¤¤¤Most significantly, Mukasey said that he is unaware of any inherent commander-in-chief authority to override legal restrictions on torture -- a huge repudiation of Dick Cheney, David Addington and John Yoo's perspective on broad constitutional powers possessed by the president in wartime -- or to immunize practitioners of torture from prosecution. That answer is sure to create anxiety inside the CIA, where many interrogators fear that they will be brought up on charges for carrying out interrogation methods earlier approved by the administration.¤¤¤

OR

¤¤¤He suggested that both the administration’s program of eavesdropping without warrants and its use of “...

¤¤¤Most significantly, Mukasey said that he is unaware of any inherent commander-in-chief authority to override legal restrictions on torture -- a huge repudiation of Dick Cheney, David Addington and John Yoo's perspective on broad constitutional powers possessed by the president in wartime -- or to immunize practitioners of torture from prosecution. That answer is sure to create anxiety inside the CIA, where many interrogators fear that they will be brought up on charges for carrying out interrogation methods earlier approved by the administration.¤¤¤

OR

¤¤¤He suggested that both the administration’s program of eavesdropping without warrants and its use of “enhanced” interrogation techniques for terrorism suspects, including waterboarding, might be acceptable under the Constitution even if they went beyond what the law technically allowed. Mr. Mukasey said the president’s authority as commander in chief might allow him to supersede laws written by Congress.¤¤¤

I'm at a loss.......

The definitions seems to change according to what they wish to get away with at the time.

One can only imagine the horrors that are going on in the name of the "war on terror".

On the point of killing folks , with what we know now about the atrocities being carried out on so many, IMO it would seem probable that that some have suffered that fate , not intentionally , but as a result of the torture being inflicted on suspects.

I think there will probably now be, with just over a year left for this administration, a concerted effort to get as many as possible of the perpetrators of various injustices carried out in the name of the "war on terror" lifted above the law and future prosecution....

The definitions seems to change according to what they wish to get away with at the time.

One can only imagine the horrors that are going on in the name of the "war on terror".

On the point of killing folks , with what we know now about the atrocities being carried out on so many, IMO it would seem probable that that some have suffered that fate , not intentionally , but as a result of the torture being inflicted on suspects.

I think there will probably now be, with just over a year left for this administration, a concerted effort to get as many as possible of the perpetrators of various injustices carried out in the name of the "war on terror" lifted above the law and future prosecution.

In my own view i personally think that G.W Bush and others should end up in the Haig charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Do you think they worry so much about accountability? I'm not sure. I think they may have pretty much already have that covered. The Military Commissions Act 2006 has provisions in it, that would pretty much get them off the hook. I'm not holding my breath regarding accountability anyway.

"The MCA includes a number of provisions that seriously undermine basic human rights. Among other things, the MCA makes it harder to prosecute those who commit war crimes – both U.S. officials and enemies of the United States who abuse U.S. personnel – under the federal War Crimes Act. It curtails the role of U.S. courts in reviewing the detention and treatment of people captured by the U.S. Government....

Do you think they worry so much about accountability? I'm not sure. I think they may have pretty much already have that covered. The Military Commissions Act 2006 has provisions in it, that would pretty much get them off the hook. I'm not holding my breath regarding accountability anyway.

"The MCA includes a number of provisions that seriously undermine basic human rights. Among other things, the MCA makes it harder to prosecute those who commit war crimes – both U.S. officials and enemies of the United States who abuse U.S. personnel – under the federal War Crimes Act. It curtails the role of U.S. courts in reviewing the detention and treatment of people captured by the U.S. Government."

Giving US officials immunity from prosecution:
On this issue, Amnesty international notes that the Act will:

Narrow the scope of the War Crimes Act by not expressly criminalizing acts that constitute “outrages upon personal dignity, particularly humiliating and degrading treatment” banned under Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions.
Prohibit the US courts from using “foreign or international law” to inform their decisions in relation to the War Crimes Act. The President has the authority to “interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions.”
Endorse the administration’s “war paradigm”—under which the USA has selectively applied the laws of war and rejected international human rights law.
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=11095

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/ca3/hrf-ca3-102406.html


Oh and I agree 100%! They should definitely all be tried in the Hague.

The info about the Military Commissions Act 2006 does make it clear these lawbreakers are trying to protect themselves.

The first sentence of the clip also makes clear this White House and it's officials and advisors argue that then are not even bound by the law in the first place: QUOTE: "Mr. Mukasey...arguing that the White House had constitutional authority to act beyond the limits of laws enacted by Congress."

They claim this power because it's wartime (the war they started on proven falsehoods). They also claim they can attack Iran without needing any Congressional approval.

Mercenary grooups in Iraq are also claimed to have immunity from all laws. Phone companies that turned over d...

The info about the Military Commissions Act 2006 does make it clear these lawbreakers are trying to protect themselves.

The first sentence of the clip also makes clear this White House and it's officials and advisors argue that then are not even bound by the law in the first place: QUOTE: "Mr. Mukasey...arguing that the White House had constitutional authority to act beyond the limits of laws enacted by Congress."

They claim this power because it's wartime (the war they started on proven falsehoods). They also claim they can attack Iran without needing any Congressional approval.

Mercenary grooups in Iraq are also claimed to have immunity from all laws. Phone companies that turned over data in violation of civil rights laws has recently been granted immunity. Irving Lewis ('Scooter,') Libby was pardoned. The CIA got some provision somewhere that they also have immunity from charges of torture.

Um...I don't think these claims of immunity will hold up, in the long run. Unfortuntely this doesn't help the victims of the warmongers now, but eventually be overturned and allow criminal charges and civil lawsuits. The only reasons is has any weight now is because our corrupt elected leaders support it.

But if new, better leaders are elected -- well -- it's real simple -- they just write and pass their own laws. None of this is written in stone. Everything can be changed by a 51% vote (note: a side issue, but the claim that 60 votes are needed to pass legislation in the US Senate is a lie...so many lies and distortions).

I know, 4 sure, for example, that if you sign a document all certified and notorized and everything claiming: "I will not sue," in the case of..whatever; well you can do that or have someone talk you into doing that but it has no legal binding power.

I like living in the USA, BTW. It's just that our current leaders are bad.

BTW, citizenbfk, it's our current leaders who have kept us safe since 09/11/2001 and have tried to clean up the mess left behind by the previous apathetic ( and documented corrupt) administration. W, Dick Cheney and the 2nd Amendment are why you can go to sleep every evening with superior odds of waking up unharmed by a jihadist or a local hoodlum.

Oh yeah, I'm still searching for that long list of US "victims" that have had their civil rights violated by our "bad" leaders.

I also suggest you read the exact transcript of the Mukasey hearings rather than relying on the NYT reporter's interpretation. That rag is no longer worth the paper it's printed on.

Just what is your de...

BTW, citizenbfk, it's our current leaders who have kept us safe since 09/11/2001 and have tried to clean up the mess left behind by the previous apathetic ( and documented corrupt) administration. W, Dick Cheney and the 2nd Amendment are why you can go to sleep every evening with superior odds of waking up unharmed by a jihadist or a local hoodlum.

Oh yeah, I'm still searching for that long list of US "victims" that have had their civil rights violated by our "bad" leaders.

I also suggest you read the exact transcript of the Mukasey hearings rather than relying on the NYT reporter's interpretation. That rag is no longer worth the paper it's printed on.

Just what is your definition of a "warmonger?" Did The USA invade Kuwait? Did the USA use chemical weapons on innocent civilians? Does the USA knowingly give safe harbour to known terrorists? Did the USA continuously fire missiles at military jets under the auspices of a UN no-fly zone?0

Ahhh, yes, the United Nations, that bastion of human rights and savior of the poor and downtrodden. "The inspections were working" they said. Hellllloooo, McFly....I could hide a ton of contraband in my home if I was able to dicate to authorities when and where they could search at my discretion.

As for your side note regarding the passage of legislation, it's a shame that our schools have watered down the civics curriculum. I'll bet I couldn't find 2 out 10 people on the street that could tell you how a law is is wriiten and passed. ("Filibuster....isn't he the rapper that shot Tupak?")

As for your assertion that a release document has "no legal binding power," I can refer you to a competent attorney. Don't get discouraged by liberal judges legislating from the bench.

Thank God there are still more eagles in this country than ostriches.......

I don't need a competent attorney about what you call "a release document." I was stating what the law was.

It's nice you know the law about 51%. I've been telling people about it because our politicians are lying about that just as an excuse. No wonder most people you've interviewed on the streets (you say) don't know such fact it's because our leaders lie to us and most media doesn't follow up on the facts. Indeen, as you sort of referenced, it is a 'tradition,' and procedure that 60 votes are required to overcome a filibuster...but #1 if the warmongering Republicans threaten a filibuster then let them do it (don't just back down becaue they threaten it). A filbuster is a 'fight,' and a ...

I don't need a competent attorney about what you call "a release document." I was stating what the law was.

It's nice you know the law about 51%. I've been telling people about it because our politicians are lying about that just as an excuse. No wonder most people you've interviewed on the streets (you say) don't know such fact it's because our leaders lie to us and most media doesn't follow up on the facts. Indeen, as you sort of referenced, it is a 'tradition,' and procedure that 60 votes are required to overcome a filibuster...but #1 if the warmongering Republicans threaten a filibuster then let them do it (don't just back down becaue they threaten it). A filbuster is a 'fight,' and a threat of one doesn't mean they will be able to filibuster forever.

#2, the Big Fact about a filibuster is that rule can be changed by a 51% vote. Did you understand that or get it mixed up with Tupak? or 50-cents.

In fact it seems you're 50-cents short of a dollar. W, Dick Cheney is hated by the vast majority of people so you shouldn't act like he a savior or saint or something but at least acknowledge that. The last time I saw him on TV they played Star Trek Darth Vader music. He's like some vampire and when he dies I'll write to my Congressman suggesting we put a wooden stake in his heart while he's in his grave.

As for your other pathetic opinions about the President with the lowest approval ratings in all of American history (since rating were recorded) if you think Bush is your savior I'd suggest you stock up on food, amno, medical supplies, etc. While this negative Nero fiddles our cities are being destoryed by floods and not rebuilt, cities like Atlanta are running out of water, real soon, our roads and highways are falling apart, our jobs are being given to foreign nations, the gap between rich and poor is geting as large as third-world countries, our schools and brains have been 'dumbed down,' the majority of folks overweight and unhealthy, prisons overpopulated,+

BTW, citizenbfk, it's our current leaders who have kept us safe since
09/11/2001 and have tried to clean up the mess left behind by the
previous apathetic ( and documented corrupt) administration. W,
Dick Cheney and the 2nd Amendment are why you can go to sleep every
evening with superior odds of waking up unharmed by a jihadist or a
local hoodlum.

How exactly have they done that?

Airport secuirty is still a joke.

What does the right to bear arms have to do with any of this?

And what messes would that be?

Afghanistan a war in which the CIA was ordered by Carter/Reagan to incite and then arm the jihadist with advance weapon systems (like the RIM-66A Stinger)?

Or ...

BTW, citizenbfk, it's our current leaders who have kept us safe since
09/11/2001 and have tried to clean up the mess left behind by the
previous apathetic ( and documented corrupt) administration. W,
Dick Cheney and the 2nd Amendment are why you can go to sleep every
evening with superior odds of waking up unharmed by a jihadist or a
local hoodlum.

How exactly have they done that?

Airport secuirty is still a joke.

What does the right to bear arms have to do with any of this?

And what messes would that be?

Afghanistan a war in which the CIA was ordered by Carter/Reagan to incite and then arm the jihadist with advance weapon systems (like the RIM-66A Stinger)?

Or perhaps Reagan who with a wink and a nod made arms deals with Iraq and Iran?

The same dudes that left the job half-done in Afghanistan and decided to play neo-colonial chess in Iraq?

The koo-aid tastes good, but the sugar rush can be blinding.

Just what is your definition of a "warmonger?" Did The USA invade Kuwait? Did the USA use chemical weapons on innocent civilians? Does the USA knowingly give safe harbor to known terrorists? Did the USA continuously fire missiles at military jets under the auspices of a UN no-fly zone?0

Did Iraq attack the U.S.?

Did the current Vice President called for lifting sanctions on Iran during the 90's because his company was sidestepping said sanctions to do business with Iran? yes. Same VP that after making false links between Saddam and 9/11 (links that where proven wrong) now hungers to expand the war to Iran.

Did the US use chemical on innocent civilians? Yes, in Fallujah in 2...

Just what is your definition of a "warmonger?" Did The USA invade Kuwait? Did the USA use chemical weapons on innocent civilians? Does the USA knowingly give safe harbor to known terrorists? Did the USA continuously fire missiles at military jets under the auspices of a UN no-fly zone?0

Did Iraq attack the U.S.?

Did the current Vice President called for lifting sanctions on Iran during the 90's because his company was sidestepping said sanctions to do business with Iran? yes. Same VP that after making false links between Saddam and 9/11 (links that where proven wrong) now hungers to expand the war to Iran.

Did the US use chemical on innocent civilians? Yes, in Fallujah in 2004, white phosphorus to exact. Oh and those chemical munitions (the ones that Saddam used and then destroyed under the supervision of U.N. inspectors), where payed for by the Regan administration, the same administration that ignored reports of their used against Kurdish villages and then sent (then) Special Envoy Donald Rumsfeld to shake the hand of Saddam Hussein and slip a few billion dollars of "agricultural" aid into his greasy palm. Remind me why Saddam was not tried on those attacks?

Harbor terrorist? You mean like Cuban terrorist groups that have launched attacks from the U.S. mainland against Cuban civilian targets or protected a man that blew up a Venezuelan airliner full of innocent civilians and today cooperates with MEK terrorist group to launch attacks into Iran...like those terrorist?

As for the No-Fly zones, it was a no-so secret air war, the U.S. and the UK used the excuse of being illuminated by Air Search radars to launch strikes.

History helps, when you study it.