Sensible? What is sensible about announcing your negotiating position before you start negotiations? Also, how is it constitutional for Congress to dictate a negotiating position to the president? Oh, that's right, I forgot, you don't know jack about our constitution, or our government (as evidenced by your insane birth certificate rants), but you love to run your mouth about it anyway.

It seems you don't know jack shit about reading. Where abouts in that below do you see anything that would impede the African from negotiating with anybody he so chose? It doesn't refer to any at all does it? And why the hell would he not want Treasury reporting to Congress on the activities of the World Bank & the IMF? You got a problem with Democracy or something? Want a little less of it do you? Well hold on even less is in the pipeline.

The Obama administration announced in the statement it would disregard provisions of the legislation that, among other things, would compel the Obama administration to pressure the World Bank to strengthen labor and environmental standards and require the Treasury department to report to Congress on the activities of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF).

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-issues-signing-statement-on-106b-war-bill-2009-06-26.html

Now having read that again and got it this time suggest that you go away and pop back with the long form version of his birth certificate WRITTEN AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH AND NO OTHER ONE.

Object to my use of the word "African" to describe him do you? Oh dear, I thought clowns like you were supposed to piously "celebrate" that fact. And hey, he's more African than most blacks in America isn't he? He hasn't got cotton dust in his veins nor carries the name of his last slave owner. He's first generation American on his father's side and carries his father's African name doesn't he? So when I just to wind you up good and proper called him "The African" I am only stating a fact aren't I.

And don't go fooling yourself that I am some kind of rabid red stater. I'm not, can't stand the bastards. But what I am though is one of those type that like a nice drop of truth, four fingers, straight up, no chaser. We leave the fucking Babycham for the likes of you.

Aren't we splitting hairs here? I'll admit to being out of my depth, but functionally, a limit placed on what a prisoner is required to provide combined with a restriction against coercion, is essentially equivalent to a prohibition against interrogation, isn't it? (Functionally equivalent, not absolutely equivalent.)

If charged with a crime, one is not required to answer questions without a lawyer present.

In all instances, one may answer questions voluntarily, including, I might add, the "detainees who can't be named" currently at issue (reference to an earlier thread and a bit of a pun, too).

In all cases but one, the aforementioned "detainees", one has the right to either remain silent or provide only limited personal information.

And the right not to be tortured.

The two types of Americans - "Obama-can-do-no-right" and "Obama-can-do-no-wrong" - are healthy and thriving. The more nuanced species is like the ivory-billed woodpecker.

No, it isn't splitting hairs. Interrogators are free to hold interrogation sessions with prisoners of war any time, and may ask them anything they like. During World War II (which was before the 1949 Conventions, but the 3rd Convention had largely already been written in 1929), interrogators essentially used what we might call the FBI methods of establishing rapport to get plenty of information out of German POWs. What you aren't allowed to do is force information or use any harsh treatment. There is a big difference between that and never asking any questions. POWs don't have the right to have a lawyer present to tell them to shut up, either. They do have rights against self-incrimination, but generally aren't charged with crimes so that usually doesn't apply. If they are charged, then under Article 75 of the 1st Additional Protocol of 1977, they have the following "bill of rights" (actually anyone, even someone held with only the rights of common Article 3 has these):

4. No sentence may be passed and no penalty may be executed on a person found guilty of a penal offence related to the armed conflict except pursuant to a conviction pronounced by an impartial and regularly constituted court respecting the generally recognized principles of regular judicial procedure, which include the following:

(a) the procedure shall provide for an accused to be informed without delay of the particulars of the offence alleged against him and shall afford the accused before and during his trial all necessary rights and means of defence;

(b) no one shall be convicted of an offence except on the basis of individual penal responsibility;

(c) no one shall be accused or convicted of a criminal offence on account or any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under the national or international law to which he was subject at the time when it was committed; nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than that which was applicable at the time when the criminal offence was committed; if, after the commission of the offence, provision is made by law for the imposition of a lighter penalty, the offender shall benefit thereby;

(d) anyone charged with an offence is presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law;

(e) anyone charged with an offence shall have the right to be tried in his presence;

(f) no one shall be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt;

(g) anyone charged with an offence shall have the right to examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;

(h) no one shall be prosecuted or punished by the same Party for an offence in respect of which a final judgement acquitting or convicting that person has been previously pronounced under the same law and judicial procedure;

(i) anyone prosecuted for an offence shall have the right to have the judgement pronounced publicly; and

(j) a convicted person shall be advised on conviction or his judicial and other remedies and of the time-limits within which they may be exercised.

They may also have other rights under the ICCPR (International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights), if the country holding them has signed it. Some of the rights under ICCPR are derogable in times of national emergency, some are not. Britain, for example, has formally derogated those rights during the "war on terror" (the U.S. has not). Article 14, which is derogable, provides a lot of rights -- to attorneys, to a public and speedy trial, to be informed at the time of arrest of rights, etc.