[detbuch]

Spence, here's another little part made easy for you:

Originally quoted by Spence re Bush's EIT:
"It simply gives a reasoning for the decision to not follow the Geneva Convention and a line of defense if the actions were prosecuted under US or International law.

Detbuch response:
"That begs the question of why it would be necessary to adhere to the Geneva Convention, or International law, or any other law, if the supreme law of the land, the Constitution, is not necessarily followed. If administrations can make ad hoc decisions which violate the highest law in your own country, why would it be necessary for administrations to follow any other supposed higher laws, including U.N. laws (especially when those laws can supersede your own laws and deprive you of sovereignty over yourself)?"

Is this also too long for you to formulate a response: If not, give it a go.