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: carranza2 who wrote (41382)	9/1/2002 2:03:48 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

I'm not misreading the statute if, as you say, the correct reading is the Bush lawyer reading. Much turns on the meaning of the term "harboring," if we are going to get really lawyerly about it. I assume it means "knowingly" not just hiding out. But the most important point about the language of that statute will be its political meaning. So far the mainstream interpretation, skip the Bush one because it's terribly self interested and if it were Clinton lawyers you guys would be all over it, is that without a tie to 9-11, an invasion of Iraq requires a Congressional consent. And the more important, yet indeterminate part of all this, is just what it takes for the country to feel the invasion is so critical that it sticks with Bush on the second round of very bad news. Going with lawyerly interpretations won't do the trick. And the Bush folk should worry about that.