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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: wonk who wrote (109768)	4/25/2009 11:42:57 AM
From: Bread Upon The Water	Respond to of 543349

Not applicable here unless you can them before some international tribunal.

To: wonk who wrote (109768)	4/25/2009 11:59:50 AM
From: Bread Upon The Water	Respond to of 543349

Check my last answer--it is in the right forum, what you posted, the debate and the article--a federal forum, but it is still a debate. It's all about what constitutes "torture". So I'm still going to go with my first response on the unconstitutional vagueness of the statute. You will always be able to find opposing legal views on it that try and and define it down based on this and that, but in the end we're going to be left with conflicting legal opinions. It would take a US Supreme Court decision to resolve it--IMH legal opinion. The remedy is to rewrite the statute. And if they want to hold public hearings to expose what went on that might be effective, but I imagine without a grant of immunity a lot of witnesses would take the fifth.