[mburbank]

Kev, the 'Status Quo' is that torture is illegal, the executive branch is not immune, there is such a thing as Habeus Corpus and we are obigated to follow the geneva conventions and wiretapping without a warrant is a violation of the FISA act.

The president is in violation of thse laws. If I break a law and claim I haven't, eventually I will go to court and make my case. No one will rewrite the laws for me and make them retroactive. We are a country of laws, and the President is not above the law.

If legislators believe laws are wrong, they can make new laws. If that's what's going on, so be it. But they are not required to compromise and say, okay, okay, you can have a lnew law that says you didn't break the old law.

If legislators believe the constitution is wrong, there is a lengthy and difficult system for changing it that is lengthy and difficult by design.

"Seriously, stop for a second and re-read these three sentences a couple of times. Arrogance=disagreement. "

No. Here's an arrogant argument. I'm right. Not 'I think you're wrong and here are the reasons why.' Here's another arrogant argument. "If the President does it, it's legal'. Nixon said that.

"If it takes a little arrogance to get an actual alternative out of you, as opposed to the usual "gotcha, Bushy!", well than call me arrogant. "

Sophistry and after the fact argument. If you believe you were engaged in some sort of debate tactic, fine. Perhaps after a few hundred mre words you'll make your arguement, adress the role of separation of powers, oversight and it's realationship to law enforcement and stop just saying "I'm right"

"Ya know, you post an article on I-Mockery, people pick it apart, you either agree/disagree? It's pretty old hat at this point, but you somehow seem surprised. "

Your right Kev. Never on I-mockery has an article been the starting point of a conversation. All we do is discuss the merits of an article. That must be why this thread has taken you so by surprise.

Time magazine once compared Kiellor pretty favorably to Mark Twain, but 'unhinged hack' is good too. I mean, you said it, after all. That's pretty convincing.

"The president can interpret a "non-grave breach" in the Geneva provisions, and the bill painstakingly lists which actions don't fall into that category: "

And who determines the grave breaches excercised against people who whereabouts don't have to be known, who do not have access to lawyers. how have not been charged? Where is the oversight? The status quo meant that when these rights were deprived, laws were being broken. This bill does not exist in a vaccuum. It works in concert with the other new bills. It's nice they have rights. Who is allowed to advocate for them, and how will they do it?

"(other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) "

As determined by whom? No lawyers, no xongressional oversight, no charges. Seems like the executive branch has all the marbles here. You'll find this phrase in sections A and B, which now basically say, these things are illegal except for the times they aren't. I was rellived to see they idn't have the brass to include that statement in the section on performing biological experiments. It should be noted they don't feel as strongly about Tprture and cruel and inhuman punishment, sections A and B which DO include this statement. Why do you suppose A and B need it and C doesn't?

"(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who--

`(A) is currently in United States custody; and

`(B) has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination."

So, the courts can't hear habeus coprus if the 'united states' detains someone as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination. Who here is 'the united states' And if it's enemy combatants or people who we are may later determine are enemy combatants, that's... anybody, yes?

"No oversight makes absolutely no sense to me."
-Kahl.

Me either. That's why warrantless wiretapping and holding people indeffinitely without charging them is anethma to me. Both these procedures remove the courts from the process. The purpose of warrants and charges in our system is government is to involve the judicial branch in oversight as a check and balance. Our system of government was designed to try to remove the neccesity of trusting branches and individuals with too much power. You're not supposed to need to believe that the executive would never abuse power, you're supposed to count on his power being checked. It's a fundamental part of 'the American Experiment' and while other modern presidents have abused it, W is the first one who says it isn't good enough. It isn'tt just that I don't trust him, it's that's it's fundamental to the American system that trust shouldn't be involved.