Subject:
|
Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 25 Jan 2007 15:50:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2848 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy Gould wrote:
| |
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.
|
My sediments exactly;-)
JOHN
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
| (...) 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 (...) (17 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
|
|
|
|
