From the link:
[John Q. Adams] argued that if the President had the power to send the Africans to Cuba, he would equally as well have the power to seize forty Americans and send them overseas for trial.
Substitute, "terror suspects, or even just citizens of countries we are supposedly liberating who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time" for Africans, and we have argument (even down to "Cuba") that still, alas, has resonance today ...
Good catch, DAS.
That was just an early morning Google grab. Nice to see it served a better purpose than I imagined.
Whatever the final outcome of these "negotiations", and whatever bill passes, it seems to me that in granting the president of the United States power to decide what types of interrogations should be allowed - Geneva Conventions be damned - that the Congress would also pass on to him a good deal of liability.
If Bush is given such great power, how can he keep the buck from stopping in the oval office? I'm no lawyer, but this appears sort of dumb on Bush's part, as he seems to be putting himself in jeapardy under the law.
Grandmere : a few silly persons such as myself think it would be appropriate to bundle up George and Co. to the Hague to stand for charges against humanity.
Opit, not so silly, I think. If I were in the Bush maladministration, I'd be a little concerned. I'd be a little concerned if I were taking orders from them.
I'd be a little concerned if I were taking orders from them. - Grandmère Mimi
Indeed, the first defense of "rougue" CEOs when caught directing their companies to use prison labor, to cheat, etc., has been essentially "I was just giving orders, I cannot be held responsible for how those orders were carried out" ... even if there would have been no legal way to carry out the given orders.
Commenting by HaloScan
