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 (41402)	9/1/2002 4:42:11 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Of course, harboring requires that refuge be volitionally provided. Otherwise, it's simply not harboring. What it does not require is any assistance or involvement in the actual proscribed act. I think you have the concepts straight. What I'm trying to make clear is that the statute requires a "finding" by W that Iraq harbored AQ prior to 9/11. He would then be legally authorized to use force against Iraq. It's not that difficult. I think it will be a cinch for W to find that Iraq "harbored" AQ for purposes of the statute. If he does, he has all the legal authority he needs to go after Saddam. You may not know it, but you seem to agree with the interpretation, though you don't think that W has enough facts at hand to issue an Executive Finding. I disagree with you, and think he probably does. However, he obviously cannot ignore political considerations before unleashing the dogs of war.