3 ms·

Yep, which is a major difference between civilian law and the law surrounding unlawful combatants. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant http://en.wi

by hugh3 16y ago

Yep, which is a major difference between civilian law and the law surrounding unlawful combatants. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant 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.

burgerbrain 16y ago
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.
- dantheman 16y ago
  The president doesn't have to disregard the laws, he can just pardon everyone, and that is exactly what he should do.
  - burgerbrain 16y ago
    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. ;)
- anigbrowl 16y ago
  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.
  - burgerbrain 16y ago
    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.

by hugh3 16y ago

burgerbrain 16y ago

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.

dantheman 16y ago
The president doesn't have to disregard the laws, he can just pardon everyone, and that is exactly what he should do.
- burgerbrain 16y ago
  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. ;)
anigbrowl 16y ago
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.
- burgerbrain 16y ago
  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.