He does *not* have the authority to order violations of the laws of war. And the Congress is expressly granted the authority to define and punish "offences against the Law of Nations," and to "make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces."

At any rate, considering that the President has only those powers granted him by the Constitution, I don't follow your "authority/right" distinction. Does a colonel have the "authority" to order a private to machine-gun a line of helpless civilians? No, he does not. Neither does the C-in-C.

The President of the United States is the Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces.

He has the authority to order ANYTHING.

He may not have the RIGHT to order torture, but he certainly has the authority.

Quoting Yoo in Haynes's defense is hilarious, given what we learn in the Jane Mayer piece linked: Haynes promised Navy counsel Mora that he'd set up a working group to address Mora's concerns about legitimized abuse of detainees ... then Haynes bypassed that group in favor of a b.s. memo prepared by ... John Yoo.

Dumbass Yoo *ignored* the Youngstown case in blithely bypassing the federal statutes against torture and abuse: "The war on terrorism makes Youngstown more complicated," Yoo said. Ha! Tell it to the Supreme Court.

On February 6th, Mora invited Yoo to his office, in the Pentagon, to discuss the opinion. Mora asked him, â??Are you saying the President has the authority to order torture?â??

â??Yes,â?? Yoo replied.

So much for Yoo.

As for Haynes, he b.s.'d Mora and others who were jumping up & down, trying to get the Pentagon to obey the law. Haynes thwarted the normal processes in order to help push through policies which were just plain illegal.

When the Navy's chief JAG tried to tell Haynes that the JAGs needed more info on the military commissions, Haynes blew the guy off.

The guy shouldn't be dogcatcher, let alone a federal appellate judge.