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 : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (5874)	1/18/2004 9:29:53 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20773

I think if we limit the scope of the conversation to the context of the article, I think a case can be made that it is unconstitutional to be in the War and that significant constitutional questions remain regarding Patriot Act, especially if there was an intent to deceive Congress to rush its approval. I don't think the author meant the way he flossed his teeth or kissed his wife was unconstitutional as that was not the subject of the discussion. IF he lied to Congress and was on a personal mission to deal with Iraq on his own terms and didn't give a darn about creating powers he shouldn't have, then EVERY action justified by the false case for war would be unconstitutional. I believe that was the context and that is sound. Congress has a reasonable expectation that its will won't be manipulated by fraudulent data. Incorrect facts were given. So, we have either criminal intent, honest mistakes, incompetence, dereliction or treason as possible interpretations. There are probably some more and Congress should be asking the questions.