[detbuch]

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
spence - pls, pls. don't respond to that. Enough band width has been wasted.

Spence reply:
"I can't, it takes too long just to read it let alone formulate a response"


Let me make it easy for you. I'll break it down into little parts. Try answering this part, if you can:

Originally Posted by spence View Post
"(1) In 2002 Bush's legal council wrote a letter stating why they believed EIT's under a certain definition wouldn't be considered torture. This was the justification I believe for all further orders. This doesn't make the actions legal."

Detbuch response:
"Well, it does, or it doesn't. It depends on which higher authority, if there is one, or higher law the actions are in accord or disagreement with. For instance, when Obama creates executive orders which are not in accord with or in opposition to the higher constitutional law, they would not be legal. But if the Constitution is not considered a higher authority or law than that which Obama and the progressive movement he belongs to consider to be an overriding concept (or law) of 'social justice,' then his executive orders, and all the past 100 years of progressively overriding constitutional law in order to achieve their notion of social justice, are considered, by them, to be legal."

Is that too long for you to formulate a response? If not, give it a go.