Subject:
|
Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 26 Jan 2007 17:15:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3104 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy Gould wrote:
| |
| |
Also, I think it needs to be stated that citizenship alone isn’t sufficient
to qualify an attack as a rebellion; if someone becomes a citizen and soon
thereafter launches an attack, then that person’s motivation in becoming a
citizen must be questioned. But for a native born or long-time citizen,
then the issue becomes rather more murky.
Heck, the whole thing is murky anyway.
|
It is completely murky which is why I think that forcing the rules to be
“Rebellion” or “Invasion” is an overly literal reading. These attacks are
somewhere in between the two which in my opinion puts them into the spirit of
the US Constitution with regards to habeas corpus.
|
If that’s true, then the appropriate course of action must be to err on the
side of preserving liberty. Instead, in the fear-soaked aftermath of 9/11, we
saw the Congress tripping over itself in its abdicate its Constitutional
responsibility, and we’ll be paying the price for their irresponsibility for
decades to come.
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
| (...) The ostensible goal of Al Quadea is to create an international Islamic State by force. Since this would involve overturning the policies of nations and the acts of terror are (ostensibly) designed to create a situation in which this can happen (...) (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
|
|
|
|
