Ashcroft: Bush may break all rules (Doctrine of Necessity)

[Fridays Child]

These people are dangerous beyond comprehension. What is this so-called Doctrine of Necessity and where is it written that any branch of government may contravene the Constitution and our international treaty obligations?

-snip-

The Justice Department has advised the White House that President Bush (and those who follow his orders) may contravene treaties, U.S. law and international law under the broad doctrine of "necessity."

This advice contrasts sharply with that of an earlier White House, under Lyndon Johnson, during the Vietnam War. In that war, the decision was made to employ the full powers of the commander in chief to buttress and reinforce the Geneva Conventions and the criminal sanctions under the U.S. Code that followed from these conventions. Attorney General John Ashcroft and others in the administration have suggested that the recent disclosures about abuses at Abu Ghraib prison are simply a reflection of the universal "hard side" of war. It was ever thus and will forever be is the implication. Yet the record of the U.S. military in Vietnam, not our most glorious military undertaking, suggests otherwise.

-snip-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56715-2004Jun20.html

[LittleApple81]

1. love the closing paragraphs:

The Defense Department has established a military environment in Iraq that is more reminiscent of those covert wars than of the overt war in Vietnam. The White House legal counsel's written opinion that the Geneva Conventions are now "obsolete" and have been rendered "quaint" diminishes accountability and personal responsibility for our soldiers in Iraq. The suggestion that the doctrine of "necessity" has broad application to our military interrogation of prisoners in Iraq is worrisome.

The Indochina war was not the U.S. Army's finest hour, but the occupation of Iraq may, in at least some respects, be remembered as one of its darkest.

[Dover]

2. "Necessity" is the mother of all neocon intentions.....

eom

[nostamj]

3. Ted Rall's take on the "Doctrine of Necessity"

[Wapsie B]

4. Whatever happened

to interpreting the law literally taking it word for word and not reading into any hidden meaning? Talk about moral relativism.

This is horseshit.

[mike_c]

5. even the felonious five must have that churning feeling...

...in the gut. "What have we wrought?"

[Fridays Child]

6. I believe that they are all deluded unto psychosis.

Torquemada has nothing on Ashcroft.

[Tsiyu]

7. Our own soldiers are heretofore screwed

[havocmom]

8. Nail squarely hammered!

Welcome to the DU, buddyhollysghost! :toast:

Will enjoy seeing your posts around here :hi:

[Scooter24]

9. WOW..

The Justice Dept. is giving BAD advice...no shocker there...

I was under the impression that a federal law, in accordance with Article I, is made by Congress and only Congress has the authority to dispose of it. A treaty that the President signs and ratifies, provided 2/3 of the Senate concurs, is the only way for the US to be legally bound by it. As with Constitutional and federal laws, a treaty should only be withdrawn or nullified by the whatever authority makes it.

Article VI gives the President authority to negotiate treaties, but a 2/3 senate majority is needed to make the US legally bound by its rules. Disposing of a treaty is something that hasn't been addressed, but to me, it is obvious that the authors of the Constitution showed intent for the Senate to have jurisdiction involving treaties.

Someone is setting a bad precedent by giving the Executive branch too much power. Power that is conferred to the Legislative and only the Legislative. They are construing the Necssary and Proper clause of the Constitution to give the President legislative power. That will be a big no-no if it got challenged.