[John Valentine]

I fail to see what all the concern is about. The idea that the President has unchecked power to simply take prisoners and execute them off the battlefield is repugnant. And yet, without the power of Congress to legislate otherwise, the President would have that power.

You profoundly mis-state the case, probably intentionally.

The President and his commanders have no power to "simply take prisoners and execute them off the battlefield". That is absurd, rediculous and is a straw man argument, regardless of how "repugnant" you may find it.

The true case is that the President and his commanders have every right, and indeed a duty, to "take prisoners " and possibly to execute them if they are spies, saboteurs, or otherwise not entitled to the protections of the rules of warfare.

There is nothing repugnant about that. In fact it is admirable and helps save lives by giving the enemy an incentive to wage war in a "civilized" way.

We are NOT obliged to wage war in a way that our opponents are not.

[William Tell]

John Valentine said: The true case is that the President and his commanders have every right, and indeed a duty, to "take prisoners " and possibly to execute them if they are spies, saboteurs, or otherwise not entitled to the protections of the rules of warfare.

And is Congress one of the sources of those rules of warfare, or is it not? If Congress legislates the circumstances under which prisoners may be executed, does the President have the power to ignore that legislation and execute them outside the constraints passed by Congress?

There is nothing "strawman" about my argument since the lives of detainees at Gitmo are most certainly at risk.