djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 10, 2014 0:30:05 GMT -5
that has nothing to do with it. you are supposed to be the adult in the room, not me. but thanks for confirming that you intend to not only not intervene in the personal battles, but actually contribute to them. not what i expected, but good to know. I didn't intervene in the "personal battles".................. if you don't mind, i am done with this discussion. i just asked you to not contribute to the flame war. you pretty clearly stated that you have no intention to do that. so, fine. i won't think of you as a moderator any more.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 10, 2014 0:40:54 GMT -5
You suppose that military officers are expected to question, second-guess and/or defy their superior officers more as they rise through the military ranks. Your supposition is ridiculous. i think they are in a better position to question. i also think they are in a position of authority. i didn't say defy. here, let me give you a civilian example. i have a production manager and a head of sales. if i say something STUPID to them, i EXPECT them to question the stupidity of that order. if they fail to do so, and it is a huge snafu, and then say "i knew it was going to go wrong, but i didn't say anything", i would fire them. immediately. if the military doesn't work that way, then i think there are serious problems with the military. if an officer can't even QUESTION his orders, then we are all doomed, imo. superiors don't know everything. they need to be questioned to maintain a grip on reality, imo. if that is ridiculous then i accept MY ridiculous over your "reality". shabbat shalom.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,483
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on May 10, 2014 5:29:00 GMT -5
... if i say something STUPID to them, i EXPECT them to question the stupidity of that order. ... But when questioned, are you open to that questioning?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on May 10, 2014 8:56:11 GMT -5
I didn't intervene in the "personal battles".................. if you don't mind, i am done with this discussion. i just asked you to not contribute to the flame war. you pretty clearly stated that you have no intention to do that. so, fine. i won't think of you as a moderator any more. You're still throwing punches. Finish this discussion by not replying to this comment. It's not a flame war, it's a handful of sarcastic remarks that you yourself use and that any P&M regular ought to be able to handle. And indeed you've never thought of me as a moderator. You've come at me dozens of times over the years. The number of times I've deleted your posts or rebuked you in the capacity of a moderator: zero. I want you to speak your mind without worrying if a bit of sarcasm is going to get your post axed. At the same time, I'd appreciate it if you could fall back to "That's uncalled for." or "Whatever, Virgil." rather than "You're a mod. I expect nothing but peaches and cream from you." when I post something rhetorical. Thanks in advance for ending the discussion. I'm sure there were plenty of questions. In conversations that went something like this: "Sir, are you sure this kind of interrogation is wise?" "No I'm not. But that's what the major handed down." "With all due respect, sir, torture violates our own regulations." "It isn't torture, commander, and will pass your concerns on to the major. In the meantime, when the orders come down I expect you to act on them. Is that understood?" "Yes sir." And like this: "Sir, are you sure this kind of interrogation is wise?" "No I'm not. But I trust the major." "With all due respect, sir, torture violates our own regulations." "That's what the major handed down. It's what needs to be done. He knows what he's doing and we're going to damn well do it for him. Do you have a problem with that, commander?" "No sir." And also like this: "Sir, are you sure this kind of interrogation is wise?" "I think it's the wisest damn thing we've done in a long time." "With all due respect, sir, torture violates our own regulations." "Eff the regulations. Effing ------s weren't flying 747's into buildings when some liberal ------ wrote the regs. We're going to do this, and we're going to get these ------s to talk." "Understood, sir." But somehow I don't picture them going like this: "Sir, are you sure this kind of interrogation is wise?" "No I'm not. But that's what the major handed down." "With all due respect, sir, torture violates our own regulations." "Chief is rewriting the regs. It's a new kind of war. New kind of enemy." "I can't be a part of it, sir. I can't do that to a man. I won't pass down a command to torture somebody." "When I giv- ... No. You know what, commander? I respect that. It's our moral responsibility not to follow questionable orders. You don't have to follow any order that violates your sense of moral decency. I'll just tell the major that we can't do it, and that'll be that." "Thank you, sir. I knew you'd understand." "Not a problem, commander. Now maybe you could put on a pot a tea and cook up a few of those apple fritters I hear are to die for." "Oh, sir, you're embarrassing me." "Oh no, don't be modest. I may just have to get the recipe from you." "The secret is the amount of butter you use..." Which brings us to the question: Which man has committed the greater sin? The man who carries out immoral orders from his superior, blindly accepting them as the right thing to do; or the man who analyzes his orders, deems them immoral, and strenuously objects to their implementation, but then goes ahead and carries them out anyway?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,483
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on May 10, 2014 9:23:12 GMT -5
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,483
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on May 10, 2014 9:27:37 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 10, 2014 13:48:54 GMT -5
if you don't mind, i am done with this discussion. i just asked you to not contribute to the flame war. you pretty clearly stated that you have no intention to do that. so, fine. i won't think of you as a moderator any more. You're still throwing punches. Finish this discussion by not replying to this comment.? you thought that was a punch? trust me, my friend, that was a velvet glove.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 10, 2014 13:56:04 GMT -5
I'm sure there were plenty of questions. In conversations that went something like this: "Sir, are you sure this kind of interrogation is wise?" "No I'm not. But that's what the major handed down." "With all due respect, sir, torture violates our own regulations." "It isn't torture, commander, and will pass your concerns on to the major. In the meantime, when the orders come down I expect you to act on them. Is that understood?" "Yes sir. But with all due respect, when a person dies during interrogation, i think we can safely call it torture. I feel it is my duty to inform you of that, so that you can carry that message to the Major. He should be made aware that we are not just talking about some waterboarding here. If we were, I would not have even brought it up." "Will there be anything further?" "No, sir"
bold inclusions by me..... inferiors have the duty to question orders if they seem to contravene the UMC and the GC. i feel comfortable saying that this is not just desirable, it is demanded.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 10, 2014 13:58:17 GMT -5
But somehow I don't picture them going like this: "Sir, are you sure this kind of interrogation is wise?" "No I'm not. But that's what the major handed down." "With all due respect, sir, torture violates our own regulations." "Chief is rewriting the regs. It's a new kind of war. New kind of enemy." "I can't be a part of it, sir. I can't do that to a man. I won't pass down a command to torture somebody." "When I giv- ... No. You know what, commander? I respect that. neither do i. but not voicing any objection is not how i would expect it to go, either.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 10, 2014 14:05:43 GMT -5
Which brings us to the question: Which man has committed the greater sin? The man who carries out immoral orders from his superior, blindly accepting them as the right thing to do; or the man who analyzes his orders, deems them immoral, and strenuously objects to their implementation, but then goes ahead and carries them out anyway? i don't think this is a fair characterization about what happened. i have tried to present the case as i see it. are you familiar with the concept of "exigent circumstances"? there is a moral case that can be built from the "24" scenario: that you have a ticking time bomb, and a suspect with information that can disarm it. that is the situation that was presented in Bagram. it is "moral"* in that situation to torture. however, anyone who questions such things can readily see that this is a very fragile scenario, built on a whole host of assumptions- chief among them is that the person being questioned actually HAS that information. ultimately, i am not excusing them, Virgil. none of them. but the SCALE with which this is done is important to me. it is not just a few bad eggs as Rumsfeld liked to say. it is a system. it was designed (very poorly, imo) by planners way up the chain, and implemented by hapless patriots trying to do the right thing for their fellow servicemen and women. a few bad eggs would be disgraceful, and the hatchet should fall hard on them for it. but if this is a whole SYSTEM, then the planners of that system should pay first, then work your way down. otherwise, what happens is that the system stays in place, and the planners go merrily along, saying how great the system is working now that the few bad eggs have been purged from it. that is PRECISELY what happened, Virgil. they found out all of the horrific details, they "purged" a few bad eggs, and then they pretended that this was not a systemic problem, and kept right on going. this either shows an alarmingly narrow scope of inquiry, or it shows something approaching evil, either of which are criminal, imo.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on May 10, 2014 23:21:16 GMT -5
You have an asterisk but no footnote.
Unless the footnote is "*'moral' may not actually be moral", I disagree. I don't believe torture is moral in any circumstances, even if a nuclear bomb is about to go off in Times Square and the suspect knows the disarm code with 100% certainty.
This view is based on my religious faith, hence I understand why pragmatists would think differently.
Sure. I agree.
Our difference of opinion is over whose actions are damnable. You've stated that you hold the commanders in contempt but not the soldiers at the bottom of the pyramid. And in fact you've expressed a great deal of sympathy for the soldiers. Many of your characterizations, like "impossible circumstances", are downright apologetic.
I get that you don't want the commanders to evade worldly judgment, and I understand. I get that you feel the commanders are more to blame than the soldiers, and I understand that too.
What I don't understand is the stark black/white divide in your views on the two. You've expressed nothing but bitter contempt for the commanders (which presumably includes everybody down to but not including the soldiers actually carrying out the torture). But for the soldiers themselves, although you've perfunctorily acknowledged that they're "guilty as hell", your expositions have thus far excused their conduct (please point out any exceptions if I'm wrong on this).
To me, they're all equally guilty. From the very top to the very bottom, every man's conduct is equally damnable.
I sense you're judging them based on their degree of repentance rather than their degree of culpability. You've watched documentaries where soldiers who tortured men to death tearfully repent of those sins by turning completely away from them. You feel sorry for these men. At the same time you've watched unrepentant men like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld who insist (and no doubt actually believe) that their policies were both necessary and commendable. You hold these men in contempt.
But the repentant/unrepentant divide doesn't line up with the commander/solider divide. There are undoubtedly soldiers who feel no remorse whatsoever for their actions, and commanders who deeply regret their role and would resign before crossing that line again. I can appreciate discriminating between repentant and unrepentant parties, but let's be honest about why we're discriminating. If we don't, all we're doing is contriving reasons why the big, bad commanders should all get theirs while the lowly soldiers are patriotic "GOOD MEN".
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 10, 2014 23:24:04 GMT -5
You have an asterisk but no footnote. no, there is a footnote. it is in the "edit" box. edit: oh crap! it disappeared when i did a second edit! GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 10, 2014 23:25:33 GMT -5
Our difference of opinion is over whose actions are damnable. You've stated that you hold the commanders in contempt but not the soldiers at the bottom of the pyramid. . did i? i only remember saying that the heads at the top should fall first. oh, i remember saying that the guys at the bottom were "guilty as hell", but apparently the swearing threw you off?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on May 10, 2014 23:33:40 GMT -5
did i? i only remember saying that the heads at the top should fall first. oh, i remember saying that the guys at the bottom were "guilty as hell", but apparently the swearing threw you off? No, and I've acknowledged that you perfunctorily mention "guilty as hell". But it's three words immediately followed by a whole paragraph arguing why the soldiers aren't as guilty as the commanders, which can be added to the 20+ paragraphs in your other posts that fit with that theme.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 10, 2014 23:39:50 GMT -5
did i? i only remember saying that the heads at the top should fall first. oh, i remember saying that the guys at the bottom were "guilty as hell", but apparently the swearing threw you off? No, and I've acknowledged that you perfunctorily mention "guilty as hell". But it's three words immediately followed by a whole paragraph arguing why the soldiers aren't as guilty as the commanders, which can be added to the 20+ paragraphs in your other posts that fit with that theme. no. it is followed by a paragraph expressing outrage for how nobody higher than the rank of Sargent was ever held to account for this stuff. Virgil- it is TRUE that i have expressed a lot more sympathy for the rank and file than for the commanders. i will grant you that. but what i have said is that they should all be punished STARTING at the top. if i have not made that completely clear before now, let it be clear now, so we don't have to have another page of posts about this. tyia
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on May 11, 2014 5:54:34 GMT -5
Clarification acknowledged.
Don't act so shocked that I didn't pick up on it. You didn't bring it up until Reply #101, where it's only a brief remark.
A lot more. "The higher-ups that should have their necks rung" versus "hapless patriots trying to do the right thing for their fellow servicemen and women" more (your words, not mine).
I have no issue with condemning the higher-ups along with the rank-and-file or with executing judgment from the top down, but by no means should it become less punitive at any point. If Pres. Bush and Dick Cheney were to face war crimes charges, they'd be up there along with everyone else involved, all the way down to the "hapless patriots" holding the thumbscrews.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 11, 2014 11:30:49 GMT -5
Clarification acknowledged. Don't act so shocked that I didn't pick up on it. You didn't bring it up until Reply #101, where it's only a brief remark. A lot more. "The higher-ups that should have their necks rung" versus "hapless patriots trying to do the right thing for their fellow servicemen and women" more (your words, not mine). I have no issue with condemning the higher-ups along with the rank-and-file or with executing judgment from the top down, but by no means should it become less punitive at any point. If Pres. Bush and Dick Cheney were to face war crimes charges, they'd be up there along with everyone else involved, all the way down to the "hapless patriots" holding the thumbscrews. i am just sick and tired of petty officials (in many cases, resistant and skeptical ones) being made into fall guys, Virgil. meanwhile, the enthusiastic orchetrators of the policy are on the TALK SHOW CIRCUIT explaining why Obama is a pansy for not waterboarding. frustrated doesn't even come close to expressing my feelings about that.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 9, 2014 1:03:15 GMT -5
8 months later, 90% of the report redacted, it is apparently coming out tomorrow.
hopefully we can square ourselves with this horrific practice, finally.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 9, 2014 1:35:28 GMT -5
really good OP-Ed in WaPo today: www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/08/the-insane-narrative-you-are-supposed-to-believe-about-the-torture-report/the closing paragraph is a zinger (regarding Kerry calling to Feinstein to ask her to delay the publication of the report): I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that if Dianne Feinstein, Lindsey Graham, and the director of Human Rights Watch all think the report is necessary to prevent the United States from committing the same egregious mistakes in the future, then that countermands the magical thinking needed to accept the worst-case scenarios regarding its publication.
Am I missing anything?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 9, 2014 17:46:09 GMT -5
so, the CIA lied to the media and the American public, tortured innocents, and got almost no actionable intelligence, and a great deal of bad intelligence through torture.
and no comments?
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,901
|
Post by happyhoix on Dec 9, 2014 18:06:18 GMT -5
Well, I remember back when the issue of water boarding first came up and McCain was on the stump talking about how torture never ever got a piece of decent intelligence out of anyone and moreover would encourage our enemies to torture our own POWs in retaliation so we should cut that shit out.
Or words to that effect.
I agreed with him completely, especially since he's a former POW himself. The fact that this report confirms that torture was pointless and brutal isn't a surprise, just a sad confirmation.
I wonder if this will lead to more violence from our enemies abroad, like what happened when the those cartoons came out.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 9, 2014 18:10:51 GMT -5
really? we probably have 5000 posts about Benghazi on this board, railing against the current administration for the loss of one life. yet with over 100 lives lost in Bagram and elsewhere in this shitty, ill conceived program, how many posts have we got? 100?
wtf?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,483
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Dec 9, 2014 18:37:58 GMT -5
Yeah
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 9, 2014 19:00:08 GMT -5
i read that, and about ten other articles last night.
i think the MSM did an excellent job of covering this. however, i was disappointed that none mentioned the NON-CIA torturing that went on, as well, even in passing. people were hung by their wrists and BEATEN TO DEATH in Bagram. if the CIA didn't do some of that, i would be a little surprised, given all of the gross stuff in this report.
oh well. torture a bunch of brown people, killing over 100, many of whom were completely innocent? no problem. but when a bunch of brown guys kill a white guy, we must have 8 hearings and thousands of hours of talking heads commiserating over it, and threats of impeachment of sitting officials.
Bush and Cheney should have their vocal chords removed. their defense of the indefensible is almost as repugnant as the torture they authorized.
disgraceful.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 10, 2014 12:08:46 GMT -5
8 months later, 90% of the report redacted, it is apparently coming out tomorrow. hopefully we can square ourselves with this horrific practice, finally. A good summary, for those interested: www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-12-09/torture-executive-summaryYou win our debate. They really do seem to have done it for no reason besides Mr. Cheney et al. demanding they do it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 10, 2014 12:14:40 GMT -5
8 months later, 90% of the report redacted, it is apparently coming out tomorrow. hopefully we can square ourselves with this horrific practice, finally. A good summary, for those interested: www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-12-09/torture-executive-summaryYou win our debate. They really do seem to have done it for no reason besides Mr. Cheney et al. demanding they do it. to cut them the tiniest slack: i think they panicked. they were TRYING to do the right thing. but they failed miserably. thanks for the post, Virgil. i find this whole nasty episode very disturbing.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 10, 2014 12:16:34 GMT -5
PS- that ZeroHedge summary is FANTASTIC. seriously. FAN_TASTIC!
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 10, 2014 12:17:47 GMT -5
so, the question is now:
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
any guesses?
trials? nothing? presidential pardons?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 10, 2014 12:25:57 GMT -5
so, the question is now: WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? any guesses? trials? nothing? presidential pardons? The pardons were preemptive. I have it in my heap o' bookmarks somewhere and can't find it now, but Pres. Bush et al. passed laws before they left office indemnifying them from prosecution for war crimes, including authorization of torture. I remember it clearly because the media essentially buried the story (it was all about "Hope and Change" in those days), but even some prominent Republicans were making hay about "How on Earth is Pres. Bush allowed to do this?" Let's just say that if any trials take place, they won't take place in the US.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 10, 2014 12:28:06 GMT -5
so, the question is now: WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? any guesses? trials? nothing? presidential pardons? The pardons were preemptive. I have it in my heap o' bookmarks somewhere and can't find it now, but Pres. Bush et al. passed laws before they left office indemnifying them from prosecution for war crimes, including authorization of torture. I remember it clearly because the media essentially buried the story (it was all about "Hope and Change" in those days), but even some prominent Republicans were making hay about "How on Earth is Pres. Bush allowed to do this?" Let's just say that if any trials take place, they won't take place in the US. i remember that, but i am not sure how broad the coverage is, and i am not sure that another law, or a challenge in the courts could not overturn it.
|
|