How did it come to this?
According to Rich Lowry and Kate O'Beirne, President Bush said the following in an "on-the-record session with a handful of journalists in the Oval Office this morning":
Yeah, if only we weren't bound by that draconian War Crimes Act . . .
UPDATE: Come to think of it, isn't this statement pretty much a concession by the President that his own officials don't believe he has the constitutional powers he claims to have? After all, if David Addington and John Yoo are right, why would the War Crimes Act be an obstacle in the first place? Doesn't the president have the authority under Article II to "take the steps necessary to protect Americans" regardless of what the law says?
as long as the War Crimes Act hangs over their heads, they [interrogators] will not take the steps necessary to protect Americans
Yeah, if only we weren't bound by that draconian War Crimes Act . . .
UPDATE: Come to think of it, isn't this statement pretty much a concession by the President that his own officials don't believe he has the constitutional powers he claims to have? After all, if David Addington and John Yoo are right, why would the War Crimes Act be an obstacle in the first place? Doesn't the president have the authority under Article II to "take the steps necessary to protect Americans" regardless of what the law says?
posted by A.L. at 4:47 PM
9 Comments:
So is he really just admitting that he and his administration is committing war crimes?
YES, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HE IS SAYING!
Of course he does. Just like he had the right to violate FISA and practice extraordinary rendition, run secret prisons, and whatever. He's just pretending, as he did with these other things, that he is not in fact currently breaking the law, but wringing his hands over a non-compliant congress. It's the same mindset that allows him, when instructed to abide by Article 3 of Geneva, to just change his position and say, oh, well, we were always in compliance with those anyway.
- JLB
Sorry, that was with respect to your "update" only. I might only add that he also has the "right," as President, to lie and contradict himself whenever. It's part of the job.
- JLB
Your update is an important point - evidently that lying liar gonzalez has to tell the chimp that his "great decider" argument was not going to work. Yes, they know that they are violating laws.
But isn't it an even bigger deal that he is admitting to commiting war crimes?
These 2 admissions mean:
1. IMPEACH THE CHIMP
2. WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL
Let's keep working to hold these people responsible for the treason, war crimes, and crimes against humanity!
Damn - having a hard time with my verb tenses today!
Anon wrote:
"evidently that lying liar gonzalez has to tell the chimp that his "great decider" argument was not going to work."
Perhaps you forget: You don't tug on Superman's cape; you don't spit in the wind; you don't pull the mask off the ol' Lone Ranger; and you don't mess around telling The Decider he can't do what his vice president tells him he can do and what he himself wants to do — certainly, not if you're Bush's consigliere.
Actually, this is what Bush is trying to do about this little inconvenience:
"Now, the White House is asking Congress to clean up some of the legal fallout from the war on terror. With nine weeks left until midterm elections, political analysts say Bush will probably get at least some help from lawmakers.
". . .The White House wants lawmakers to create a retroactive exemption to shield US officials from legal liability for use of harsh, coercive interrogation tactics."
How convenient, being able to ignore the law with impunity citing your own Decidership status, and then if that doesn't fly, you jigger the law to obtain absolution through ex post facto law, which the Constitution forbids.
The FISA hearing was interesting today. I seem some chinks appearing in the Rep moat around Bush's bubble. Maxine Watters, bless her heart, explored an interesting take on the offchance the wiretaps could be used to tap individuals working in foreign countries for US companies...made me remember the Boeing NSA scoop where they were bidding against AirBus for a Defense contract. Impossible to watch Bruce Fein and not want to rip the Medal of Honor from around Tenet's neck and give it to Fein.
Are there any legal roadblocks to a Democratic Senator saying something like "these issues are too important to America to chance there being any presumption of politics influencing our decisions. Therefore, I'm introducing legislation to delay this vote until after the November election."
A few more months of detainment won't make any difference to the detainees especially since the President says the conditions are so wonderful with good food and medical care. What Republican could argue that they prefer their decision to be tainted by the upcoming elections.
You know, it's one of those things. On the one hand, I have some sympathy for CIA agents who were told, repeatedly, that what they were doing was within the law. In fact, if (at least some of) the low-level folks get immunity so they can finger the higher-ups, I'm cool with that.
But on the other hand, agents need to know when to push back against unlawful orders, and saying "these people *nearly* went to jail for war crimes" just doesn't have the same oomph as "these people went to jail...".
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home