Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad
I was snarky to sugarpop, and I apologize for that. Any snark you read in my comments to you is strictly your reading of it.
My question is on the table: does the AUMF authorize the bypassing of FISA? I don't know; my guess is that it does, based on some of the Wiki entry on the controversy. But the length of the entry, and its 156 citations, tell us it's a very complex question, at least. The signing of memos taking a position on it (or cover for it) does not alter the question.
My instinctive take on it is from a letter in that article:
That sounds reasonable.
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.
|
We obviously disagree but the bottom line is neither of our opinions on the AUMF and the extent of presidential powers it authorizes, or our different perspectives on which branch of our government has the legal authority to interpret US treaty obligations, will carry over to any rule of law. It is an interesting discussion and we can keep it going, but it wont bring clarity to the issue for future presidents.
And when it comes to the extent of presidential "war powers" independent of checks and balances, I would like to see clarity.
That is why I believe further investigation by a bi-partisan independent Commission and a resolution of these issues is in the best interest of the country....and if as a result of such an investigation, compelling evidence emerges that those past actions may have constituted a willful abuse of power, then, IMO, DoJ should consider criminal proceeding against the top decision makers.