Difference between revisions of "Talk:LL(k) ---- LL(1) Parsers"
(I'd like to cancel this standing order http://www.pesolamedia.com/best-essay-help/ writing assignments service Market chatter that Batista is looking for potential buyersof OGX's other offshore oil f) |
(I don't know what I want to do after university <a href=" http://www.afsbt.org/index.php/wellbutrin-xl-150-mg-cost ">used teva/impax generic wellbutrin xl 300mg pulled from us market on non-bioequival) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | I' | + | I don't know what I want to do after university <a href=" http://www.afsbt.org/index.php/wellbutrin-xl-150-mg-cost ">used teva/impax generic wellbutrin xl 300mg pulled from us market on non-bioequivalence grounds wren occasioned</a> Does the US Constitution not apply to Bradley Manning - i.e. the right to a fair trial, in a reasonable timeframe, without torture etc. (sorry I can't quote it but I know what it says)? After all, his pre-trial treatment has been classified as torture, and it exceeded the length of time that a person should have to wait to be tried. What about the part of the constitution that allows freedom of expression and being able to protect yourself from a corrupt government who are doing illegal acts? Why can't Bradley Manning use the US Constitution as his defense? Does joining the US military mean that the US Constitution no longer applies to him? Just because he signed a contract, surely still, the highest law of the land is the Constitution? I just would like an explanation of how what he did was illegal, when, by applying the US Constitution to his case, then surely what he did was perfectly legal. I don't get how they reconcile the two, if you could explain that I'd much appreciate it. Thanks. |
Revision as of 07:33, 7 December 2014
I don't know what I want to do after university <a href=" http://www.afsbt.org/index.php/wellbutrin-xl-150-mg-cost ">used teva/impax generic wellbutrin xl 300mg pulled from us market on non-bioequivalence grounds wren occasioned</a> Does the US Constitution not apply to Bradley Manning - i.e. the right to a fair trial, in a reasonable timeframe, without torture etc. (sorry I can't quote it but I know what it says)? After all, his pre-trial treatment has been classified as torture, and it exceeded the length of time that a person should have to wait to be tried. What about the part of the constitution that allows freedom of expression and being able to protect yourself from a corrupt government who are doing illegal acts? Why can't Bradley Manning use the US Constitution as his defense? Does joining the US military mean that the US Constitution no longer applies to him? Just because he signed a contract, surely still, the highest law of the land is the Constitution? I just would like an explanation of how what he did was illegal, when, by applying the US Constitution to his case, then surely what he did was perfectly legal. I don't get how they reconcile the two, if you could explain that I'd much appreciate it. Thanks.
