So when is it not?
Every time we change political parties it seems each one wants to
rewrite what has already taken place.
Stewart
At 04:49 PM 5/17/2009, you wrote:
To a point you're right. But what's being argued is the
interpretation of the controlling law. And if that interpretation was
manipulated to suit the desires of a few.
On May 17, 2009, at 8:11 AM, Matthew Taylor wrote:
I am not legally twisting anything, nor am I supporting the
policy. You are simply starting from a conclusion and rejecting
any logic incompatible with your conclusion. That has not place in
law or science.
I am not arguing what we did or did not do was right. I am not
arguing what we did was useful. Neither of those opinions informs
a discussion of what the controlling law is.
Matthew
On May 16, 2009, at 11:35 PM, Jeff Miles wrote:
And so legally you twist the definition because certain members
of the military agreed to have it done to them with their
training. What contract did the prisoners at Guantanamo(sp) sign?
And what about the law against any contract under duress? The
argument is BS.
Jeff M
Rev. Stewart A. Marshall
mailto:popoz...@earthlink.net
Prince of Peace www.princeofpeaceozark.org
Ozark, AL SL 82
*************************************************************************
** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy **
** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ **
*************************************************************************
