09-02-2005 23:26									#211
	Got spare money?

Ramo, bully for you if you also criticized Clinton, as a lot of the hysteria from the left seems to be pure politics. The reason I say this is that I personally am sure Clinton or Kerry or whoever would not simply politely ask al Qaeda detainee's what they knew about future attacks or the location of their leaders. Even that civilized nation from Europe, the UK, used exactly the same techniques we are using against the IRA and the European courts upheld the UK and said that what they did was not torture.

	09-02-2005 23:50									#212
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Ned, did you even bother to verify Gonzales' propaganda, or did you assume it to be true?

In Hamilton v. Dillin, Congress specifically authorized the President to regulate trade between the US and CSA, and Confederate cotton traders went to court over the tariff Lincoln charged. It has absolutely nothing to do with the President's authority to defy the law.

Secondly, he's selectively quoting. The full quote is

quote: Whether, in the absence of Congressional action, the power of permitting partial intercourse with a public enemy may or may not be exercised by the President alone, who is constitutionally invested with the entire charge of hostile operations, it is not now necessary to decide, although it would seem that little doubt could be raised on the subject

The Court specifically didn't decide the scope of the President's wartime powers. Gonzales painfully quoted the decision out of context. Pure intellectual dishonesty.

Further, you realize the date is 1874, don't you? Also, it's never been cited before in more recent decisions. If you want to go to a more important case, Youngstown Co. v. Sawyer (1952), where Truman used an executive order to take over a Korean steel mill when faced with a strike, SCOTUS has said:

quote: The Executive Order was not authorized by the Constitution or laws of the United States; and it cannot stand. [...] In the framework of our Constitution, the President's power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker. The Constitution limits his functions in the lawmaking process to the recommending of laws he thinks wise and the vetoing of laws he thinks bad. And the Constitution is neither silent nor equivocal about who shall make laws which the President is to execute.

Note that this decision has been cited nearly 100 times in SCOTUS and Circuit Courts since. In drastic contrast to Hamilton v. Dillin.

If we go directly to the source, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution:

quote: The Congress shall have power.... To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; To provide and maintain a navy; To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

From Article II, Section 3:

quote: [The President] shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.

	09-02-2005 23:57									#213
	Support Apolyton

quote: Ramo, bully for you if you also criticized Clinton, as a lot of the hysteria from the left seems to be pure politics. The reason I say this is that I personally am sure Clinton or Kerry or whoever would not simply politely ask al Qaeda detainee's what they knew about future attacks or the location of their leaders. Even that civilized nation from Europe, the UK, used exactly the same techniques we are using against the IRA and the European courts upheld the UK and said that what they did was not torture.

I don't care what you think Clinton or Kerry would do, or what the Brits have done decades ago. That's not the issue. What we're discussing is what Dear Leader is doing right now. The simple fact is that torture doesn't work and leads to a lot of innocent people suffering. And your apoligism for such actions is just sad.

	10-02-2005 02:34									#214
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Btw, in Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer, the important opinion is Jackson's concurrence, which became the law. Those cites mostly point to the concurrence. Jackson does speak about the President acting against Congress' express and implied will (such as a torture statute:

quote: Courts can sustain exclusive Presidential control in such a case only by disabling Congress from action upon the subject

Obviously, that isn't the case there, because Congress has acted upon the subject by passing torture laws, and that isn't being struck down.

Jackson goes on to say:

quote: no doctrine that the Court could promulgate would seem to me more sinister and alarming than that a President whose conduct of foreign affairs is so largely uncontrolled, and often even is unknown, can vastly enlarge his mastery over the internal affairs of the country by his own committment of the Nation's armed forces to some foreign venture

quote: ours is a government of laws, not of men, and that we submit ourselves to rulers only if under rules

quote: Aside from suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in time of rebellion or invasion, when the public safety may require it, they made no express provision for exercise of extraordinary authority because of a crisis. I do not think we rightfully may so amend their work...

quote: The Executive, except for recommendation and veto, has no legislative power

	10-02-2005 06:02									#215
	Support Apolyton

Come on Ramo, the Supremes do say that the president "is constitutionally invested with the entire charge of hostile operations." The question the court was deciding in that case was not that, but something else.

Could the Congress pass a law ordering the president to appoint so and so commander in chief?

	10-02-2005 08:28									#216
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Ned even if you were interpreting that decision correctly, which you're not, that decision has long since been superseded (again, see Youngstown v. Sawyer) by decisions that clearly state that the President is not above the law, and cannot defy Congress' even in prosecuting a war. Period.

And passing a law that outlaws torture is obviously not the same thing as appointing a new CinC (which is clearly a Constitutional power of the President).

	10-02-2005 08:53									#217
	Inflate your Upload Space

Ned,

Who cares?

Do you think if you convolute the base issue enough that you can somehow argue that it's right?

You can't see the forest for the trees.

In fact you're looking at all the branches and walnuts falling on the ground. Concentraing on bird poop stains and woodpekkers and all the little squirrels going around trying to hit it with each other. Oh look that squirrel has the hots for a raccoon wooo ahhhh that's why I'm right and you're wrong!

The rest of us just look at the forest and notice that it's ****ed up.

DUH

	10-02-2005 08:54									#218
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Only you can prevent forest fires.

	10-02-2005 08:57									#219
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Gonzales

	10-02-2005 08:59									#220
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Sellout yes men

	10-02-2005 09:01									#221
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Ted Striker Sellout yes men

No need to give yourself a Ted. You've got plenty of other people here to do it for you...

	10-02-2005 09:06									#222
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

So does your Mom.

	10-02-2005 09:13									#223
	Suffering from ads?

I appreciate a good "your Mom" crack as much as the next man, but that really didn't make much sense. My mom's getting the here on Poly? So what? 98% of the people here have yet to touch a woman, so what am I supposed to be upset about?

	10-02-2005 09:14									#224
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I don't know, you should ask her, I'm just the messenger.

	10-02-2005 09:15									#225
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

OK, Ted...

	10-02-2005 18:32									#228
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Ned Ramo, bully for you if you also criticized Clinton, as a lot of the hysteria from the left seems to be pure politics.

Which would make a change from right wing hysteria, which is just usually hysteria, flatulence, or hot air.

Touch of the alimentary vapours there, Ned?

	10-02-2005 19:30									#229
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Ramo Ned even if you were interpreting that decision correctly, which you're not, that decision has long since been superseded (again, see Youngstown v. Sawyer) by decisions that clearly state that the President is not above the law, and cannot defy Congress' even in prosecuting a war. Period. And passing a law that outlaws torture is obviously not the same thing as appointing a new CinC (which is clearly a Constitutional power of the President).

Ramo, Youngstown did place some limits on the president's authority. He is not a dictator in the sense of a Roman dictator. But in matters of the prosecution of the war as Commander in Chief, he is it. As I said, if Congress could regulate the president's perogatives here, they could order him to appoing a CinC according to their liking. This they cannot do.

	10-02-2005 19:33									#230
	Inflate your Upload Space

Ted, about the forest and the trees, the problem here is that you guys continue to insist that what we are doing is torture, when case authority from Europe and elsewhere says what we are doing is not torture. Get over it, please. Coercion is not torture even though torture is coercion.

	10-02-2005 20:03									#231
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Ramo, Youngstown did place some limits on the president's authority. He is not a dictator in the sense of a Roman dictator. But in matters of the prosecution of the war as Commander in Chief, he is it. As I said, if Congress could regulate the president's perogatives here, they could order him to appoing a CinC according to their liking. This they cannot do.

Youngtown was in a war, Ned. Remember a little thing called the Korean War (which was certainly more of a war than our "war against terror")? This was the situation in which SCOTUS created explicit limitations on the CinC's war powers.

Without any limitations on the President's war powers, he is indeed a dictator in the Roman sense. For, what is then stopping him from rounding up the political opposition under the guise of the war in terror, and then denying them due process? Gonzales supports dictatorship and torture, and so do you for supporting him.

As I said, the CinC is the explicit power of the President, and so cannot be replaced by legislation.

	10-02-2005 20:59									#232
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Ramo As I said, the CinC is the explicit power of the President, and so cannot be replaced by legislation.

Now we are making progress.

Since we can agree that Congress cannot tell the president to appoint a different CinC, can it tell him how to conduct the war as if he were reporting to them, as if Congress was CinC?

	11-02-2005 01:43									#233
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Congress determines the rules under which our armed forces operate. Such as, torture is illegal. The CinC executes those rules. Congress cannot appoint a new executor of those rules, but it can determine what the rules are. That's its explicit constitutional duty:

See my earlier post on the Constitution.

quote: Congress shall have the power [...] to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.

and

quote: The President [...] shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed

SCOTUS agrees with me too, in Youngstown.

Face it, Gonzales is either so complety ignorant about our laws that someone without any formal legal education like myself can easily refute his fantasies, or he is a dictatorial torturer. So again, is he a ****wit or evil?

	11-02-2005 02:44									#234
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ramo So again, is he a ****wit or evil?

Both.

	11-02-2005 02:52									#235
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

But I would contend that the CinC conducts the war, not Congress. The war is fought with troops, weapons and intelligence. Congress provides the means. The CinC gives the orders. The troops obey the CinC, not Congress.

If the CinC says you will use coercion to extract info from captured combatants, the Congress cannot arrest the CinC under some criminal statute. Nor can Congress arrest the soldiers. The president commands are followed unless Congress impeaches the president.

The Courts cannot arrest the president. The courts can order the arrest of the soldiers, but are the soldiers going to cooperate with the marshalls? The Supremes ran right into this problem when the Chief Justice ordered Lincoln to release a Southern spy near the start of the war. Lincoln ignored the Justice, the author of the Dred Scott decision, and almost arrested him as a traitor. Why he didn't is a mystery of history.

Any law attempting to interfere with the CinC's orders in the area of conduct of a war is clearly and unambiguously unconstitutional. Nothing could be plainer.

	11-02-2005 03:12									#236
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Yes, the troops obey the CinC, but the CinC obeys Congress.

One more time:

quote: Congress shall have the power [...] to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.

And clearly Congress can interfere with the CinC's orders in a war, again, given Youngstown.

Your ideas have no basis in reality. None at all.

	11-02-2005 03:35									#237
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

The only problem I have with torture is the immorality of torturing the innocent. But if you know a guy is guilty and he wont talk and there are lives on the line, tighten them thumb screws until he screams.

YAAAOOOOUUU!!!

Unfortunately we aren't all that selective when rounding up "enemy combatants" in a culture where old grudges can be settled by hearsay evidence or less.

	11-02-2005 03:43									#238
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

How is torture a part of carrying out a war? Especially when it's been explicitly forbidden. The argument that the President can do whatever he wants during wartime is a recipe for dicatatorship and has been said as much by the SCOTUS.

quote: Your ideas have no basis in reality. None at all.

What did you expect? There is a reason we refer to it as the "Nedaverse"

	11-02-2005 03:56									#239
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

62 for Phil at Spyglass, somebody better put the screws on his

	11-02-2005 09:13									#240
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Ned Ted, about the forest and the trees, the problem here is that you guys continue to insist that what we are doing is torture, when case authority from Europe and elsewhere says what we are doing is not torture. Get over it, please. Coercion is not torture even though torture is coercion.

No, and there is the flaw of your entire argument, and you just demonstrated exactly what I was talking about.

You are trying to convolute the issue down with so much legal gobblety gook and paperwork trying to find some little loophole to feel good morally about mistreating prisioners.

The bottom line:

It's torture, and it's wrong, plain and simple.