Redstate

Yeah, MSNBC and their blogs broke the story.  If they did, who would of ever known it?  Looking at MSNBC's ratings, not too many.  

I generally thought Russert was somewhat fair up until a few months ago, now he's a pet of the liberal loon's.

Microsoft and General Electric don't strike me as particularly "lefty."

Perhaps you meant something else...

He and John Warner and Lindsey Graham, he said, hope to pass a bill which will indicate that American will love up to standards with all of its prisoners.

I'm pretty sure that's what got Lynde England in trouble.

McCain proves no particular wisdom in the art of war is necessarily obtained from service and incl the necessary discretion a commander in cheif must have in the handling of illegal enemy combatents and pow's for tha matter.

Moreover, i ahve written several legal columns about the inherent powers that were understood to be conferred in the 18th century by the terms executive power and commnader in cheif which include the exclusive discretionm in the WAGING of war, including whom to kill, whom to take prisoner and what is to be dome with them.

Congress can declare war, which is really not all that significant for it really realated only to the state of legal realtions between powers.

Congress's only checks on the pres war power is the budget and impeachment.

"which include the exclusive discretion in the WAGING of war, including whom to kill, whom to take prisoner and what is to be dome with them.

Congress's only checks on the pres war power is the budget and impeachment."

Sorry, but the President isn't above the law.  That is the OTHER check on presidential war power.

The constitution is the law. It gives each branch certain exclusive powers, most of which can be checks by defined means.

The congress cannot pass a law that re-defines the supreme court or the president's powers. The congress's powers are limited and defeined.

Any statute the congress passes is not ipso facto THE LAW.

The sup ct fequently over rules laws of congress, despite the fcat that the constitution doesnt expressly allow it. But the congress can pass const amendments, remove the courts jurisdiction for futre case on most subjest and can impeacj judges.

The constitution does not grant the congress the power to wage war and for very good reasons disvussed in the federalist papers. They did consider it and also considered a 3 person executive. But they expressly chose to vest the power to wage war in one man, for purpose of flexibility and immediate action due to the perisl of war and so that the publuc could easily hole the man resposible rather than face a congress with differing votes.

By using the term commander in cheif, they defined the power as complete.

The congress could still impeach or deny funding to the military. And of course, the people can refuse to re-elect him or threaten his party to force action. But when we choose a president, we should understand the power we invest.

One last thing, the sup ct has on very, VERY few occasions ruled to restrict the executive war power.

NO PRESIDENT, AND FAMOUSLY ANDREW JACKSON, HAVE EVER COMPLIED.

THE PRESIDENT IS THE LAW ON WAR MAKING.

Mucha the congress is on money

and the court is on cases

...would raise a fuss if it were perceived that the Prez had violated the public trust with his warmaking ... as a good portion of the president's opposition already has ...

I don't begrudge the president his C-in-C position, I was just bedeviling advocacy.

What are the ratings like for these shows? I TiVo FNS to see Brit in action. Williams is a dufus.

and if the people truly wanted us out and considered the pres to have violated their trust, congresspersons would know it.

You know polls don't measure intensity and the msm polls are worded not to make sure congressperons really understand what their constituents think. The msm pools are designed and conconducted to advance their leftst agenda.

Whereas, congreess and the parties conduct THEIR OWN POLLS that are not published.

Also, giving ananswer o a poll has  no effect on the life of those that answer.

elections focus the mind.

when one votes, one has stark choises and the choice will be carried out in fcat.

And despite poor polls last year before the election , vicious press and actual tough figting on the ground, BUSH WON ANYWAY.

So all the poll driven msm news anxiety is really not justified and not the real world. Beaciuse the msm aint still livin in 1972.

Now ther e is cable and rush and the internet.

but we all get caught up in the tv world and think that everybody must be fooled even though we aren't!!!

The msm is very much like communist propaganda and was for years. And Rush and Fox news and the internet have exposed them.

It sjust that when we listen to rush or fox its not like the collective experience of the old 3 channels.

But people are not stupid

and much of the dissatisfaction with bush in thepolls wouild never pull out. they want him to nuke the place

Just for kicks this weekend I decided to watch the Sunday morning talk shows myself instead of relying on your weekly review.  And Lord Almighty you have a fantastic ability to condense and comment on these programs.  Then I got scared because I thought maybe you had given up!  NOOO.  

This is, once again, the BEST review and digest of the Sunday morning shows on the planet -- it's faithful to the material, it's funny, and it's from a (non obnoxious) Republican point of view.

Folks, send some money into RedState to support this kind of work.  C'mon.  Cough it up.

I guess you don't know much about Seattle nor the political tilt of their workforce up there in Seattle?  Check their political contributions.

Besides, you missed what I intended, i.e. Russert ignoring who broke the story of his/Meet the Press's screw up in letting that nut make outrageous and false claims without calling him on it.  MSNBC is out to lunch whenever anything happens.  Always a day late and a dollar short.  But still Russert tries to give them credibility when he knows it was others who broke the story.  I guess NBC cannot give others credit, somewhat similar to how CNN absolutely never mentions Fox News by name, they cannot acknowledge they exist.

He seems like a nice enough person but whenever he opens him much, I have no idea what planet he came here from.  I think half the time Kristol and Brit don't bother correcting him because they don't really think he is serious.  He must get all his information from the D underground and Kos.  I cannot believe our tax dollars pay for such a nutty point of view.  I remember him from years ago and he was never as out there as he is now, it just keeps drifting.

I forgot what an air-head Maureen Dowd is while watching MTP.  I had a really hard time trying to understand her point and follow her Down(Dowd?)-syndrome toned voice as she tries to litter her comments with snooty sarcasm.  She's almost as nauseating and annoying as Omarosa, that black she-man liar from The Apprentice.  I can take funny and witty liberals, but not mumbling wannabe princesses.

Thank you, Kowalski.

Now what did you think I had given up?

I've been doing this a long time, and true story: I had major surgery a few years ago on a Wednesday;  I was not going to publish anything that Sunday, but I was conscious and had a TV in my room.  I got a notepad...

2743 words so I have not read all of it. Blogging, like most forms of persuasive writing, is best practiced with an economy of words. However, I did read the first few paragraphs, and I'd like to comment on the bit about Russert. Frankly, the man's "conspiracy theory" argument is a piece of garbage.  Leaving aside the fact that the 17th street levee was next to a trendy, upscale part of town, the idea that the rich would build crappy levees for the poor and good levees for themselves doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.  It didn't matter where the levees broke because the city of New Orleans was built not unlike a large fishbowl.  Once water starts pouring into the bowl it will go everywhere in the city that is not below sea level.  Does Russert not understand this?

she looks like mrs haversham

but the level of her popularity should not be overestimated because she's on a sunday tv talk show

but she is a good writer

i always read her columns

i call her the wicked witch

or the evil vamp

Sunday shows.  There are five such shows.  My friend, 3,0000 words is about as brief as it gets.

The Sunday Morning Talk Shows were not designed for your attention span, and thus neither can be the review.

Thanks for the persuasive tips, though.

So what's your stance on the War Powers Resolution?  Is that constitutional?

How about the Uniform Code of Military Justice?  Congress has the authority to make changes to that, do they not?

I'm not exactly up to speed on all the details of what McCain and others are trying to do, but iirc they are trying to establish some parameters on the treatment and care of prisoners of any kind.  To suggest that they have no authority whatsoever to do so seems too broad to me.

Surely Congress has some right to involve themselves on the treatment of prisoners who are removed from the battlefield.  Certainly Guantanamo can not be exempt from the authority of the Legislative branch of our government?  I can understand not allowing congress to dictate rules of engagement of actual warfare, but the Executive can not reasonably expect to be free of oversight in non-hostile, non-combat situations.

The very rare incidents that have occured have been handled via the present statutes (UCMJ, etc.).

Let's also keep in mind that the folks we're discussing have usually been trying to kill our troops.  There are certain risks that are inherent in such a decision.

I'm not saying that we should treat these scum with the same rights and legal protections that US citizens are given when arrested.  But what McCain and others are trying to do is provide certain parameters of behavior so that the actions taken at Abu Ghraib can never happen again.

In one light you could argue that what McCain is trying to do is protect OUR troops.  Most soldiers don't go into the military to become guards of scum.  They aren't necessarily well trained on how to treat prisoners, and we need to establish parameters so that they know what they can and can not do.

It would be a tragedy if we were to allow ourselves to succumb to their level once we have captured them and removed them from the battlefield.  We're better than that.

Now, as far as what we allow troops and other operatives to do on the battlefield or under the cover of the CIA, I'm not particularly squeamish.  I've never really understood why we actually take prisoners who act the way these folks have acted.  But my military experience is limited to the latest Clancy book, so I have no frame of reference of what battle is actually like.

About whether you'd do a digest this past weekend because I didn't see the usual pre-digest lineup on the front page, that's all.

I had major surgery a few years ago on a Wednesday;  I was not going to publish anything that Sunday, but I was conscious and had a TV in my room.  I got a notepad...

Now, that's quality and dedication to service!  But I know the impulse, I've done it myself.  A few years ago I was in the hospital after a bad motorcycle accident.  After I woke up and realized I wasn't dead, I remembered that I had promised to publish a half-dozen web pages for a group that was hosting an important event.  It was time-critical, and I was the only person who knew how to get to the production server from the development server.  One of the orderlies was in the room checking on my IVs and I said:  

"I need a computer.  There's a network jack in this room and I need a computer that has network and FTP capability.  I need to get through the hospital's firewall on Port 25 and Port 80.  Can you find me a laptop and tell me who to talk to?"

He was stunned that I was talking, much less thinking about TCP/IP...long story short, an hour later he wheeled a laptop into my room, hooked it up, and while the three doctors who were monitoring me crowded around the end of the bed to watch, I got the site running for my client -- on time, typing with a BIC pen because I could barely move my arms -- as promised.

One doctor looked at the other and said with a smile:  "I guess he's gonna be OK."

Big laughs from everyone.

Passing news laws won't prevent the actions at Abu Ghraib from ever happening again. The curent law didn't. And the prison giards are being prosecuted under CURRENT law. Just as laws against murder in Detroit doesn't prevent ALL murders.

The abu guards were ONE rouge shift of sadists.

McCain proves no particular wisdom in the art of war is necessarily obtained from service . . .

His actual combat service was very short, IIRC, followed by considerable time as a POW. Again, IIRC, his daddy was an admiral, and he gave up preferential treatment as a POW which the commies offered due to his VIP status (which they obviously intended to turn into a propaganda victory).

I liked the review, but it might have been better to split it up.

As to the war resolution (and war powers act): Nothing in the constitution requires that a war be decaled by congress before the pres may wage war. Nothing in the constitution requires that any particular language be used in the exercise of their power to declare war. Like I said, if you go back and look at the debate in the 17th C the declaration of war was primarily to effect legal relations between countries and commerce.

But, if you read the war res passed after 911 and the specific iraq war res, they clearly are declarations of war, and are actually more broad an authority than simply to say we daclare war on: a,b,c..

Now, the Congressional statute, War Powers Act, authorizes a pres to put troops in hostilities for so many months, blah , blah, blah

No pres, even carter, ever admitted its constitutionality and no congress has ever invoked it to try ans STOP a war.

Notice that all pres ever say thanks cogress for AUTHORIZING. They say, approving!! Well, thanks guys for approving of it. Thatmakes me feel good. By the way we killed 1000 terrorists yesteday before youy guys did this, but ok. 'preciate it!

Yes, Congress, with the power of the purse, has great leverage and the right to condition money allocated that it be used in certain ways and not used in other ways.

And nothing can stop them from passing laws, as thay have in the past, incl. the UCMJ.

But, the president EXECUTES the laws. And just because Congress says you must give Bin Laden a lawyer and let him go if you didn't have a serch warrent doesn't mean the President must do that.

Killing the enemy and capturing and holding the enemy are what waging war is! and the president ALONE wages war.

Now, Presidents can't wage war w/o an army and eqpt and soldiers don't fight long w/o checks! So Congress has great leverage.

Congress cut off funds for the s viets and all us help in 1974-5.

But, remember the Bolton amendment and iran-contra? There was great debate about whetehr congress could even tie the pres hands on forein policy that was not nearly as cleary even waging war!

No president would ever let a court or a congress stop them from doinwhat they had to do to stop a threat or release an obvious threat.

Remember Andrew Jackson? and the trail of ntears? the sup ct told him it would be illegal? He told them to go jump.

The only remedy is to cut off funds or impeach, and that won't happen, because the people look to the president, not a bunch of senate primadonnas or robed writers.

This is the practical effect of the Constitution.

Plus, as a practical matter, torture regs are quite useless, except as a general rule for soldiers in the ordinary course. We have regs now.

But, of course, in certain situations, and way more than the few thatget leaked, we do what we must.

I don't know that I'd cite Andrew Jackson's treatment of Indians as a positive example of the unfettered freedom that the Executive Branch has under the Constitution.  I don't think of the Trail of Tears as a good example of our country's moral fiber.

I would agree that Congress' ultimate authority comes from its power of the purse, but I guess I just don't see what's wrong with the amendments that McCain seems to be describing.

I fully understand the Administration's argument, as far as it relates to the treatment of prisoners on or immediately near the battlefield, the Executive should have quite a bit of latitude on how to treat the scum.  I don't mind disappearing some of them to get good information or just to send a message.  But once we have removed them from the field of battle, transferred them to a place like Guantanamo, which is American soil, we have a moral obligation to ourselves to behave in a civilized manner.

Send out the black ops teams to do the uncivilized stuff that destroys the enemy, but when we bring the enemy to our turf, we have to be able to live with ourselves.  There doesn't seem to be anything too egreggious in his request, and seeing as how he speaks on this issue with a heightened awareness, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

"it will go everywhere in the city that is below sea level."

I'll read the McCain amendments later and thanks.

But one quick thought that relates to what you said about making sure abu graib doesn't happen again. There is nothing we can do to make sure it doesn't happen again, short of never holding prisoners. maybe laws and regs can be improved to reduce the possibility and of course, we can TRY HARDER to hire better people. And, keep inmind, abu graib was not an atrocity of killing as ocucurred in wwii, vietnma and all wars becuause some people are weak or evil and will break down, esp in war.

As a lawyer, i am continually amazed, that people don't realize that the courts exist to handle the transgressions that occur, whether civil or criminal. But so often rather than let the courts take care of the few aberrations, we go in and over regulate, and tie business and law enforcement hands.

more later on that

First, about the removal of ther Cherokee from the Carolinas and Georgia. Jackson actually chose the most humane choice that was possible at the time. more after parens...

(By the way, other presidents have have also defied the courts and congress, but the examples are so few, precisely because neither congress or teh courts want to get into a fight about executive power in this area because it would reveal their impotence in a situation where the pres simply would not comply as presidents have such an advantage in this area. Moreover, if precedents are esstablished, they fear it would embolden the exec to be more aggresive!)

The situation was that the defeated Cherokee were not complying with the surrender treaty and  state laws re private property and the state militia in georgia was poised to wipe them out. Jackson saved them from extinction.

The American soil argument is a court creation that Lincoln defied. Moreover, only a recent case carved out a partial treatment of gitmo like amer soil. Recent cases also "allow" holding of citizens as e.c.'s. One case did require a cursory review of ec status, but all that is required is that the exec say so really. This concerns only the status of ec and the right to hold until the war is over or until the ec is no longer deemed a threat or an intell asset.

So the power to hold is separate from charging pows or ecs/spies with war crimes and executing or sentencing to prison terms regardles of the length of the war.

A caveat, in wwii, we held over 1 million germans here in the states and they never got status reviews orderd by courts, lawyers, etc and we did not have any idea how long the war would last, of course, as is always the case.

one other caveat, ecs which include spies (enemy combat not in uniform) can be shot on sight under ancient war law since they endanger civilian populations. They can be shot on the street and not on a traditional battlefild. Because they are deemed to have brought the barrlefield to town!

So, when evaluating their treatment when we decide not to summarily execute them, this legal option needs to be remembered.

Additionally, we must recognize that pows and ecs already have the right to an adversary trial before a military tribunal before we can convict of war crime and execute.

Ok, now, lets get to the crux of the serious issues you raised concerning their teatment once they have been removed from the battlefeild to a distant location. more below

One threshold issue is the position of our civil courts and foreign ecs and pows.

(This also applies to us citizens as well no matter if captured on us soil under the wwii case of germans and a us citizen in maryland that were sabatours. They were tried by mil trib and executed w/i a few days i think, maybe a week or so. Plus the padilla 4th C case said a us cit can be held as ec under gitmo rules of corsory affirmation review by dod)

The padilla case will be important but it only concerns holding not sentence or death. The Quirin case is the precedent that even a citizen ec has no right to civil court jury trial for war crime. Moreover, the treson section in the us const is not in art 1 legis. Its under exec art 2!! And, right before the treason section, the  prev section requires jury trials in state where treason is committed, by jury or if not in a state, where congress says.

I don't think there have neen many treason convictions due to the founders not liking the offense since they were called that by Britaaiin! and that's why they required two witnesses! But I beleive treason trils have been held by the military, but I'll check.

Bush/Ashcroft did decide to try Lindh in civil court.

First, i would disagree that it is very significant, once an ec or pow is captured, whether they are kept near the theatre or brought to a naval ship, gitmo or the us mainland. Esp given the above about even us citzs caught here!

Second, as to the role of us courts. The courts are part of WE THE PEOPLE. This concept I got from a great treatise by former atty ge Barr. They exist to settle disputes within the context of the limitations placed on govt power w/i our domestic civil society. These limitations only apply here.

War concerns a threat to the civil society. And our constitution empowers the exec to defend us and wage war gainst enemies, solely apart from these limitations. The waging of war, is by definition, the removal of all limitations. We kill the enemy w/o trial after all.

Moreover, art 3 does outline certain foreigners's case that the courts may hear! But does not include pow/ecs!!

THE FOLLOWING IS VITAL. It would have been deemed rIdiculous for a nation to place ITS OWN COURTS in the position of a NEUTRAL PARTY between we the people, of which the court is a part, and an enemy that wished to destroy us and has taken up arms to do so.

THIS ADMIN IS NO DIFFERENT EVEN FROM CARTER.

can you imagine giving bin laden a trial in which a court could order him release?

It will never happen. And the ecs are held to keep them off the battlefeild bith in NYC and iraq,

AND TO GET INTEL, SO NOW TO TORTURE,

First, Bush/Ashcroft/Gonzales have acknowledged as they had to, that we are signatories to geneva and other teaties including a torture treaty that applies if we go to war with a signatory nation.

But one of the reasons geneva et al were signed was to discourage ecs to offer their protections only to pow's to protect civilians!!

Now, under those treaties, all one can do is ask. And all they have to give is name, rank and ser. no.

I agree that we should have a UCMJ and parameters to inform the military whether by the pres or the congress, under differing circumstances. I really favor vague language and not a list of paticular things we can do. Maybe the language should only say what we can't do in the extreme.

BUT, AND I WOULD LIKE YOUR OPINION ON THIS.  

What of exigent situations like ticking time bombs? You said we should be civilized. I agree. But is it civilized or idiotically suicidal to allow scores, hundreds or thoudsands to be killed when we might can save them by torturing one man even very painful torture?

Alan dershowitz, a lib lawyer, favors such a law in state and federal to apply to domestic crime not just war.

your thoughts

What about a torture

You've gone through an array of topics.  But on the essential topic:

I do not fear or worry about the use of black ops or the CIA to use terrible, horrible methods to extract essential information from the scum who would do us harm, whether they be foreign or domestic terrorists.

But absent an immediate and defined threat, once we have processed them, extracted them from the battlefield, and secured them on US soil, I think that a different standard applies.  Not the full fledged rights of US citizens, but some basic humanity.

I'm not now, nor will I ever be, worried about the 'rights' of the terrorists.  I am, however, worried about the impact on our troops.  Without a clearly defined set of rules, we risk the soldiers not having a clear understanding of what they can or cannot do.  And that's what leads to incidents where troops act illegally.  As I said before, I can't imagine anyone signs up in the military to be a guard for the prisoners.

I posted a seperate note for each segment and guest.  That cluttered the page, and I personally didn't like it, as it took from the continuity.

I offer you the Sunday Morning Public Affairs Talk Shows, one stop, one look.  And I hope that you find this useful.

...isn't part of the motivation for limiting the use of torture on detainees to try to prevent our own troops from being tortured when they are captured?

as regards the routine treatment of pow/ecs in non exigent circumstances as relates to interrogation techniques.

But in special circumstances...just don't tell us.

Surely, yes, rules that are too vague can lead to bad behavior.

But no matter the rules, there will be bad behavior by certain weak or wicked people. And when that occurs we prosecute them.

No matter how brilliant McCain's amendments, they will be violated and we will prosecute.

One more brilliant that McCain wrote the Ten Commandments...

And I doubt that the rougish group on the third shift at abu graib were parsing reasonable definitions in the current UCMJ.

We never have fought a war against a nation that signed these treaties that ever complied on their end!

So, hypothetically, the treaty might help if we ever fight France, Japan or Germany again.

Abu Graib was prosecuted under current. We would never aithorize and reveal to the world voluntarilly, any real torture. Bur i'm sure we and all other enemies will use torture when defeat could be avoided.

All Gonzales did was say, geneva does not apply. Not that we should torture but that we could do more than Geneva allows, otherwise, why hav e Geneva!!

So the issue is not, shall we publicly announce that we will torture.

But in this war, the idea of detering these barbarians is ridiculous. They wage war exclusively by killing inocents!!! and beheading pows.

Under geneva which assumes two signatory parties in compliance, one can't do anything but nicely ask questions, with name, rank and serial no sufficing. with its purpose to deter soldiers out of uniform that endanger civilians off the battlefeild

Keep it up.

there is any doubt about the usefullness.