Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (41376)	9/1/2002 1:51:28 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

You are completely misreading the statute. I hate to parse its meaning with you since I do so for a living but the operative word as it relates to our present discussion about Saddam is "harbored". If Saddam harbored AQ before 9/11, Bush is authorized to attack Iraq. There is no requirement that the "harboring" be related to 9/11 since, logically, such "harboring" would amount to providing aid, and providing aid is covered elsewhere in the statute. Guess who determines whether Iraq has "harbored" AQ? Congress has delegated that function to the President. The intent of the law is to delegate to the President sufficient war-making power to prevent future attacks. It's obvious that the use of the past tense of the verb "harbor" was conscious as any nation that has harbored AQ in the past can reasonably be presumed to do so in the future. I agree with the lawyers who have determined that Bush has enough authority now to attack Iraq if he makes a finding that it harbored AQ prior to 9/11.