Constitution directs that habeas corpus can be suspended in certain circumstances; it is not an "inalienable" right, unless you believe that individuals (...) (18 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) A single attack can make a rebellion if it is by a citizen of the country. I can't remember if any of the Sept 11 bombers were US citizens but if so I would argue it indeed was a part of a rebellion. Tim (18 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) One problem there (among many) is that there has been no invasion and no rebellion. A single attack does not an invasion make, so there is literally no justification for suspension of habeas corpus. Dave! (18 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
|
(...) I'm not up on this one apparently-- where did Specter take a literal interpretation where he ought not to have? In this case, it seems utterly plain. If the interpretation is that no right is expressly granted to anyone, but only that when it (...) (18 years ago, 24-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
