Tag Archives: military commissions

UPDATE: US called Waterboarding a War Crime in 1947.

Posted on by
Reply

An update to the Waterboarding debate:

[In] 1947, the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out another form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian. The subject was strapped on a stretcher that was tilted so that his feet were in the air and head near the floor, and small amounts of water were poured over his face, leaving him gasping for air until he agreed to talk.

“Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor,” Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) told his colleagues last Thursday during the debate on military commissions legislation. “We punished people with 15 years of hard labor when waterboarding was used against Americans in World War II,” he said

As a lawyer, Mukasey should be familiar with precedent, ESPECIALLY precedent that could be useful for his current or upcoming job and as a judge.   How can he "not be sure" if it's allowable or not at this point?

Popularity: 1% [?]

Is The President Above The Law?

Posted on by
Reply

In the United States we believe in the "Rule of Law".  A term meaning that everyone must obey the law, and nobody is above the law.  These laws are to be written, public, and challengable in court.

Bush's nomination for Attorney General thinks one man is above this.

AT his confirmation hearings last week, Michael B. Mukasey, President Bush’s nominee for attorney general, was asked whether the president is required to obey federal statutes. Judge Mukasey replied, "That would have to depend on whether what goes outside the statute nonetheless lies within the authority of the president to defend the country."

According to Judge Mukasey’s statement, as well as other parts of his testimony, the president’s authority "to defend the nation" trumps his obligation to obey the law. Take the federal statute governing military commissions in Guantánamo Bay. No one, including the president’s lawyers, argues that this statute is unconstitutional. The only question is whether the president is required to obey it even if in his judgment the statute is not the best way "to defend the nation."

If he is not, we no longer live under the government the founders established.

SOURCE

His arguement basically comes down to the fact that The Constitution is above all laws, and that since the President is required "the defense of the nation" in the Constitution, laws are null and void in pursuit of this goal.

This is NOT a view the nation should embrace.  The defense of the nation can and should be pursued following the Constitution, International Law, and also following our domestic laws.  Violating these ideals has led other nations to dictatorship, corruption, and loss of liberty.  It CAN happen here as well, not just other nations.

The Attorney General is THE law enforcement official in the country.  It's their job to ENFORCE the laws of the land, not make exceptions to them.  If something is illegal, the Attorney General should be the first one to stop the President and his actions.  That was the main problem with the last one.  Gonzales was seen as just defining things and changing them to fit the current Administration.  Not holding the Administration to the law.

Popularity: 1% [?]