WSJ: Pentagon states ability to set aside laws "inherent in the president"

[Karmadillo]

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_06_06.php#003046

<edit>

The <WSJ> article describes a confidential Pentagon report providing legal rationales and interpretations by which US personnel could use torture and methods of near-torture in contravention of various international treaties and US laws. The bulk of the arguments rest on arguments of 'necessity' and the powers of the president as commander-in-chief. They also go into some depth about how people acting at the president's order could avoid prosecution for demonstrably criminal acts.

The article is well worth reading for this alone.

But that whole discussion is different in kind from one passage in the report. I quote from the piece ...

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." <I put in bold-K>

So the right to set aside law is "inherent in the president". That claim alone should stop everyone in their tracks and prompt a serious consideration of the safety of the American republic under this president. It is the very definition of a constitutional monarchy, let alone a constitutional republic, that the law is superior to the executive, not the other way around. This is the essence of what the rule of law means -- a government of laws, not men, and all that.

more...

[grasswire]

1. wow...

...I guess this is another of WH counsel Gonzalez' brilliant tactics?

[rogerashton]

2. Isn't that the definition of a dictator?

n/t

[indepat]

6. You beat me to the draw on that analogy: clearly this cabal acts as if

we have a dictator rather than a President sworn to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution. Scary stuff!

[Shredr]

8. Frightening

And a far-right fundamental wacko dictator.

[amber dog democrat]

3. This is very dangerous

I think it lies at the heart of the political philosophy of the Bush adminsitration.
They will have little respect for the laws if they don't apply to the executive branch

" since authority to set aside the laws is "inherent in the president."

Where does it say THAT in the Constitution?

This needs to get some serious scrutiny.

[wryter2000]

4. BS

The executive branch is in charge of enforcing laws, not setting them aside. When did this country become the Soviet Union?

[htuttle]

5. Utter bullshit, goes against precedent

Remember the Boland Amendment?

It prohibited military assistance to the Contras. Reagan tried to covertly 'set it aside' and ignore it, and the resulting hearings lead to the conviction of several members of his administration.

The President IS NOT ABOVE THE LAW. I thought we'd settled this in the 1970's, and again in the 1980s.

We have to make an example out of them this time, or they'll just keep trying it again. Somebody high-up has GOT to do some jail time. Simply not electing Bush again isn't enough!

[proud patriot]

7. Not a single individual is above the law , No One Can Set Aside The Law

We do not line in a Monarchy .

[Walt Starr]

9. I consider a statement like that coming out of the Pentagon

to be tanamount to declaring a military coup and is subversive of democracy!

[gratuitous]

10. Do any of our elected representatives dare call it treason?

It would be difficult to imagine a more forthright statement that the executive does not intend to follow the laws of the country. And the behavior of the executive branch, both prior and subsequent to this memorandum show conclusively that they don't cotton much to obeying "inconvenient" laws, court decisions, or treaties.

It's called treason.

[Endangered Specie]

12. Not unless they want to go the way of Roehm

[Endangered Specie]

11. Careful what you say or the NKVD will come and 're-educate' you.