Asking People to Violate the Law
(updated)
At Friday's press conference, in response to a question by David Gregory about the administration's desire to "reinterpret" Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, President Bush said this:
He then repeated:
This is an odd statement considering Bush seems not to have had any problem asking the "young intelligence officers" at the NSA to violate the law. The NSA has been operating in violation of FISA--which unambiguously makes it a crime to conduct warrantless surveillance--for almost five years now, and the administration doesn't seem terribly worried that NSA officials will be held to account for this lawbreaking. So what's the difference? Why is it harder to order the CIA to break the law?
Well, Bush was kind enough to give us the answer:
You got that? The administration isn't worried about any domestic consequences of its brazen law-breaking. Heavens no. What concerns Bush is that other countries might try to prosecute our intelligence officials for violating the Geneva Conventions. For Bush, the difference between the NSA and the CIA is this: the NSA is only breaking our own silly laws, whereas the CIA is breaking international laws to which we're a party.
To put it another way, Bush can credibly assure NSA officials that they will suffer no consequences for violating the law. He cannot promise the same to CIA officers operating in black site prisons overseas. So the former carry on with their warrantless surveillance while the latter balk at the continued use of their "alternative set of procedures."
Bush has no problem asking people to violate the law. He thinks it's his prerogative as Commander-in-Chief. He's just having a harder time convincing his own officials that they won't suffer any blowback from it.
UPDATE: Marty Lederman highlights an article from Katherine Shrader of the Associated Press who reports that the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) is no longer willing to provide legal cover to the CIA to perform its "enhanced interrogation techniques" on detainees. Here's Marty:
He adds:
Without the legal cover of an OLC opinion, CIA operatives are understandably wary of engaging in acts that are, under current law, war crimes.
The President lamented on Friday that "you cannot ask a young intelligence officer to violate the law." That's nonsense. He's been doing just that for almost five years now. What he meant was: "it's difficult to get young intelligence officers to violate the law when even our own overzealous lawyers won't provide them with legal cover."
At Friday's press conference, in response to a question by David Gregory about the administration's desire to "reinterpret" Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, President Bush said this:
You cannot ask a young intelligence officer to violate the law. And they're not going to. They -- let me finish please -- they will not violate the law.
You can ask this question all you want, but the bottom line is -- and the American people have got to understand this -- that this program won't go forward if there's vague standards applied like those in Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. It's just not going to go forward.
He then repeated:
You can't ask a young professional on the front line of protecting this country to violate law.
This is an odd statement considering Bush seems not to have had any problem asking the "young intelligence officers" at the NSA to violate the law. The NSA has been operating in violation of FISA--which unambiguously makes it a crime to conduct warrantless surveillance--for almost five years now, and the administration doesn't seem terribly worried that NSA officials will be held to account for this lawbreaking. So what's the difference? Why is it harder to order the CIA to break the law?
Well, Bush was kind enough to give us the answer:
Now, this idea that somehow, you know, we've got to live under international treaties, you know -- and that's fine; we do. But oftentimes the United States government passes law to clarify obligations under international treaty.
And what I'm concerned about is if we don't do that, that it's very conceivable our professionals could be held to account based upon court decisions in other countries. And I don't believe Americans want that.
You got that? The administration isn't worried about any domestic consequences of its brazen law-breaking. Heavens no. What concerns Bush is that other countries might try to prosecute our intelligence officials for violating the Geneva Conventions. For Bush, the difference between the NSA and the CIA is this: the NSA is only breaking our own silly laws, whereas the CIA is breaking international laws to which we're a party.
To put it another way, Bush can credibly assure NSA officials that they will suffer no consequences for violating the law. He cannot promise the same to CIA officers operating in black site prisons overseas. So the former carry on with their warrantless surveillance while the latter balk at the continued use of their "alternative set of procedures."
Bush has no problem asking people to violate the law. He thinks it's his prerogative as Commander-in-Chief. He's just having a harder time convincing his own officials that they won't suffer any blowback from it.
UPDATE: Marty Lederman highlights an article from Katherine Shrader of the Associated Press who reports that the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) is no longer willing to provide legal cover to the CIA to perform its "enhanced interrogation techniques" on detainees. Here's Marty:
Shrader confirms that waterboarding, hypothermia and sleep deprivation are among the techniques in question; that even after the 2005 McCain Amendment, "the CIA believed it was operating lawfully" in using at least some such techniques; but that the Hamdan decision "demolished that legal foundation."
He adds:
This Administration has been willing to rest its terrorism policies on plenty of unorthodox legal interpretations -- such as that waterboarding is not "torture" -- but the preposterous notion that the CIA techniques in question comply with Common Article 3's prohibition on cruel treatment is simply a bridge too far, even for this OLC.
Without the legal cover of an OLC opinion, CIA operatives are understandably wary of engaging in acts that are, under current law, war crimes.
The President lamented on Friday that "you cannot ask a young intelligence officer to violate the law." That's nonsense. He's been doing just that for almost five years now. What he meant was: "it's difficult to get young intelligence officers to violate the law when even our own overzealous lawyers won't provide them with legal cover."
posted by A.L. at 11:22 PM
13 Comments:
"the bottom line is -- and the American people have got to understand this -- that this program won't go forward"
How many times did the president repeat this veiled threat? It is like he is saying if I don't get to do it my way then we are not going to interrogate captured terrorists at all. If I don't get my way then we will just close up shop and go home, then see how you like it.
Can someone ask the man a simple question, Sir are your special coercive techniques the only way, the only tool available or even the best way for the CIA to gain vital information from terror suspects?
Make him promote torture as the "best method" to use.
So is Bush saying he's more afraid of being held accountable at the Hague than by the US Congress. Apparently so.
Well, he did steal 2 federal elections, enabled 911, started a war if conquest based on lies, outed a cia agent to cover his ass, allowed one of America's most historic cities to be destoyed so as to further his political agenda, and has destroyed the fiscal integrity of the federal government while proclaiming to be a fiscal conservative.....
and anyone is surprised that he is lying about this?
Go figure...
After talking with a few flat earthers around here, I'm not sure he's lying. They truly believe the crap they spout. Facts mean nothing to these people.
Maybe the President is very worried about international consequences, but not the one's he tells us about.
Maybe there's a court case or two we haven't heard about yet; something is definitely disturbing him - more than he usually is.
And I'm pleased you made the point about the fact that the people he's so worried about now are already doing all these shady things. Good catch. Now, why would all these patriots suddenly start having second thoughts? Maybe those insurance contracts those guys at the CIA took out will be found to be unenforceable (not an original thought of mine, by the way)...
Is it possible that those "insurance policies" will allow some "lower level" operatives to tell what they know so that we can hold the "higher ups" reponsible?
Sorry, I have a hard time referring to rummy, cheney or chimpy as "higher up", but you get what I mean.
When the media announced that CIA operatives were buying these policies in droves, I came across an article dated September 11, 2006 called "Is Torture Insurance A Smart Investment?" by Dave Hoffman at www.ConcurringOpinions.com - it's still there.
I particularly love the comment that "this program can't go forward." What program? If it is illegal why is it even going on now? Does Bush mean he will stop the illegal program if he doesn't get what he wants? Why is it important that this program go forward? There are a lot of implications but people are constantly being diverted by the threat to stop the program, when they have no idea what the program is and they can only rely on Bush's say so, which is basically a bunch of disingenuous lies anyhow. They should focus on the fact that the program is highly problematic and shouldn't go forward.
This all boils down to the fact that the Republicans want to be seen as tough without having to tell anyone what tough means, and they want to do what they are doing without anyone knowing what the hell it is they are doing. And then they want to rewrite the rules so that if there is a change in power, they won't be held accountable when we find out the awful things they have been doing. Anyone remember Mad Magazines Spy Vs Spy?
At any rate, I think all this fast maneuvering and Republican yelping show that they are indeed afraid that they will not longer be in total power after the midterms, and may be held accountable. I assume that they are afraid to do the real dirty stuff of outright complete election theft because they know that there is no telling what the reaction may be from the populace, which are getting restive.
I think the President is bluffing - and he's no better at that than he is at lying, despite all the practice. Congress should pass the Feinstein bill or one at least as respectful of CA3, and tell the President to go for it. If he pulls the program, that will speak louder than words can....
Even a few months ago the arguments being made today, that the "program" has intercepted terrorist attacks and saved lives and that the "techniques" must be kept secret to prevent "the terrorists" from preparing for them, might have been compelling to enough people to win an election. I don't think there are enough voters still willing to believe anything said by any Bush administration spokesperson to bring an election to 50/50 again. Maybe before Bush, Cheney, Rove and Rice all came to the TV to reiterate the, now known to be unequivical fiction, connection between Saddam and al Qaeda, they might have come close but no more.
What concerns Bush is that other countries might try to prosecute our intelligence officials for violating the Geneva Conventions. For Bush, the difference between the NSA and the CIA is this: the NSA is only breaking our own silly laws, whereas the CIA is breaking international laws to which we're a party.
Actually, what really concerns Bush — and Cheney and Rumsfeld et al — is that some day in the not too distant future, a federal prosecutor will loosen the tongues of a few lower-level CIA interrogators who try to defend the indefensible by saying they were just following orders. So, in return for gentler handling, these interrogators will start giving specifics about what they were told was OK to do, and by whom.
Soon, the the prosecutors will be working their way up the chain of command, all the way to the White House.
No way is Bush suddenly concerned about the willingness of CIA interrogators to do their job by the book, as they've done their job for more than five decades. He's concerned about how they've been doing their job since he and his cronies cut them loose from concerns about those inconvenient international treaties. Or more precisely, Bush is concerned about a hell-for-leather prosecutor finding out how they've been doing their jobs under his direction.
The President is clearly very agitated; something, and I wonder what it is, is munching his nuts. We've never seen him this agitated, so whatever the problem is, it must be quite serious to have caused this reaction. I can't believe he's this agitated about shutting down a program that has not delivered any visible benefits...
Idiots, Dear Allah please send some radical muslims to slice the throats of these fools so I can watch them flop around on the ground since their white bread world has them so disillusioned. Mark my word there will come a day you will beg to have Bush in office once again. MARK MY WORD.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home