|
I found this as part of another article...
"Pentagon officials still insist Rumsfeld acted legally, but admit it all depends on how you interpret the law"
All this legal wrangling and re-definition reminds me of "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is."
It seems like the administration is busily interpreting laws in new and innovative ways to justify immoral acts. Remember a few weeks ago when memos were revealed that showed how they were trying to justify torture? Cheney energy commision? US citizens as "enemy combatants" held indefinitly without charges? The list goes on and on.
The only good thing I can think is that it's starting to seem like a house of cards that's collapsing. Faster, faster.
|