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.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GST who wrote (148056)	9/25/2002 11:23:12 AM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

Good article. Thanks for posting it. I think he is wrong about what Bush's real goal is, but he is right that regime change may be the necessary means of achieving the real goal - to render Saddam harmless. Anyway, I agree with his constitutional perspective on this. Bush has asked for authorization. If congress thinks he asked asked too broadly, then it is up to them to define the parameters that are acceptable to them and the American people. BTW, there was a very good article in today's WSJ on the legal/constitutional issues around whether or not UN authorization is necessary (as opposed to just important and helpful). Look for "War Is Not Against The Law" by Lee Casey and David Rivkin on the Opinion pages. The discussion of "anticipatory self-defense" is particularly interesting. Also interesting is the place of treaties (i.e. the UN Charter) in the constitutional order of things.