“You could almost see their dicks getting hard as they got new ideas." A Vanity Fair reporter investigates the chain of command that tossed out the Geneva Conventions and instituted coercive interrogation techniques — some might call them tortu…

And the liberal blogosphere, those folks who are always looking to the future (sic), are all up in arms about just how darned mean we were to the people who behead people with knives, set roadside bombs, oh, and fly planes into our buildings, killing 3…

… in its latest attempt to argue for 5th, 8th, and 14th Amendment rights to foreign terrorist detainees being held outside of the United States. The same old tired arguments keep playing with the ACLU. I thought they were an organization looking …

I don’t expect too many of you to agree with me about the shame I believe that John Yoo and the Bush Administration has brought upon America as a result of their attempt to legally justify the torture of prisoners. From what I’ve been read…

Of course it’s not too subtle for the American Media. However, it would mean they can’t write stories or books or pontificate endlessly in Congress about a DICTATORIAL (republican) PRESIDENCY!

Not forgetting the ratbags who release a slanted view of the information to the press.

The so-called “torture memo” released by the Pentagon has the uber “Terrorists Rights before Naitonal Security” usual suspects huffing and puffing, but it’s really much to do about nothing.
“The Justice Department la…

Private citizens can defend themselves if they’re attacked. The law permits people to do that. E.g., necessity defense, self-defense, et cetera.

But if Congress passes a law or the US signs a treaty that becomes law, the President must abide by those laws.

Again, the question is whether those laws/statutes violate the Constitutionally-given powers to the president.

They may be stupid laws, immoral laws, dumb laws, but that’s what the rule of law means.

SteveMG on April 2, 2008 at 10:07 AM

And laws are not made to be holy.

The Constitution was amended.

Laws can be modified or deleted.

Nothing is sacred that is made by men.

What’s wrong is wrong and should be corrected.

And preventing the U.S. government from taking any action to defend the citizens is wrong.

The president should have available laws that give him the power to defend the American people by using any possible mean.

Heck, if the Constitution needs to be amended to protect the American people, so be it.

What’s more important? The Constitution which is a piece of paper or the life of a human being that is lost because of that piece of paper?

Did we reach a time where a piece of paper or law can kill a human being or prevent his or her defense?

That’s why we will not win. Because we don’t dare adjust to the new reality. We don’t have the guts.

Mass-murder was in our home and we’re still debating how to be gentle and kind with terrorists who want to mass-murder more of us.

What a sissy nation!

If I have the right to defend my home and shoot a trespasser, kidnapper or anyone who threatens me and my family, then America, as a nation, should have the right to do the same.

Private citizens can defend themselves if they’re attacked. The law permits people to do that. E.g., necessity defense, self-defense, et cetera.

But if Congress passes a law or the US signs a treaty that becomes law, the President must abide by those laws.

Again, the question is whether those laws/statutes violate the Constitutionally-given powers to the president.

They may be stupid laws, immoral laws, dumb laws, but that’s what the rule of law means.

I would not give a damn about laws, memos, the media or anyone, I would do anything and everything to make the son of bitch talk

.

Yes, but you’re not sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution.

If you’re the president and the Constitution forbids you from doing “A”, you can’t do “A” no matter how appropriate “A” may be.

The question is whether “A” is permissible or not.

SteveMG on April 2, 2008 at 9:48 AM

I don’t believe in this bullcrap. If I have the right to defend my home and shoot a trespasser, kidnapper or anyone who threatens me and my family, then America, as a nation, should have the right to do the same.

Whatever existing laws that prevent America from saving the lives of her citizens by using any means, do not make any sense, should be revised, modified or deleted from the Books.

What kind of a nation where its promulgates laws that are hindering saving the lives of its own citizens?

In most stories, right wingers hate it when our side say how things are complicated, come in many shades of gray, etc. As Bush said “You are either with us or against us”, as if no other positions exist. It seems to me that in general, Righ…

I would not give a damn about laws, memos, the media or anyone, I would do anything and everything to make the son of bitch talk

.

Yes, but you’re not sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution.

If you’re the president and the Constitution forbids you from doing “A”, you can’t do “A” no matter how appropriate “A” may be.

The question is whether “A” is permissible or not.

Now, imagine this:

That victim is the American people and the killers are the Muslim terrorists.

And surely, you don’t need an imagination to see reality, although many are still blind.

because the president’s ultimate authority as commander in chief overrode such statutes.

Notice that they didn’t mention the Constitution as the source of that “ultimate authority”. And those powers didn’t “override” such statutes. Such statutes, according to Yoo’s legal analysis, were un-Constitutional limits on the executives powers.

Rightly argued or not, Yoo’s role was to provide his best analysis on the legal issues re the powers of the commander in chief. He didn’t say – nor should he – whether rough interrogation techniques were good or bad or moral or immoral or just or unjust. His job was to determine whether the President had the authority granted by the Constitution to authorize such techniques.

“I think Congress should have the ability to set boundaries on war practices without going to the option of a Constitutional amendment to put them in place, and in that sense, Yoo’s analysis seems faulty — but it’s also not indefensible.”

Congress “setting boundaries” on war practices? Even from an historical prepective Ed, this would never have worked had the legislative branch been involved in the decisions of how wars are prosecuted. What if Truman had to seek the approval of congress to drop two bombs that ended our war with Japan? There are endless examples that enforce the premise that our founding fathers believed that once congress authorized, the executive, (C in C), should be in charge of the prosecution.