I never mentioned any particular pol in my replies. None can be trusted and even if they were trustworthy today it doesn’t mean they will be tomorrow. So, lets stick to the facts. In my last reply I said ‘They’ll define it however they please to suit their agenda de jour. Remember if they get their way then its their defn which prevails w/o any further review. How are you seeing this as not a bad thing??’
Can you answer my question rationally? If so Id like to hear it.
Rationality was, I believe, implicit in both my answers. Sticking to the facts: the fact that the rational relation of “associated entities” with the clearly defined “covered persons” (AQ and Taliban) militates against expanding that definition was, I thought, fairly clear. The executors of this law cannot say, e.g., the San Antonio Spurs or the Tea Party Patriots are an “associated entity” of AQ and thereby make it so.