Presidents & the Law

[nraforlife]

• Tweet

If president BHO deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, is there no law that can stop him?

[makesenseplease]

If president BHO deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, is there no law that can stop him?

Helluva question.

War time or peace time?
Observer?

[Observer]

The law is a bad one, in time of peace or war.

I don't have much of a problem with scooping combatants off the battlefield and squeezing them for intelligence, but there have to be limits. Grabbing American citizens without warrant, charges or trial is unconstitutional and should never be permitted.

[DougRich]

The new orthodoxy seems to be that the "battlefield" is everywhere; the inevitably resulting question is, "Then why even attempt to make a distinction?"  There were - and may still be - prisoners at Gitmo who never went near an actual battlefield or picked up a weapon, and who have spent years in confinement on the paid testimony of personal or political enemies.

[ivanm]

The law is a bad one, in time of peace or war.

I don't have much of a problem with scooping combatants off the battlefield and squeezing them for intelligence, but there have to be limits. Grabbing American citizens without warrant, charges or trial is unconstitutional and should never be permitted.

I hear what you are saying and agree, that is with qualification.  It seems that the authorities can apprehend and hold a person for 72 hours without charging him.
Hasn't that been the case for years now?

I know it is hard to have any confidence in the government doing things right these days, but we gotta trust that this law would not be intentionally abused.

As a LEO of sorts, surely you can see the frustration a peace officer feels when trying to deal with difficult people who are bending the rules.  Well two can play that game.  The alternative might be a little collateral damage, NCIS style?  I love to see those people kick ass on the creeps.

Unusual times call for unusual measures.  It may not always be cricket but the name of the game is for us to survive first and then talk points of law later.
As a former special ops man you can surely understand what I am saying.

[ivanm]

The new orthodoxy seems to be that the "battlefield" is everywhere; the inevitably resulting question is, "Then why even attempt to make a distinction?"  There were - and may still be - prisoners at Gitmo who never went near an actual battlefield or picked up a weapon, and who have spent years in confinement on the paid testimony of personal or political enemies.

There are thousands of people in our DOD supporting the war effort who have never been to the battle field.

GITMO is a modern day POW camp, and in past conflicts people have been held in these camps for years until the conflict was resolved, or the war ended.  As long as a person is a suspect in the terrorist activities he also might be held indefinitely.

I do think the battle field is everwhere because the wot is a global operation. When one considers the ultimate objectives of the Islamic extremists then it is makes sense to consider the US as part of the battle field.  Or does 911 mean anything?  How about the subway attacks in London, and the train attack in Spain?

We need the tools to effectively carry out the wot so maybe the new laws are part of  those tools we need?

[Case_Closed]

The war will be over when Irabians agree to stop killing other non-Irabians...which is to say never.

[nraforlife]

Hmmmmmmm, so far it appears that most/all of the 'conservatives' here are A-OK with the most vile torture of children (including AMERICAN children- ivanm you miserable sick fuck) as long as the neccesity of 'war' fig leaf is provided & the local lib is fence sitting non-committal.

You people deserve to be subjects. You sure as hell aren't worthy of Freedom.

[Case_Closed]

Hmmmmmmm, so far it appears that most/all of the 'conservatives' here are A-OK with the most vile torture of children (including AMERICAN children- ivanm you miserable sick fuck) as long as the neccesity of 'war' fig leaf is provided & the local lib is fence sitting non-committal.

How in the Wild, Wild World of Psychotropics did you come to any of those conclusions from what's been written in this thread?

[nraforlife]

Just reading what people wrote, badnews.

[DougRich]

There are thousands of people in our DOD supporting the war effort who have never been to the battle field.

True enough. Would it be fair play, then, for a foreign power to take one of those folks into custody - perhaps while they're on vacation overseas - and confine them indefinitely for "terrorism" or "war crimes"?

GITMO is a modern day POW camp, and in past conflicts people have been held in these camps for years until the conflict was resolved, or the war ended.  As long as a person is a suspect in the terrorist activities he also might be held indefinitely.

The so-called War on Terror, unlike most previous conflicts, is not a fight against a lawful government, which can surrender and either negotiate for terms, like prisoner release, or accept what they are given. "Terrorism" is a tactic - not a national or political affiliation. One might just as rationally try to apply the concept of being "interred for the duration" to a War on Rape, or a War on Child Abuse; so long as groups and individuals are intent on engaging in it - so  goes the thinking (loosely defined) of many in government - the war continues.

If we're actually going to confine someone who committed the crime of getting together with other people who hate America and plotting evil against us "for the duration", why don't we be honest, at least, and admit right now that we intend to keep them in prison for the rest of their lives, and not even go through the pretense of a trial of any kind? (And, naturally, be prepared for other governments to do likewise to our citizens.)

I do think the battle field is everwhere because the wot is a global operation. When one considers the ultimate objectives of the Islamic extremists then it is makes sense to consider the US as part of the battle field.  Or does 911 mean anything?  How about the subway attacks in London, and the train attack in Spain?

One thing that 9-11 doesn't mean is that we have adopted (or should) the enemy's rules of engagement. Civilian targets are civilian targets, and non-combatants are non-combatants - whether they're in NYC, Beirut, Tehran, Amsterdam or Milwaukee.

We need the tools to effectively carry out the wot so maybe the new laws are part of  those tools we need?

"We should trust the government to know what it's doing, and not to abuse these new powers we're letting them assume." Famous last words.

[Case_Closed]

True enough. Would it be fair play, then, for a foreign power to take one of those folks into custody - perhaps while they're on vacation overseas - and confine them indefinitely for "terrorism" or "war crimes"?

Just happened the other day.  An ex-Marine visiting his family in Iran was tried, convicted and sentenced to death.

[DougRich]

Just happened the other day.  An ex-Marine visiting his family in Iran was tried, convicted and sentenced to death.

Yes, that story is very much in the news here, as he's from Arizona...but he's actually charged with espionage, I believe. Probably a bogus charge, but at least it's for something he is accused of doing in the present; he wasn't arrested and charged with having served, years before, in the armed forces of a country engaged in a War on Islam - which, if he had, would make for a more exact parallel to what is being done, in many cases, at Gitmo and places like it.