LawTalkers - Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)

- Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)

- - Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005. (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=681)

Scrushy walks.

While he almost certainly engaged in some of the criminal acts as charged, it is refreshing to see the Government lose one. We wouldn't want to embolden the tyrrany of white collar prosecution anymore than it already has been.

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Scrushy walks.

While he almost certainly engaged in some of the criminal acts as charged, it is refreshing to see the Government lose one. We wouldn't want to embolden the tyrrany of white collar prosecution anymore than it already has been.

More tyranny I like

Law suits and the President

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Nice try Sidd, but what is "defence services" :

4(a)(2)(A) The President is authorized to direct the drawdown of defense articles from the stocks of the Department of Defense, defense services of the Department of Defense, and military education and training for such organizations.

It is the provision of troops. Clearly.

It would be clear except for the specific language in Section 8 saying no use of US armed forces. One of the canons of statutory construction is that specific language controls over more general language.

Clearly.

Law suits and the President

Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
It would be clear except for the specific language in Section 8 saying no use of US armed forces. One of the canons of statutory construction is that specific language controls over more general language.

Clearly.

Oops.

I was just pimping Slave's act there. I didn't actually read the language.

More tyranny I like

Law suits and the President

Quote:

Amazing -- you purport to quote, but you doctor the quote. The statute, as quoted by slave, says "defense articles." Not "defense services."

Does the local GOP teach a course in lying like this? Or did you and Slave share the same reading teacher? (quick, say she was in a union).

"Defense articles" that are kept in "stockpiles" and assigned a dollar value means equipment. End of story.

Law suits and the President

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Oops.

I was just pimping Slave's act there. I didn't actually read the language.

You read it enough to doctor the quote, and change "defense articles" to "defense services."

But I'm glad to see that, now that I've quoted Section 8 twice, Slave once, and Wonk once, you've gotten around to reading it.

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Scrushy walks.

Meanwhile, prosecutors seek life for Ebbers. Ouch.

More tyranny I like

Law suits and the President

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Amazing -- you purport to quote, but you doctor the quote. The statute, as quoted by slave, says "defense articles." Not "defense services."

Does the local GOP teach a course in lying like this? Or did you and Slave share the same reading teacher? (quick, say she was in a union).

"Defense articles" that are kept in "stockpiles" and assigned a dollar value means equipment. End of story.

My apologies to Penske -- he didn't doctor the quote, he just bolded the part that sort of fit his argument.

But, as he has acknowledged, it doesn't fit his argument. Section 8 makes it abundantly clear that the notion that Bush was merely following Clinton's policy is, at best, laughable.

More tyranny I like

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I thought you were for state's rights. You Republicans are so confusing.

I am, for rights not tyranny. that said I hope the state of NH shoves its tyrannical arm up Souter's ass and rips his fucking tongue out. And then takes his land.

Law suits and the President

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
My apologies to Penske -- he didn't doctor the quote, he just bolded the part that sort of fit his argument.

But, as he has acknowledged, it doesn't fit his argument. Section 8 makes it abundantly clear that the notion that Bush was merely following Clinton's policy is, at best, laughable.

Concur. Clearly your apology indicates that you are a bigger man than Hillary, notwithstanding the picture on the adult board.

Law suits and the President

Quote:

Sidd Finch
You read it enough to doctor the quote, and change "defense articles" to "defense services."

But I'm glad to see that, now that I've quoted Section 8 twice, Slave once, and Wonk once, you've gotten around to reading it.

For the love of Pete.

The relevant exact language is - one more time - as follows:

Quote:

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (PL 105-338)

October 31, 1998

* * *

SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAQ.

It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.

* * *

SEC. 4. ASSISTANCE TO SUPPORT A TRANSITION TO DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ.

(a) AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE- The President may provide to the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations designated in accordance with section 5 the following assistance:

(2) MILITARY ASSISTANCE

(A) The President is authorized to direct the drawdown of defense articles from the stocks of the Department of Defense, defense services of the Department of Defense, and military education and training for such organizations.

(B) The aggregate value (as defined in section 644(m) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961) of assistance provided under this paragraph may not exceed $97,000,000.

* * *

SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.

So, in 1998 during the Clinton Administration, Congress declared it the express will of the US Government to both (i) remove Hussein from power and (ii) promote a democratic government in his stead.

They also EXPRESSLY authorized the use of "Military Assistance" in several guises, including the authorization of "defense services".

Now, I will grant you that this initial act does not appear to authorize the full-on invasion of Iraq (this comes later - please recall folks like Kerry, who voted for it, until he didn't).

Yet it does 2 things.

1) It authorizes the initial use of "boots on the ground"

2) It establishes the the Federal Government has been eyeing the removal of Hussein by much more than "economic" measures for some time long before the presidency of big, bad "Lyin King" George

Law suits and the President

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
So, in 1998 during the Clinton Administration, Congress declared it the express will of the US Government to both (i) remove Hussein from power and (ii) promote a democratic government in his stead.

They also EXPRESSLY authorized the use of "Military Assistance" in several guises, including the authorization of "defense services".

Now, I will grant you that this initial act does not appear to authorize the full-on invasion of Iraq (this comes later - please recall folks like Kerry, who voted for it, until he didn't).

Yet it does 2 things.

1) It authorizes the initial use of "boots on the ground"

2) It establishes the the Federal Government has been eyeing the removal of Hussein by much more than "economic" measures for some time long before the presidency of big, bad "Lyin King" George

So what?