I found time this morning to enjoy your stimulating comments. I think I got more than I wanted.

At some point there is a real possibility McCain could be the Republican candidate. I find that a bit depressing as well as presenting what would be a difficult set of choices for me

.

From the same Wikepedia entry:

“Reagan’s people used non-appropriated money spent by the National Security Council to circumvent the Amendment. No court ever made a determination whether Boland covered the NSC, and no one was ever indicted for violating it.”

“The Boland Amendment prohibited the federal government from providing military support “for the purpose of overthrowing the Government of Nicaragua.” As such it was thought by many to be an unconstitutional interference with the President’s ability to conduct foreign policy.”

The Boland amendment specifically directed the disposition of certain funds. These funds were not involved. The amendment was a strawman to pursue a political end.

We do have in place the checks and balances concerning the executive use of armed force. There is the Constitutional requirement that the Congress declare war, as clarified by the War Powers Act of 1973. In this case we do have a declaration of war.

107th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. J. RES. 114

October 10, 2002

The President has almost unlimited discretion in time of war. The only control that Congress can exercise is through appropriations. This is explicit in the Constitution and by more than 200 years of precedent.

The bill in question is a specific directive from Congress regarding the conduct of the war. It is patently improper.

Regards,

Roy

Do you really believe that a President has the authority to do whatever he wants in foreign policy, even if Congress passes legislation PROHIBITING the funding of a certain action? Do you accept ANY checks and balances on the executive power to involve Americans in a military conflict?

It seems as if you would be much happier living under an absolute monarchy, and that you want to move our presidency in that direction.

from Wilkepedia:

“When the CIA carried out a series of acts of sabotage without Congressional intelligence committees giving consent, or even being made aware beforehand, the Republican-controlled Senate became enraged, leading to the passage of the Boland Amendment and subsequent cutting off of appropriated funding for the Contras.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boland_Amendment

The Uniform Code of Military Justice is a law authored and passed by the Congress. To pass another law that possibly conflicts with this established law is mischevious, pernicious and contrary to the principle of legal clarity.

This law is an attept by Congress to poach upon the clear Constitutional prerogatives of the executive. One such horrid example of Congressional meddling was the Boland Amendment. This amendment was the point of the spear in a vicious partisan assault that polarized the country, comforted our enemies and disrupted the body politic. The President has no choice but to veto it.

Regards,

Roy

Oh, there will be complaints that of all the legislation he should have veto’d he chose this.

And the complaints from the usual suspects on the left as well.

The point is we are at war. We have to get serious. We have to admit it to ourselves. This amendment is a bandaid to appease those in our country who do not believe we are at war nor that we have to fight. It is redundant and therefore has no meaning beyond appeasement of ourselves.

I think giving in by letting this amendment through would bolster the feeling that the anti-war types are right. Back in the sand of the nineties their heads will go.

and yes PR is not their forte.

I don’t think there is a torture policy in the Bush administration, in fact I would say that never in history has there been greater scrutiny paid to the fate of detainees or prisoners.

I think that many of the failures in that regard have been failures of discipline.

But then again there is debate as to what torture even is so I guess we can forget any consensus on that.

I hear and read so many different takes on Iraq that I do not pretend to know what will happen. I even heard that some people are saying the Sunnis might vote in favor of the constitution in larger numbers than previously thought. It seems their big concern right now is the next election in December where they hope to gain more influence. I guess we will find out soon enough.

In some ways I don’t care what the Sunnis want. They have lorded it over everyone else for decades without caring what they felt or thought or suffered, so there is a part of me that thinks a little humility might not be a bad thing. They are a minority and the rest of Iraq could obliterate them if they so desired. But I pray that does not happen.

The Iraqis are taking more and more control of their destiny, and I think there will be many problems along the way but there is no easy way to make this happen. Well except for bringing in some strong man like Saddam and looking the other way.

The editorial seemed to be a laundry list of potential disasters. Since when was Iraq not a disaster? Just because a film crew did not show up when Saddam put tens of thousands of people in some mass grave it does not mean this was a civil and peaceful society. The violence was just more hidden. until the bones surfaced somewhere anyway.

And that was a good speech Bush gave. At least he named the enemy.

“not authorized by and listed in the United States Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation.”

So, we already have standards which are supposed to be enforced, and this amendment in effect seems to be saying, please make sure the standards are enforced.

Generally if a law is being changed, it states what about that law is being changed, chapter and verse.

Since there is no such language in the amendment, I would have to conclude that the amendment would not change the law.

Here is the current law on torture:

*********************

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113C >

Damn straight PJ!

See this post I just sent around. I took the liberty of excerpting some of the high points here.

A MUST READ go to the White House Press Release link at the bottom

*****

GWOT – Major Strategic Foreign Policy Speech Just Delivered By President Bush

Washington, D.C.

President Bush swings from the hips today and delivers barn burner speech calling a, “shovel a shovel.” He clearly announces for once the GWOT is a war of ideologies. For the first time he identifies we are at war with an ideology some have called, “. . . evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant Jihadism; still others, Islamo-fascism.”

This is the speech the Blogos has been waiting to hear for a long time. Much of what was said is old news to us but the American people are still clueless because of the lack of reporting of the real issues by the MSM.

The Blogos needs to spread President Bush’s words far and wide to ever corner of the earth so that the enemy clearly knows we will not shrink from the battle and its days are numbered!

Ron

(HT PJ at Roger L. Simon)

*****

President Discusses War on Terror at National Endowment for Democracy

Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center

Washington, D.C.

[...]

In this new century, freedom is once again assaulted by enemies determined to roll back generations of democratic progress. Once again, we’re responding to a global campaign of fear with a global campaign of freedom. And once again, we will see freedom’s victory. (Applause.)

[...]

Recently our country observed the fourth anniversary of a great evil, and looked back on a great turning point in our history. We still remember a proud city covered in smoke and ashes, a fire across the Potomac, and passengers who spent their final moments on Earth fighting the enemy. We still remember the men who rejoiced in every death, and Americans in uniform rising to duty. And we remember the calling that came to us on that day, and continues to this hour: We will confront this mortal danger to all humanity. We will not tire, or rest, until the war on terror is won. (Applause.)

The images and experience of September the 11th are unique for Americans. Yet the evil of that morning has reappeared on other days, in other places — in Mombasa, and Casablanca, and Riyadh, and Jakarta, and Istanbul, and Madrid, and Beslan, and Taba, and Netanya, and Baghdad, and elsewhere. In the past few months, we’ve seen a new terror offensive with attacks on London, and Sharm el-Sheikh, and a deadly bombing in Bali once again. All these separate images of destruction and suffering that we see on the news can seem like random and isolated acts of madness; innocent men and women and children have died simply because they boarded the wrong train, or worked in the wrong building, or checked into the wrong hotel. Yet while the killers choose their victims indiscriminately, their attacks serve a clear and focused ideology, a set of beliefs and goals that are evil, but not insane.

Some call this evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant Jihadism; still others, Islamo-fascism. Whatever it’s called, this ideology is very different from the religion of Islam. This form of radicalism exploits Islam to serve a violent, political vision: the establishment, by terrorism and subversion and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom

[...]

any militants are part of global, borderless terrorist organizations like al Qaeda, which spreads propaganda, and provides financing and technical assistance to local extremists, and conducts dramatic and brutal operations like September the 11th. Other militants are found in regional groups, often associated with al Qaeda — paramilitary insurgencies and separatist movements in places like Somalia, and the Philippines, and Pakistan, and Chechnya, and Kashmir, and Algeria. Still others spring up in local cells, inspired by Islamic radicalism, but not centrally directed. Islamic radicalism is more like a loose network with many branches than an army under a single command

[...]

The influence of Islamic radicalism is also magnified by helpers and enablers. They have been sheltered by authoritarian regimes, allies of convenience like Syria and Iran, that share the goal of hurting America and moderate Muslim governments, and use terrorist propaganda to blame their own failures on the West and America, and on the Jews. These radicals depend on front operations, such as corrupted charities, which direct money to terrorist activity. They’re strengthened by those who aggressively fund the spread of radical, intolerant versions of Islam in unstable parts of the world. The militants are aided, as well, by elements of the Arab news media that incite hatred and anti-Semitism, that feed conspiracy theories and speak of a so-called American “war on Islam” — with seldom a word about American action to protect Muslims in Afghanistan, and Bosnia, Somalia, Kosovo, Kuwait, and Iraq.

[...]

The murderous ideology of the Islamic radicals is the great challenge of our new century. Yet, in many ways, this fight resembles the struggle against communism in the last century. Like the ideology of communism, Islamic radicalism is elitist, led by a self-appointed vanguard that presumes to speak for the Muslim masses. Bin Laden says his own role is to tell Muslims, quote, “what is good for them and what is not.” And what this man who grew up in wealth and privilege considers good for poor Muslims is that they become killers and suicide bombers. He assures them that his — that this is the road to paradise — though he never offers to go along for the ride.

[...]

When 25 Iraqi children are killed in a bombing, or Iraqi teachers are executed at their school, or hospital workers are killed caring for the wounded, this is murder, pure and simple — the total rejection of justice and honor and morality and religion. These militants are not just the enemies of America, or the enemies of Iraq, they are the enemies of Islam and the enemies of humanity. (Applause.)

[...]

nd Islamic radicalism, like the ideology of communism, contains inherent contradictions that doom it to failure. By fearing freedom — by distrusting human creativity, and punishing change, and limiting the contributions of half the population — this ideology undermines the very qualities that make human progress possible, and human societies successful. The only thing modern about the militants’ vision is the weapons they want to use against us. The rest of their grim vision is defined by a warped image of the past — a declaration of war on the idea of progress, itself. And whatever lies ahead in the war against this ideology, the outcome is not in doubt: Those who despise freedom and progress have condemned themselves to isolation, decline, and collapse. Because free peoples believe in the future, free peoples will own the future. (Applause.)

[...]

we’re determined to deny radical groups the support and sanctuary of outlaw regimes. State sponsors like Syria and Iran have a long history of collaboration with terrorists, and they deserve no patience from the victims of terror. The United States makes no distinction between those who commit acts of terror and those who support and harbor them, because they’re equally as guilty of murder. (Applause.) Any government that chooses to be an ally of terror has also chosen to be an enemy of civilization. And the civilized world must hold those regimes to account.

[...]

The terrorists are as brutal an enemy as we’ve ever faced. They’re unconstrained by any notion of our common humanity, or by the rules of warfare. No one should underestimate the difficulties ahead, nor should they overlook the advantages we bring to this fight.

Some observers look at the job ahead and adopt a self-defeating pessimism. It is not justified. With every random bombing and with every funeral of a child, it becomes more clear that the extremists are not patriots, or resistance fighters — they are murderers at war with the Iraqi people, themselves.

[...]

There’s always a temptation, in the middle of a long struggle, to seek the quiet life, to escape the duties and problems of the world, and to hope the enemy grows weary of fanaticism and tired of murder. This would be a pleasant world, but it’s not the world we live in. The enemy is never tired, never sated, never content with yesterday’s brutality. This enemy considers every retreat of the civilized world as an invitation to greater violence. In Iraq, there is no peace without victory. We will keep our nerve and we will win that victory. (Applause.)

[...]

With the rise of a deadly enemy and the unfolding of a global ideological struggle, our time in history will be remembered for new challenges and unprecedented dangers. And yet the fight we have joined is also the current expression of an ancient struggle, between those who put their faith in dictators, and those who put their faith in the people. Throughout history, tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that murder is justified to serve their grand vision — and they end up alienating decent people across the globe. Tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that regimented societies are strong and pure — until those societies collapse in corruption and decay. Tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that free men and women are weak and decadent — until the day that free men and women defeat them.

[...]

White House Press Release

Press Release Link