I just read this in the Washington Post. It really does cut to the heart of the matter.

"The Bush administration did not seek a broad debate on whether commander-in-chief powers can trump international conventions and domestic statutes in our struggle against terrorism," said Radsan, the former CIA lawyer, who is a professor at William Mitchell College of Law in St. Paul, Minn. "They could have separated the big question from classified details to operations and had an open debate. Instead, an inner circle of lawyers and advisers worked around the dissenters in the administration and one-upped each other with extreme arguments."

So I would ask the group: Do you believe that the commander-in-chief powers can trump international law and domestic statutes in our struggle against terrorism? Why or why not?