[QUOTE=JaredM]
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by yguy
No, I'm saying they had to invade in order to attack.
If I recall correctly, the 19 hijackers came here legally...no invasion necessary.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by yguy
No more than that is necessary, since the potential for destruction is comparable to that from an invasion as traditionally defined.
|
The clause doesn't say anything about "potential" invasion |
What a coincidence. Neither did I.
Quote:
|
or rebellion, much less terrorist activity.
|
Oh. Then maybe the first amendment
does apply only to print media.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by yguy
Or, your definition of "invasion" stretches credibility.
|
Um, no. The terror attack was not an "invasion"
|
And I never said it was, as you know very well.
Quote:
|
any more than the Vinnie Vincent Invasion was...and they even called themselves by the term (and were almost as big of a disaster).
|
I don't know who these guys are, and I don't care...but are you actually drawing a comparison between an "invasion" by a rock group and the preparation for and execution of the 9/11 attacks?
Quote:
|
By your definition, the entrance of a single alien, lawful or unlawful, who harboted some criminal intent, would be sufficient to suspend the Great Writ.
|
Not just criminal intent, but the intent to do harm to the United States. Even a serial murderer doesn't necessarily meet that criterion.