Subject:
|
Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:31:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3005 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy Gould wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
| |
Hmmmm, founding fathers being exclusionary? The literal text really does
say what Gonzales says it does.
But then again, the literal text of the 2nd really does say that the guns
are for the ‘well oiled militia’
Interpretations be damned, I say. Let’s go for the literal text!!!
|
Well, you want your interpretation, and literal, too. Specter takes the
Constitution literally when he cites “except in the case of invasion or
rebellion”, but when Gonzales takes the Constitution literally, you cry
foul.
|
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!
|
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.
|
Sorry, Tim--I missed your post, or I would have responded earlier.
DaveE has already offered good thoughts on this point, but I’d go in a
slightly different direction. In my view, a rebellion necessarily consists
of a viably large body of rebels, the majority of whom are citizens of the
nation against which they are rebelling. The 9/11 hijackers don’t fit this
definition at all. By that token, any US soldier in Iraq (or Afghanistan) can
be incarcerated indefinitely on the grounds that he or she is, by attacking
in that country, is guilty of rebellion.
|
If most of them weren’t US citizens then I agree with the latter part of this
argument. With Terror tactics and WMDs (such as a Boeing 747) then a viable body
of rebels doesn’t have to be large. Were the hijackers US citizens by and large
then I think that their goals (destruction of the US state) would most certainly
by rebellion.
| |
Also, a rebellion needs to be a sustained effort. One attack (or two,
separated by eight years) simply doesn’t qualify.
Dave!
|
Well I think it’s quite likely they would like it to be a sustained attack.
Certainly in the UK they planned to attack at least once more soon after the
initial one.
In the end the problem is that it’s an all new kind of attack beyone the usual
definitions of Rebellion or Invasion and it strikes me as being an overly
literal interpretation of the Constitution to assume that they wouldn’t have
covered this sort of attack in a limited manner in the clause about habeas
corpus.
Tim
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
| (...) Sorry, Tim--I missed your post, or I would have responded earlier. DaveE has already offered good thoughts on this point, but I'd go in a slightly different direction. In my view, a rebellion necessarily consists of a viably large body of (...) (18 years ago, 25-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
|
|
|
|
