HeyBub wrote:
Curly Surmudgeon wrote:

## Nice buzz words; let's take them one at a time. "Illegal
invasion" - what law was broken?
Same as Korea and Vietnam, only Congress has the power to Declare War.
That didn't happen and I suspect you know damn well.

Under Article II of the Constitution - you do
believe in the supremecy of the Constitution, don't you - the
president has unlimited war-making powers.
Nope, grasshopper, the President does _not_ have "unlimited war-making
powers."

He may wage war on whomever he wants.
Bull****.


You mistake the ability to "Declare" war with the act of "Making" war. I
assert that the president has plenary power to make war against whomever he
wishes and to any degree he wishes. This assertion is born out by the
original debates on the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and various
court decisions.

Of court decisions, the first was the "Prize" cases. In every subsequent
court case, the principle that the president has unlimited war making power
has been upheld.

You may not like it, but your betters have found ample reasons to the
contrary.

For example, Bill Clinton waged war on more countries than any president
since FDR (Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, Croatia, Sudan, Somalia, Haiti, and
one other whose name I forget).


torture,
## Again, this is part of the president's war-making power. You may
not like it, but it's his prerogative.
More lies. Not only is torture wrong, not give reliable intelligence,
against the very principles America stands for, a risk to our own
soldiers, but torture violates the Geneva Conventions which we are a
signatory to.

Torture of unlawful enemy combatants does not violate any of the Geneva or
Hague conventions - the conventions and protocols are silent on the subject.
You really should learn before you speak.


Article 3 of the third Geneva Convention states -

.................

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character
occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each
party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the
following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members
of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de
combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all
circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction
founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any
other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any
time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned
persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds,
mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and
degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without
previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording
all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by
civilized peoples.

...............

So Para 1 states that it applies to persons taking no active part in
hostilities *including* members of armed forces. That means it covers
everybody, whether regular soldier or not. Torture is expressly
forbidden by this article for all persons no longer engaged in
hostilities by virtue of having been taken prisoner.

d