There you go again raising logical legal arguments and making sense. A casual observer might even think that you've studied law or practiced law...
Oh please. Klydon comes here every day acts like he's all about the law and here to explain it to us mere mortals. And many of you, who are of the same liberal persuasion, are only to happy to buy what he's selling. But the reality is, he starts from his own personal liberal leanings and then - like any lawyer -
twists the law to suit his agenda. You may be impressed with his legalese mumbo jumbo but I'm not. The guy's full of it.
I do not always agree politically with Kly.
I don't always agree politically with anyone here. But I do respect his expertise in his chosen profession the same as I would anyone else's. In this particular case he's starting from some very basic facts and in no way is twisting the law as you claim. There have, as mentioned, been a number of cases in which the Supreme Court has upheld the right to habeas corpus, found that military commissions in certain instances violated both the Geneva convention and the UCMJ, and placed other checks on executive branch power. And obviously ,there are very obvious practical reasons that you do not wish to torture or summarily execute captured prisoners.
It is amazing to me, that many conservatives, who are in other cases claiming to be fierce defenders of both individual rights and separation of powers, want to throw all of those things out when someone is a "terrorist".
Additionally the Right didn't lose its religion when Bush released over 500 prisoners from Guantanamo or when he paid ransom to get Americans back. Much of this is just political theater. The only real issue I see is the lack of Congressional notification.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...terrorists.htmlhttp://aattp.org/under-bush-600-gitmo-de...i-attack-video/http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/15/opinio...pinion&_r=0
