Obama: "I'm ready to negotiate with you, Iran." Iran: "Fuck you."

[Shawnee123]

Cops out r us

[classicman]

There is only one logic /Spock

Quote:
The president’s power as military commander in chief, in time of constitutionally authorized war, of course includes the power to intercept enemy communications, including enemy communications with persons here in the United States who may be in league with the enemy, and to follow the chain of such communications where it leads, in order to wage the war against the enemy and, of vital importance, to protect the nation against further attacks.

That sounds reasonable.

Congress did not declare war in the constitutional sense of issuing a war powers resolution or declaration of war.

They took a lesser step...an Authorization for Use of Military Force

Does an AUMF = a Constitutional (Authorized) Declaration of War?

It certainly doesnt look to me like that an AUMF has the same broad authority...but I'm not a constitutional lawyer.

IMO, the precedent is dangerous.

And it screams for the judiciary to make a judgement...not the past, present or future presidents.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Congress did not declare war in the constitutional sense of issuing a war powers resolution or declaration of war.

What a frigging apologist.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

What a frigging apologist.

huh? Why would you say that?

[TheMercenary]

Because he acts as if the Demoncrats had no part in it. Fuck that. Dress up your pig.

As far as the "circumvention" of Geneva and the USCoT, my position is that Geneva doesn't apply, and the USCoT seems to lack the specific language needed to make a legal case. It doesn't mention waterboarding and doesn't give concrete examples in its definition of torture. It's weak, as is the entire notion of international law in the first place.

Undertoad...your position appears to be pretty much in line with the DoJ attorneys who wrote the "torture" memos, but not in line with the DoJ Office of Professional Responsibility who suggest that they may have been politically motivated.

I have no argument with those holding your position..other than, IMO, it should be resolved by an independent third party before it is codified into law or a precedent as an acceptable practice.

Why should the benefit of doubt be given to one side or the other?

An internal Justice Department report on the conduct of senior lawyers who approved waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics is causing anxiety among former Bush administration officials. H. Marshall Jarrett, chief of the department's ethics watchdog unit, the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), confirmed last year he was investigating whether the legal advice in crucial interrogation memos "was consistent with the professional standards that apply to Department of Justice attorneys."

...the OPR probe began after Jack Goldsmith, a Bush appointee who took over OLC in 2003, protested the legal arguments made in the memos. Goldsmith resigned the following year after withdrawing the memos, and later wrote that he was "astonished" by the "deeply flawed" and "sloppily reasoned" legal analysis in the memos by Yoo and Bybee, including their assertion (challenged by many scholars) that the president could unilaterally disregard a law passed by Congress banning torture.

OPR investigators focused on whether the memo's authors deliberately slanted their legal advice to provide the White House with the conclusions it wanted, according to three former Bush lawyers who asked not to be identified discussing an ongoing probe. One of the lawyers said he was stunned to discover how much material the investigators had gathered, including internal e-mails and multiple drafts that allowed OPR to reconstruct how the memos were crafted.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/184801

The DoJ attorneys in question should absolutely have the right to include their side in the report.

But, IMO, again, the issue should ultimately be resolved by the judiciary so that clear legal standards are in place for the future.

[Undertoad]

Former Sen. Fritz Hollings at HuffPost: Why Are We in Afghanistan? Right in the middle of his piece...

Yesterday I read an article that it won't be long before charging President George W. Bush with war crimes for killing civilians in Pakistan with drones. Now the same charge could be made against President Obama.

Wheeeeeeeeee

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Former Sen. Fritz Hollings at HuffPost: Why Are We in Afghanistan? Right in the middle of his piece...

Wheeeeeeeeee

Rut row. Obama may want to rethink sending those 17,000 toops.

[sugarpop]

No. And I don't hate all poweful/rich people. Only the ones who are corrupt and unethical and step on those less fortunate in order to gain more for themselves.

[sugarpop]

You know, Hollywood gets a really bad rap. I worked in the industry for years. A lot of the people you love to hate are really good people who actually walk their talk.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

You know, Hollywood gets a really bad rap. I worked in the industry for years.

I don't like them using their celebrity for political purposes.

[TheMercenary]

Who cares, those rich people out there need to pay their fair share, not walk down red carpets while people get laid off. Screw Hollywood and those rich people in their big houses.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Who cares, those rich people out there need to pay their fair share, not walk down red carpets while people get laid off. Screw Hollywood and those rich people in their big houses.

Hollywood doesn't pay bonuses. They pay backend percentages on PROFITS. In other words, if the movie makes money, people make more than their salary. If it doesn't, they don't. Isn't that how bonuses are supposed to work? Most actors are very public about their beliefs that they should be paying higher taxes (at least the democrats do). They really mean it.

As far as under the line people being laid off while above the line people make more money, I have been ranting about THAT for YEARS, and you know that about me.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Hollywood doesn't pay bonuses. They pay backend percentages on PROFITS. In other words, if the movie makes money, people make more than their salary. If it doesn't, they don't. Isn't that how bonuses are supposed to work? Most actors are very public about their beliefs that they should be paying higher taxes (at least the democrats do). They really mean it.

As far as under the line people being laid off while above the line people make more money, I have been ranting about THAT for YEARS, and you know that about me.

We call them royalties.