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 : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Michael Sphar who wrote (3268)	8/27/1998 3:07:00 AM
From: RJC2006	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

<<<I really think this is worthy of discussion by the Congress. They are the only ones who can confirm the President's desire. Their not taking up of this timely discussion says volumes about the President's recent declaration regarding Osama bin Laden as well as his ability to lead and remain in office. Even the conservative news media has remained silent on this issue of national policy. Looks like the tail wagged the dog. >>> "Declaring war on terrorism" as bellowed by the honorable Ms. Albright is nothing but sabre rattling. In the course of foreign relations it is affirmed only through a written proclamation by Congress. Ms. Albright's words are meant as rhetoric only and I took them as such. Congress may issue a declaration of war but to whom would we deliver such a proclamation? That is why retaliation toward terrorism may only be feasible through covert methods.

To: Michael Sphar who wrote (3268)	8/27/1998 9:36:00 AM
From: j_b	Respond to of 13994

<<First you say its illegal, then you say given plausible deniability you'd support it. Did I miss something >> Nope - Executive Orders don't make laws, so that one would be easy to circumvent - just repeal the order. As to international law - our security takes precedence over international law, IMHO. As is usual in my comments, I am speaking about concepts, not specific situations. Would I support targeting an individual or a small group in order to prevent further bomb attacks? Yes. Do I support the recent strikes? I'm not sure yet - still waiting for the evidence, but I support them in concept. Would I have supported an assassination of Hitler? Of course. The reason we need deniability, is that any action we take that can be traced to us has potential negative effects on the US that may outweigh the benefits gained from the strike. Just look at not only our strikes against perceived targets, but their responses. If we had actually destroyed the training camp, but left no way for it to be traced to us, we might have actually accomplished more. That's why I completely agree with your next point about it being a pertinent topic of discussion for the Congress.