Alexandra, what is so scary about him?

Apparently, Chase has had enough.

There is yet another point. When we uphold the rule of law, even applying it against our enemies, we gain stature internationally, just as those who don’t lose stature. International pressure is then brought to bear against those who do not uphold the rule of law.

As it stands now, just the opposite is occuring. The U.S. is seen as a greater threat than “terrorists.” Why? Because we no longer stand for upholding the rule of law AND because, unlike Saddam Hussein, we really do have weapons of mass destruction. And we haven’t ruled out using Nuclear weapons against Iran.

I just don’t think it’s that cut and dried. There are 3 things that have to be considered here:

OK…let’s consider them.

1. The FISA law itself permitting wiretaps in the first place.

The administration bypassed FISA, citing that obtaining warrants would have been ‘too slow’ (despite the inconvenient fact that FISA will issue retroactive warrants if the need for speed makes it necessary). Thus, the FISA law actully counts against the President here.

2. The AUMF of 2001 giving the President the authority to convene military operations against AQ (and the like), their supporters and their protectors.

Quote from Tom Daschle:

“Literally minutes before the Senate cast its vote, the administration sought to add the words ‘in the United States and’ after ‘appropriate force’ in the agreed-upon text. This last-minute change would have given the president broad authority to exercise expansive powers not just overseas — where we all understood he wanted authority to act — but right here in the United States, potentially against American citizens. I could see no justification for Congress to accede to this extraordinary request for additional authority. I refused.”

Thus, again, the AUMF is another argument against the President.

3. Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution.

Here’s the text:

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.

Please point out the parts of the above section that have anything to do with the issue at hand, or admit its irrelevancy.

Did he go to far? I don’t think you can say definitively yes or no.

Actually, given the above information, anyone capable of critical thought can make the determination that he definitely did go too far.

Replace “overty” with “unquestionably” and maybe you’ll catch my drift.

My concern is that extending Geneva protections to extra-national terrorists doesn’t do anything to help our service men they capture. No good-will on our part will entice them to stop beheading our captives.

I think that’s the point of this argument – does extending GC protections to AQ and other extra-national terrorist orgs engaged in armed warfare (conventional and otherwise) against the US protect our men on the ground any better?

Thank you.