The rule of law? Our shame!

Pentagon releases memo on harsh tactics
By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer
1 April 2008
[but sadly, I do not think this is as April Fool's joke!]
WASHINGTON - The Pentagon on Tuesday made public a now-defunct legal memo that approved the use of harsh interrogation techniques against terror suspects, saying that President Bush's wartime authority trumps any international ban on torture.

The Justice Department memo, dated March 14, 2003, outlines legal justification for military interrogators to use harsh tactics against al-Qaida and Taliban detainees overseas — so long as they did not specifically intend to torture their captors.

Even so, the memo noted, the president's wartime power as commander in chief would not be limited by the U.N. treaties against torture.

"Our previous opinions make clear that customary international law is not federal law and that the president is free to override it at his discretion," said the memo written by John Yoo, who was then deputy assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel.

Ah, yes: the memo written by John Yoo!

I've re-read Article II of the U.S. Constitution repeatedly. I cannot for the life of me discern any extraordinary wartime powers granted the President by this Article! Am I missing something? [Note: section 2 seems the most relevant, but if you can find these extraordinary presidential wartime powers anywhere in Article II - or anywhere else in the U.S. Constitution - again, please point me to the text!]

In fact, the President's authority as "Commander-in-Chief" is limited! The President is NOT "Commander-in-Chief" of the United States, but only

... commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States...

The intent is to establish civilian control of the armed forces, with a chain-of-command terminating at the President, NOT to grant the President extraordinary "wartime powers"!

Read Article II for yourself! If you can find in it anything even vaguely suggesting that the President in time of war possesses "special" power, I'd love to hear from you.

And, for what it's worth:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
[U.S. Constitution, Article VI]

"... and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land."

For example: The Geneva Conventions! - Yes, the U.S. Constitution explicitly recognizes treaties to which the U.S. is a signatory as the binding supreme law of the land, no matter what John Yoo might opine!

... and again, just for grins:

... he [the President] shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed
[U.S. Constitution, Article II, section 3]

And let's not forget...

Before he [the President] enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
[U.S. Constitution, Article II, section 1]

Stop the madness!