This is PandaUnite's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following PandaUnite's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
Did anyone read the transcript from the case in District Court? The Court: “When we are talking about cases which have used the phrase ‘substantially supported’ and said that that is a valid criterion under the AUMF or of the legislation, that’s not the same thing as saying that . . . any court has found, one way or the other, that ‘substantially supported’ has an understandable meaning to an ordinary citizen?” The Government: “It’s true that the courts have not expressly ruled that, that’s right.” The Court: Give me an example. Tell me what it means to substantially support associated forces. Government: I’m not in a position to give specific examples. The Court: Give me one. Government: I’m not in a position to give one specific example. Later… The Court: “Assume you were just an American citizen and you’re reading the statute and you wanted to make sure you do not run afoul of it because you are a diligent U.S. citizen wanting to stay on the right side of §1021, and you read the phrase ‘directly supported’. What does that mean to you?” Government: Again, it has to be taken in the context of armed conflict informed by the laws of war. Court: That’s fine. Tell me what that means? The Government: “I cannot offer a specific example. I don’t have a specific example.” Even now, the government refuses to define "substantial support" "direct support" and "belligerent act." It's absurd that the DOJ can say these plaintiffs have no case, the law practically applies to any and everyone.
PandaUnite is now following The Typepad Team
Nov 7, 2012