Slippery slopes
Jun. 7th, 2004 12:08 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumAbu Graib, and the problems there are bad enough, but someone just reminded me I need to read IntelDump more often.
Viz the following: Second, I'd like to counterpose one other key point from the memo [one on the use of torture, as a tool in interrogation TK] against an excerpt from the U.S. Constitution. Compare the following line from the WSJ story:
To protect subordinates should they be charged with torture, the memo advised that Mr. Bush issue a "presidential directive or other writing" that could serve as evidence, since authority to set aside the laws is "inherent in the president."with this passage from Art. II, Sec. 3 of the U.S. Constitution, regarding Presidential power:
Section 3.
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information on 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.
Quite apart from my views on torture, and my reservations about the sophpistries I know of being used in Gitmo, the thought that the President's Counsel is telling him he has the authority to set aside the laws of the land is scary.
Almost as scary is the use of the word, "inherent," which means they are not arguing that some special circumstance grants him that power (a la Lincoln and Habeas Corpus) but rather it is part and parcel of the job.
I don't think they mean it to be so broad (more, perhaps in keeping with Jackson's comment that, "Mr. Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it) but a lack of retribution for disregarding a statue, and the ability to cast it aside, because it displeases one man (and that man with the power to use the Army) is, in a word, dictatorship.
Yes, I am being hyperbolic, using a reductio ad absurdem, but that is not a conclusion beyond the scope of that memo, merely something we don't think will happen here.
Viz the following: Second, I'd like to counterpose one other key point from the memo [one on the use of torture, as a tool in interrogation TK] against an excerpt from the U.S. Constitution. Compare the following line from the WSJ story:
To protect subordinates should they be charged with torture, the memo advised that Mr. Bush issue a "presidential directive or other writing" that could serve as evidence, since authority to set aside the laws is "inherent in the president."with this passage from Art. II, Sec. 3 of the U.S. Constitution, regarding Presidential power:
Section 3.
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information on 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.
Quite apart from my views on torture, and my reservations about the sophpistries I know of being used in Gitmo, the thought that the President's Counsel is telling him he has the authority to set aside the laws of the land is scary.
Almost as scary is the use of the word, "inherent," which means they are not arguing that some special circumstance grants him that power (a la Lincoln and Habeas Corpus) but rather it is part and parcel of the job.
I don't think they mean it to be so broad (more, perhaps in keeping with Jackson's comment that, "Mr. Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it) but a lack of retribution for disregarding a statue, and the ability to cast it aside, because it displeases one man (and that man with the power to use the Army) is, in a word, dictatorship.
Yes, I am being hyperbolic, using a reductio ad absurdem, but that is not a conclusion beyond the scope of that memo, merely something we don't think will happen here.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-06-07 09:30 pm (UTC)