We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Cons ution for the United States of America.
Nothing in there about foreign terrorists such as were interrogated.
Additionally, what are the boundaries of this war? Considering there's no uniform, and no specific territory for terrorists, I can only assume that this war is unending and universal. Forgive me for not wanting to try every assumed terrorist as a war criminal, as it defeats the very purpose of a 'war' trial (in which the person charged with the crime can not actively deny participation in that effort, due to wearing the uniform or other signifying details of the opposing force.)
And you know they're terrorists how again? Most haven't been tried in a court of law, after all.
What about non-foreign terrorists? Say, Jose Padilla? Shouldn't he have had those Cons utional rights?
There is also nothing in there about the mating rituals of siamese penninsula orangotans. What is or isn't in there is beside the question.
I didn't ask if there was anyting in the cons ution/declaration of independence about torturing terrorists.
I asked you what reason we have for keeping the cons utional protections around.
What is that reason?
That's not true. What is or isn't there is the point. And, there is nothing in the U. S. Cons ution extending its rights, privileges, or immunities to Khalid Shaihk Mohammed or anyone else that would be an enemy of this country.
To protect the citizens of the United States of America.
The oath of office requires that US officers protect our form of government, too.
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Cons ution of the United States."
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/pihtml/pioaths.html
Your point? I would contend that interrogating Khalid Shaihk Mohammed and extracting actionable intelligence, from him, by whatever means necessary is precisely in accordance with that oath.
Lawless interrogation and detention are contrary the the letter and spirit of the Cons ution. Doesn't an oath mean anything anymore?
Show me where the Cons ution says that.
The best I can find is that the U. S. Cons ution invests, in the President, the position of Commander-in-Chief, and give him the authority to use that position to protect and defend the United States of America. You won't find, anywhere in the Cons ution, a directive that he is to abide by the cons utional protections extended to U. S. Citizens in the prosecution of that duty.
Ours is a government of limited powers. The discretion of the Executive is limited by Congress and the Judiciary. The judiciary gets to say what the law is, not the President.
If the Supreme Court rules in Habeas Corpus (Boumediene) and Common Article 3 (Hamdi) for irregular detainees, then that is the law of the land.
Last edited by Winehole23; 12-17-2008 at 11:29 AM.
Limited powers with respect to the people of the United States of America
And, one other thing. The powers of the executive are not limited by Congress or the Judiciary; a common misconception of the left. The three branches of our government are co-equal and their powers are only limited by the Cons ution.
Now, you're talking about something completely different. Tell me where this administation has said it would ignore, and not comply, with these recent decisions.
The branches are coequal by the plain meaning of the text, and so are the checks and balances.
What are you trying to say, YV?
I don't think I said so, so I needn't answer this. It's beside the point.
At any rate the relevant SCOTUS rulings, inasmuch as they bring Bush policy back into accord with the law of the land, only show how far amiss he wandered from it.
What check or balance do either of the other two branches have, in the cons ution, to the President's cons utional obligation to protect this country.
The two rulings you mention were completely new in the law. Never before had either been contemplated by our cons ution or the law. Otherwise, the President would have been in violation.
Further, I'm comforted by the belief that the level of threat to our nation's sovereignty is directly proportional to the number of idiots like you. The greater the threat, the fewer of you types that are around...and, vice versa.
Security gives you the luxury of being so pious.
And paranoia gives you the luxury of being so pompous. If the rain falls on the just and unjust alike, why do you assume that your adversaries will die while you will be spared?
Calling Al Qaeda a threat to US sovereignty grossly inflates their power and historical importance. They're common criminals and should be treated as such.
Just because terrorism makes you wet the bed doesn't mean the rest of us should tear up the US Cons ution to make you feel safer. Sorry.
How long did they close Wall Street and how much was our economy damaged by the 19 terrorists that flew those planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the Pennsylvania landscape?
And, as far as tearing up the cons ution, you've yet to show me where any cons utional protection has not been observed.
now thats just damn funny!
You don't believe our sovereignty is tied to our national security and economic stability?
Congress's power to declare war comes to mind.
not now. it was blown away by the enemy within.
nothing good can come from "W's" watch.
The Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq comes to mind.
There was a scary moment, but it passed. The danger was real, but there was no chance the episode could've beaten us. A lot US officers could've been killed, but there was no existential threat to the republic itself. If the dome of the US Congress fell, we'd rebuild it and soldier on.
You seem not to have much faith in the durability and strength of the US republic, while wildly overrating the importance and potency of terrorists. They can't beat us, not in 1000 years, not even if you roll them all up in one big nasty ball. Not unless we lose our nerve, or go bat crazy, like you seem to have done.
I answered a general question you posed. I'm not sure what the point of your specific response is, other than to acknowledge that even this President, faced with a perceived need to use military force, still sought congressional authorization before engaging such force. Thus, it would certainly seem that President Bush -- willingly or begrudgingly -- understood that his powers as Commander in Chief are checked and balanced by the Cons utional powers vested in the Congress. I thought your basic point was that there was no check or balance that either of the other two branches have, in the cons ution, to the President's cons utional obligation to protect this country. If that was your point, both my citataion and your anecdote pretty fundamentally disprove your point.
take away his fear and you've left him with nothing.
Well, the next to the last proviso, leading to the resolution (HJR-114), from which the AUMF in Iraq was drawn specifically acknowledges the President's Article II powers in this respect:
But, hey, let's look at the entire justification Congress used to authorize military force in Iraq, shall we?
No Weapons of Mass Destruction mentioned in that paragraph.
An agreement never adhered to and followed by 12 years of frustrating the international organization charged with insuring Iraq had lived up to that agreement.
Both houses of Congress, including a majority of both parties stated this.
True statement and one both Houses of our Legislature felt important to include in this resolution.
Well, what do you ing know, yet another Congressional resolution resulting in a law finding Iraq continued WMD programs and, not only that, ”urged” the President to “take appropriate action, in accordance with the Cons ution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations”
Hmmm…let’s see, exactly what Cons utional powers does the president have to do as Congress urged, in the context of an authorization to use military force. Gee, that’s a hard question.
Again, Congress declaring the threat posed by Iraq, to the region and our own national security – not the President.
Not related to WMDs but to Iraq’s failure to abide by the cease-fire agreement and subsequent U.N. Resolutions related to suspending hostilities in 1991.
Yep, no one doubted his capability or willingness to use WMDs in 2002.
Not WMD related.
Congress was convinced al Qaeda was in Iraq in 2002.
Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, et. Al. Yet another reason to use military force against Iraq.
Taken together, it appears Congress believed Iraq capable of either using WMDs or enabling terrorist groups to use WMDs against us or our interests.
Wow, invoking a UNSC resolution authorizing the use of “all necessary means,” which, I presume includes military force.
A recognition of continuing authority to use military force embodied in PL 102-1 and pursuant to the UNSC Resolutions listed.
Again, not related to WMD’s but a continuing sense of the Congress to authorize the use of military force to achieve the goals of the UNSC as outlined in its various resolutions.
Once again, Congress has asserted its authority in making it the “policy” of the United States to support efforts to remove the Ba’athist Regime of Saddam Hussein from power. Funny, they don’t mention WMDs.
Seems a statement of support for the President and his determination to meet the challenge posed by Iraq.
Congress recognizes Iraq as a clear national security threat for reasons other than just their WMD programs.
Congress seems to be attaching Iraq to those who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of 9/11 or, at the very least, harbored such persons or organizations.
Again with the “such” persons or organizations. It seems Congress wasn’t much concerned with whether or not Iraq had any direct connection to 9/11 as much as whether or not they countenanced the act.
That seems to be a pretty explicit recognition of the President’s Article II powers as Commander-in-Chief.
Pretty broad mandate, if you ask me.
Congress has neither amended nor rescinded any provision of either law PL 107-243 or PL 107-40. So, while there are a lot of Democrat politicians paying lip service to the rhetoric you espouse, none of them are introducing legislation that would indicate they desire an actual change in the current law under which this administration has operated since September 11, 2001.
Yonivore, still waiting whether you think it's morally justifiable to torture POSSIBLE innocents for intel that would save lives.
You said it is NOT morally justifiable to torture innocents to save lives. But you do think it is morally justifiable to torture alleged al Qaeda suspects.
To put these phrases together, you are willing to accept the risk that some innocent people will be tortured in order to gain information, correct?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote