Pepper sprayed for public safety.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

If you, wonk and I ran for prez I'd win in a landslide, so always remember I'm more presidential than you. Do not lecture me.

Not as long as tax reform is a major campaign issue.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

If you, wonk and I ran for prez I'd win in a landslide, so always remember I'm more presidential than you. Do not lecture me.

If any of us ran, we'd be easily disqualified by our posting here, so I don't think you've got any leg up on that one.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

Last time I checked, his legal powers end at the border. He wasn't even acting pursuant to a declaration of war or congressional authority as prescribed by the War Powers Act.

Uh, no. His legal powers extend far beyond the borders, and Congress gave the President massive power in the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed on September 14, 2001, which effectively superseded the War Powers Act. For more, see here.

And while Congress may have the authority to deny the Executive Branch the funds to move detainees within the borders of the US (in order to bolster the decision to deny them the right to effective counsel and due process), it doesn't have the power to order the President not to use funds to release those detainees who the administration itself has admitted cannot be tried, either because there was no evidence against them to begin with, or because the evidence was obtained under methods of interrogation that made it wholly unreliable, and send them home.

I believe that the Administration has released some detainees and has held others. I doubt there is foolproof evidence against everyone now being held, but I also doubt that detainees are being held without any reliable evidence at all. What is needed is some trustworthy process to sort the evidence out, and I don't see much sign of that.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Uh, no. His legal powers extend far beyond the borders, and Congress gave the President massive power in the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed on September 14, 2001, which effectively superseded the War Powers Act. For more, see here.



I believe that the Administration has released some detainees and has held others. I doubt there is foolproof evidence against everyone now being held, but I also doubt that detainees are being held without any reliable evidence at all. What is needed is some trustworthy process to sort the evidence out, and I don't see much sign of that.

I wasn't referring to the President's power over the military in that sentence. I was referring to the President's lack of power to simply go into a sovereign nation and grab up a bunch of people, then whisk them off to parts unknown. The memo you cited was pretty much limited to military actions.

There were a few examples that weren't, like Eisenhower sending the marines into Nicaragua in the 50s, and toppling te government of Panama. However, I think that the governments (or the people) of the nation being invaded may have run smack into their assertion of their own right to self-govern.

According to the military task force report on Gitmo, 48 of the detainees fall into the category of "too dangerous for transfer but not feasible for prosecution." Let 'em go. We have no right to hold them.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

If any of us ran, we'd be easily disqualified by our posting here, so I don't think you've got any leg up on that one.

I can survive anything I've posted, as long as no one tags the Juan the marine stuff on me, but I figure Penske gave me deniability there.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

I wasn't referring to the President's power over the military in that sentence. I was referring to the President's lack of power to simply go into a sovereign nation and grab up a bunch of people, then whisk them off to parts unknown. The memo you cited was pretty much limited to military actions.

Again: no. That OLC memo says, in part:

[W]e think it clear that Congress, in enacting the "Joint Resolution [t]o authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States," Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (2001), has confirmed that the President has broad constitutional authority to respond, by military means or otherwise, to the incidents of September 11.

I think the Administration would say that they were authorized by the AUMF to, among other things, seize and hold people who were part of organizations involved in the 9/11 attacks, including the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

According to the military task force report on Gitmo, 48 of the detainees fall into the category of "too dangerous for transfer but not feasible for prosecution." Let 'em go. We have no right to hold them.

I don't see how the military can conclude that individuals are both dangerous but not fit for prosecution.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Again: no. That OLC memo says, in part:



I think the Administration would say that they were authorized by the AUMF to, among other things, seize and hold people who were part of organizations involved in the 9/11 attacks, including the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

I'm not denying they asserted the authority. But that just proves that we won. Take your situation and flip it: China flies into Salina, KS, detains 150 American citizens back in China, charges them with plotting to defeat the forces of the Peoples' Revolution, and sticks them in a compound on an island in the South China Sea. Lawful exercise of the Premier's Executive powers?

I don't see how the military can conclude that individuals are both dangerous but not fit for prosecution.

There are two categories, according to the task force. One is those detainees who never had anything to do with anything. The other is those who were admittedly beaten or tortured so badly that even the military acknowledged it had overstepped and any evidence they provided could not be used against them in the kangaroo court the military set up. The task force report, which was accepted by Obama's administration, concludes they cannot be released because their period of confinement and/or treatment made it more likely they would be inclined toward supporting views hostile to America.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

I'm not denying they asserted the authority. But that just proves that we won. Take your situation and flip it: China flies into Salina, KS, detains 150 American citizens back in China, charges them with plotting to defeat the forces of the Peoples' Revolution, and sticks them in a compound on an island in the South China Sea. Lawful exercise of the Premier's Executive powers?

Obviously that situation is different, because when we flew into Afghanistan, we were at war -- for all intents and purposes -- with the government of Afghanistan. If, in the course of that conflict, we capture people who were members of Al Qaeda and see themselves as at war with the United States, and if that war continues -- certainly Al Qaeda thinks it does -- then what what do we do. Did we release German POWs once we crossed the Rhine, on the thought that the war was going pretty well?

There are two categories, according to the task force. One is those detainees who never had anything to do with anything. The other is those who were admittedly beaten or tortured so badly that even the military acknowledged it had overstepped and any evidence they provided could not be used against them in the kangaroo court the military set up. The task force report, which was accepted by Obama's administration, concludes they cannot be released because their period of confinement and/or treatment made it more likely they would be inclined toward supporting views hostile to America.

I'm not going to defend that. It does tend to show just how wonderful an idea it was to torture those folks, notwithstanding all of Hank's apologias.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

all of Hank's apologias.

huh? I never defended torture. I only asked how blowing people up w/o trial isn't worse than torturing them?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I can survive anything I've posted, as long as no one tags the Juan the marine stuff on me, but I figure Penske gave me deniability there.

You're just like Romney, running away from your most significant public achievement. If called upon to run, you should embrace Juan, though I suppose that could cost you the nomination if you ran as a Republican.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Shape Shifter

You're just like Romney, running away from your most significant public achievement. If called upon to run, you should embrace Juan, though I suppose that could cost you the nomination if you ran as a Republican.

"you want it to be one way. you want it to be one way. but it's the other way."
Marlo

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Adder

How can you tell a person is so evil they "cannot step foot free ever" if they have never committed a crime?

Did you see Minority Report?

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

huh? I never defended torture. I only asked how blowing people up w/o trial isn't worse than torturing them?

Have you ever had to live with really excrutiating, unending pain?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

“If you have to assert you are human, there’s no way you are going to be elected.”

- Frank Luntz on Al Gore

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Liberal bias at CNN.