Reply
Mon 27 Jul, 2009 05:56 pm
Can we remove "to use" in the clause "that allowed Bush to use the domestic use of the military..." and keep the original meaning intact?
Context:
Dispatching troops into the streets is virtually unheard of. The Constitution and various laws restrict the military from being used to conduct domestic raids and seize property.
According to the Times, Cheney and other Bush aides said an Oct. 23, 2001, Justice Department memo gave broad presidential authority that allowed Bush to use the domestic use of the military against al-Qaida if it was justified on the grounds of national security, rather than law enforcement.
Among those arguing for the military use besides Cheney were his legal adviser David S. Addington and some senior Defense Department officials, the Times reported.
Opposing the idea were Condoleezza Rice, then the national security adviser; John B. Bellinger III, the top lawyer at the National Security Council; FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III; and Michael Chertoff, then the head of the Justice Department's criminal division.
two different pronounciation for two different meanings:
U zzz
us-es
@oristarA,
I think not.
Here the phrase "
domestic use of the military" is being implicitly contrasted with "
foreign use of the military" against Al Qaida, which was already sanctioned.
@fresco,
...the key issue is whether the memo mentioned simply sanctioned "use of the military"...the two "uses" here imply that was the case.
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm
@oristarA,
oristarA wrote:Can we remove "to use" in the clause "that allowed Bush to use the domestic use of the military..." and keep the original meaning intact?
Yes. The meaning is still clear without it.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace