The Wall Street Journal has offered up free portions of the “Working Group Report on Detainee Interrogations in the Global War on Terrorism: Assessment of Legal, Historical, Policy, and Operational Considerations” (or in other words, the legal boundaries of “successful interrogations” of “[unlawful] enemy combatants”).
It’s 49 pages long, and the best bits have been reported in the press, but this part jumped out at me:
(U) Any effort by Congress to regulate the interrogation of unlawful combatants would violate the Constitution’s sole vesting of the Comander-in-Chief authority in the President. There can be little doubt that intelligence operations, such as the detention and interrogation of enemy combatants and leaders, are both necessary and proper for the effective conduct of a military campaign. Indeed, such operations may be of more importance in a war with an international terrorist organization than one with conventional armed forces of a nation-state, due to the former’s emphasis on secret operations and surprise attacks against civilians. It may be the case that only successful interrogations can provide the information necessary to prevent the success of covert terrorist attacks upon the United Sates and its citizens. Congress can no more interfere with the President’s conduct of the interroration of enemy combatants than it can dictate strategy or tactical decision on the battlefiled. Just as statues that order the President to conduct warfare in a certain manner or for specific goals would be unconstitutional, so too are laws that seek to prevent the President from gaining the intelligence he believes necessary to prevent attacks upon the United States.
(U)As this authority is inherent in the President, exercise of it by subordinates would be best if it can be shown to have been derived from the President’s authority through Presidential directive or other writing.