Bush blurs lines of justification between U.S., our enemies

[UpInArms]

http://www.timesstar.com/Stories/0,1413,125~1511~2211069,00.html

EVEN conservatives were forced to take notice when it was the Wall Street Journal, and not the New York Times, Washington Post, or the Village Voice, that was first to break the story of a March 2003 memorandum from a team of Bush Administration officials. They concluded in very elaborate and sophisticated terms that the president, as commander in chief, in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, was not bound by either international treaty or federal law, and could approve any technique, including torture, to protect the nation's security.

The New York Times reported that the memorandum prepared for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said that any executive branch officials, including those in the military, could be immune from domestic and international prohibitions against torture.

Justification for such reasoning would be military personnel believing that they acted on orders from superiors, "except where the conduct goes so far as to be patently unlawful." Did the same attorneys who defended Goering, Hess, and Frank at Nuremburg write this?

<snip>

It is difficult to bring people to justice when there is a blatant cover-up by the administration. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has unsuccessfully requested information about the administration's torture policy from National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, CIA Director George Tenent, as well as the attorney general, for over a year without satisfaction.

...more...

[young_at_heart]

1. Secrecy and coverup

SOP for the Bush administration.

[shraby]

2. There must be some

way for members of congress to get the information they want..unless they really don't want to.

[young_at_heart]

3. One can only hope

I think they are finally starting to put the pressure on.....as it should have been long ago!

[Gman]

4. Republcans control Congress

and they really don't want the information.

[struggle4progress]

5. "The man who would be king"

[Miss Authoritiva]

6. Not "sophisticated" but "sophistic"

"They concluded in very elaborate and sophisticated terms that the president, as commander in chief...was not bound by either international treaty or federal law...."

Sophistry: a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone.


"Sophisticated" doesn't quite convey the correct meaning here.

[Mountainman]

7. Can his lawyers say that because of 9/11 he can call off the elections?

Something that is always on my mind is this. This cabal worked for more than 8 years to get into position to steal this election. The worse thing that could happen to them is to lose power after only 4 years.

I don't see them wanting to have an election if Kerry is in the lead come Nov. 2, 2004.

[Eloriel]

9. We're on the same wave length

As I've said in several other threads, the last week or so this thought (worry) has occupied my mind a lot. They are NOT going to hand over power willingly -- or at all. They've already PROMISED us there'll be another attack on U.S. soil and one of the retired generals also warned us (was it Zinni or Franks?) that they would suspend the Constitution and impose martial law if there were another terrorist attack.

I think we are entering a very, very dangerous period. I wish more of us were more alert, aware and most of all, perhaps, had some contingency plans in place (about how to foil their efforts to capitalize on a terrorist attack, for example).

[UpInArms]

11. it was Franks

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1203-10.htm

excerpt:

Terrorism at home would activate the Northern Command's military operations. So, despite the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, Americans might find their streets patrolled by combat troops. The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the direct use of federal troops "to execute the laws" of the United States - unless the president declares a state of emergency.

In a recent interview, now retired General Tommy Franks, who led the U.S. military invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, told the men's lifestyle magazine Cigar Aficionado that if the United States were hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicted large casualties, the Constitution would probably be discarded in favor of a form of military government.

Such a statement from a former four-star general may be meant to prepare the American people for the end of their constitutional form of government, the end of democracy. Because Franks said it, however, doesn't mean it will happen. The Constitution has survived more than 200 years of wars and serious threats to the nation. Franks's statement may be a scare tactic or a political trial balloon to see how the American public reacts.

In either case, the general's comment reveals his own doubts about the inner strength and will of the American people - to uphold the rule of law and to trust the document that has made their nation great, the U.S. Constitution.

[Martin Eden]

8. Here's the argument I use when someone defends Bush on this:

It is becoming increasingly clear that the Bush administration made conscious decisions to implement interrogation methods that violated the Geneva Conventions, and that they sought to justify it and protect themselves through legal means.

However, it is highly unlikely that any paper trail will show that Bush knew and approved of the depraved sexual abuse that took place in Abu Ghraib, and he may very well have been unaware of what exactly was taking place. Furthermore, most Americans would probably agree that in the post-9/11 era coercive methods are justified in extracting information that could prevent terrorist attacks. Opponents of Bush who express moral outrage at the abuses of Abu Ghraib are often met with the argument that the terrorists are doing much worse things and that our indictments of American prison guards demonstrate the difference between us and the terrorists.

Personally I reject any argument that absolves our crimes by comparing us to terrorists. We are responsible for our own actions and should hold ourselves to a higher standard.

However, I think the focus should be not so much on what was inflicted upon the Iraqi prisoners, but rather on the damage inflicted upon the moral authority of the United States. This is not some abstract concept -- it has real world consequences. In the deeply conservative Muslim culture, the images of naked Iraqi men being abused by grinning American servicemen and women will recruit more terrorists than any audio tape issued by Osama bin Laden. People will die as a result. The beheading of Nick Berg is often cited as justification for any measures we take, but I see it as just the beginning of the blowback from Abu Ghraib.

Whatever steps forward we have taken in Iraq have come at a tremendous price in blood and treasure, and with Abu Ghraib we have taken steps backward. The real scandal is that a colossal failure in leadership and command has hurt the mission for which our troops are sacrificing so much.

This failure in leadership goes straight up to the White House. The legal memos clearly demonstrate they were keenly aware of interrogation methods that amounted to torture. Even if torture under certain circumstances is justified, and if they never specifically approved the depravities committed at Abu Ghraib, they are still responsible for what happened. They had to know that a policy of torture is something that must be controlled under very tight supervision, or it will get out of hand. The Bush administration was careful to establish legalities with those memos, but it is painfully obvious they failed to issue commands that might have prevented the Abu Ghraib debacle.

Their irresponsibility has hurt our national efforts against terrorism, and it is this for which they must be held accountable.

[Eloriel]

10. Most excellent

Should be on the front page of DU.