NCAAbbs

Part two of Barton Gellman's expose on Cheney.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/ch...index.html

Quote:The vice president's lawyer advocated what was considered the memo's most radical claim: that the president may authorize any interrogation method, even if it crosses the line into torture. U.S. and treaty laws forbidding any person to "commit torture," that passage stated, "do not apply" to the commander in chief, because Congress "may no more regulate the President's ability to detain and interrogate enemy combatants than it may regulate his ability to direct troop movements on the battlefield."

This is the most scary thing I think I've ever read. Mainly because I don't think the term "enemy combatant" has ever existed before September 12, 2001 and they are just making it up as they go. What's to stop them from declaring me an enemy combatant and shipping me to Cuba?

Nothing. No Habeas Corpus. No trial. No lawyer. No due process under the law. Nit.

Ask Jose Padilla.

mixduptransistor Wrote:

Quote:The vice president's lawyer advocated what was considered the memo's most radical claim: that the president may authorize any interrogation method, even if it crosses the line into torture. U.S. and treaty laws forbidding any person to "commit torture," that passage stated, "do not apply" to the commander in chief, because Congress "may no more regulate the President's ability to detain and interrogate enemy combatants than it may regulate his ability to direct troop movements on the battlefield."

This is the most scary thing I think I've ever read. Mainly because I don't think the term "enemy combatant" has ever existed before September 12, 2001 and they are just making it up as they go. What's to stop them from declaring me an enemy combatant and shipping me to Cuba?

The sky is falling, the sky is falling!! The term "enemy combatant" has existed for centuries. It was really born when warfare spilled out of the nice, neat formations of the battlefield and became what would be called "total warfare". Personally, I think it's scarier to think that someone could flaunt the rules of modern society, killing and maiming at will, and then claim "Geneva conventions" or human decency when caught...essentially tying our hands from preventing further bloodshed. Our enemies, who really exist whether you want to acknowledge they do or not, not only know the rules are different for us, they are counting on that fact. Anyways, I've put myself out here for the Libertarian pile-on so enjoy. I'm just glad that none of you will ever be President (and, actually, if you were I think the first intelligence briefing you attended would change your outlook completely).

So, just because the enemy breaks the rules means we should? Two wrongs don't make a right. Being able to just arbitrarily label someone as an enemy combatant without ANY oversight is frankly outrageous and very scary. What's to stop some super left wing president from being elected and throwing you in Guantanamo Bay? Under the military comissions act you wouldn't have the right to see a judge, they could just keep you there forever. The problem isn't with holding terrorists forever, sure, fine, I don't care, they're prisoners of war so hold on to them. But this president thinks he can do whatever he wants, regardless of the law. Didn't we revolt against another King George over stuff like this once before? Even in wartime, the president is not above the law.

mixduptransistor Wrote:So, just because the enemy breaks the rules means we should? Two wrongs don't make a right. Being able to just arbitrarily label someone as an enemy combatant without ANY oversight is frankly outrageous and very scary. What's to stop some super left wing president from being elected and throwing you in Guantanamo Bay? Under the military comissions act you wouldn't have the right to see a judge, they could just keep you there forever. The problem isn't with holding terrorists forever, sure, fine, I don't care, they're prisoners of war so hold on to them. But this president thinks he can do whatever he wants, regardless of the law. Didn't we revolt against another King George over stuff like this once before? Even in wartime, the president is not above the law.

I'll be closely interested in how the political right reacts in the similar situations when a liberal/progressive President is in power. Part of me fully expects a "we stole the horse, let's lock the barn!"-type situation.