The Constitution in Question- The President's powers in wartime

[Jacko]

I watched this very interesting discussion on TV the other day...I thought some of my politically interested friends might want to watch it here

I highly recommend it if the questions of the President's powers in wartime interest you. (they ought to interest all of us right now, IMO)

The debate includes a discussion of legal and civil liberties issues in the war on terrorism and how detainee policies are only one part of a larger debate about the President’s power in wartime.

Dan Rather is joined in the episode by Bradford Baranson who served as Associate Counsel to President Bush, US Navy Lieutenant Commander Charles Swift a Naval JAG lawyer who successfully argued against the Bush administration detainee policy in the Supreme Court case of Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld. Also joining Rather in this discussion on the Constitution are Diana Lithwick, a Senior Editor and Legal Correspondent for Slate.com and Jeffrey Rosen, Professor of Law at George Washington University and Legal Affairs Editor for The New Republic.

[STOGEY]

If I didn't work at night I'd do just that. Maybe I'll tape it.

[birdman]

Originally Posted by Jacko

I watched this very interesting discussion on TV the other day...I thought some of my politically interested friends might want to watch it here

I highly recommend it if the questions of the President's powers in wartime interest you. (they ought to interest all of us right now, IMO)

The debate includes a discussion of legal and civil liberties issues in the war on terrorism and how detainee policies are only one part of a larger debate about the President’s power in wartime.

Dan Rather is joined in the episode by Bradford Baranson who served as Associate Counsel to President Bush, US Navy Lieutenant Commander Charles Swift a Naval JAG lawyer who successfully argued against the Bush administration detainee policy in the Supreme Court case of Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld. Also joining Rather in this discussion on the Constitution are Diana Lithwick, a Senior Editor and Legal Correspondent for Slate.com and Jeffrey Rosen, Professor of Law at George Washington University and Legal Affairs Editor for The New Republic.

The U.S. Supreme Court will decide the legality, depth, & scope of the Presidents powers, this is as it should be.
I am very happy to know Dan Rather does not influence the Presidents decisions, the contstitution, or the way it is interpretted in any way.

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by birdman

The U.S. Supreme Court will decide the constitunality, depth, & scope of the Presidents powers, this is as it should be.
I am very happy to know Dan Rather does not influence the Presidents decisions, the contstitution, or the way it is interpretted in any way.

Dan Rather didn't do much in this except act as moderator for the discussion...And the Supreme Court DID indeed determine the constitutionality (at least in regards to the specific issues laid out in the case) of the Bush Administration's policy on detainees when it decided AGAINST Rumsfeld (as representative of the Bush Administration policy) in Hamdan V. Rumsfeld.

you really should watch it...you would enjoy it...

[birdman]

Originally Posted by Jacko

Dan Rather didn't do much in this except act as moderator for the discussion...And the Supreme Court DID indeed determine the constitutionality (at least in regards to the specific issues laid out in the case) of the Bush Administration's policy on detainees when it decided AGAINST Rumsfeld (as representative of the Bush Administration policy) in Hamdan V. Rumsfeld.

you really should watch it...you would enjoy it...

I may watch it, it probably would have some good information.