Putting hoods on the heads of Congress

[UpInArms]

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/david_sarasohn/index.ssf?/base/editorial/108695518299520.xml

excerpt:

Lots of the attention on the memo has focused on its precise slicings of the definition of terror -- just how close to major organ damage or permanent mental disruption you have to get to qualify -- but what's most striking is a long section in the middle telling Congress and everyone else that it's none of their business.

It's entirely up to the president.

Now, Senator, back away slowly, with your hands in sight at all times.

Congressmen think that U.S. laws on torture actually affect the U.S. military, but are they wrong.

"In light of the President's complete authority over conduct of war, without a clear statement otherwise criminal statutes are not read as infringing on the President's ultimate authority in these areas," says the memo, prepared for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld by a working group appointed by the Defense Department's general counsel, William J. Haynes II.

...more...

[LittleApple81]

1. It is the majority of the democrats fault to a great degree.

They suffered the toad in warm water syndrome... now the water boiled!!!
They didn't want to raise hell, they wanted to be bipartisan, they wore the tutus... Now they might have to wear hoods instead.

[drfemoe]

2. SMOKING gun .. and this must be questioned >>

"In wartime, it is for the President alone to decide what method to use to best proceed against the enemy."

Someone familiar with constitutional law.. that's not in there, is it?

2nd edit .. still reading >>

The memo is direct and sweeping: Torture, like every other aspect of war, is at the entire discretion of the president, and there are no limitations on him. People who think that U.S. laws or international treaties can create any limits just don't get it.

Although, if the president decides they should, they will.

The Bush administration insists that nobody's ordered any torture, that it doesn't like torture, and that anything unfortunate that's happened is about a few bad-apple enlisted men rather than a high-level policy memo. But it hasn't said it disagrees with the idea that the president's powers are boundless, from moving money around to claiming a constitutional power to see how long prisoners can hold their breath underwater.

In fact, the memo to Rumsfeld sounds a lot like a memo written six months before, from the Department of Justice to White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, which argued that treaties against torture "may be unconstitutional if applied to interrogation" because of presidential power.