If the police search your house in violation of your rights, it doesn't matter if they find the bong you made of Elvis's skull that you stole, and use to smoke the hundreds of pot plants you are growing. They can't fucking use it.
This detainment is illegal, it doesn't matter what the hell they did. Release them, and try again legally this time.
What I am asserting is that any president who cared about human rights would disregard these bullshit laws. Just because you can convince congress to pass anything you wish by allowing them to throw their pet projects into the mix, doesn't mean human rights are not being violated.
What I am asserting is that any president who cared about human rights would disregard these bullshit laws.
...virtually guaranteeing impeachment, and/or setting a precedent for a successor to disregard, say, human rights laws. Think of it like legacy code; it may be badly written, obsolete, and a waste of resources to remain compatible with it, but you may not have have any other choice. Historical figures often appear to have acted more boldly and decisively than those in politics today, because historical review necessarily involves simplification and a focus on outcomes. When you dig deeper, though, the process of change was often equally messy and haphazard.
If a president can order armed troops into a warzone without a declaration of war by congress, he sure as shit can order troops out of an illegal prison in Cuba.
I suppose that is another way he could end this horrorshow right now in one day, though you end up with the absurd situation where you are pardoning people who haven't been charged with anything. ;)
Failing that, we could live up to our so-called standards and laws and live with the consequences of torturing him, ie that all evidence tainted by torture is now inadmissible.
Comments
This is what any sane man who actually cared about human rights would do.
That's what any sane man would do about, say, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?
If the police search your house in violation of your rights, it doesn't matter if they find the bong you made of Elvis's skull that you stole, and use to smoke the hundreds of pot plants you are growing. They can't fucking use it.
This detainment is illegal, it doesn't matter what the hell they did. Release them, and try again legally this time.
Yep, which is a major difference between civilian law and the law surrounding unlawful combatants.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant
The law of unlawful combatants is, however, pretty poorly developed. It needs to be the subject of serious thought rather than political football.
What I am asserting is that any president who cared about human rights would disregard these bullshit laws. Just because you can convince congress to pass anything you wish by allowing them to throw their pet projects into the mix, doesn't mean human rights are not being violated.
What I am asserting is that any president who cared about human rights would disregard these bullshit laws.
...virtually guaranteeing impeachment, and/or setting a precedent for a successor to disregard, say, human rights laws. Think of it like legacy code; it may be badly written, obsolete, and a waste of resources to remain compatible with it, but you may not have have any other choice. Historical figures often appear to have acted more boldly and decisively than those in politics today, because historical review necessarily involves simplification and a focus on outcomes. When you dig deeper, though, the process of change was often equally messy and haphazard.
If a president can order armed troops into a warzone without a declaration of war by congress, he sure as shit can order troops out of an illegal prison in Cuba.
The president doesn't have to disregard the laws, he can just pardon everyone, and that is exactly what he should do.
I suppose that is another way he could end this horrorshow right now in one day, though you end up with the absurd situation where you are pardoning people who haven't been charged with anything. ;)
Well, we could have not tortured him.
Failing that, we could live up to our so-called standards and laws and live with the consequences of torturing him, ie that all evidence tainted by torture is now inadmissible.