


To protect subordinates should they be charged with torture, the memo advised that Mr. Bush issue a "presidential directive or other writing" that could serve as evidence, since authority to set aside the laws is "inherent in the president."
Basically a blanket statement saying the Pres. has "got your back" to anyone accused of committing war crimes in the name of the War on Terror. It's really frightening. These are purely fictitious powers that are specifically not given to the President through the Constitution. Bushco has shown repeatedly that they have little regard to any norms of conduct or the separation of powers. According to them, the President can declare war, hold foreign troops (and in a few cases even Americans) for indefinite amounts of time, and now against all international laws (ie: Geneva Convention) decide what actions by our troops-if any-constitute war crimes.
The last point I'll make is that there was one quote describing how the detainees in Guantanamo Bay are not subject to regulations of the Geneva Convention because they are being held in a US-controlled area. Maybe true, probably not, but the problem is that they have been vociferously claiming for years that these same suspects should not be granted access to due process/lawyers/courts because they are not being held in American territory. Which one is it? Or maybe which one is more important to Bush, the ability to torture with impunity or to hold indefinitely without access to a court? The audacity to claim both "rights" under conflicting definitions is outrageous. These guys gotta go. They are the real terrorists.