No cookies for the Bush Administration! Ever!
hand nulani a vial of ricin special cookies for Bush?
Too kind a death.
got a point… how bout I force him to use this shitty comp for all his official business? that’s an agonizing experience if there ever was one. 209 of 128 megs of ram allocated, yeah it runs great.
Digs up yesterday’s copy of the Philly Inquirer
We don’t know for sure that this memo says it’s okay to torture suspected terrorists… because Ashcroft refuses to let Congress see it. But wait, there’s more!
Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D… Ill.) said the President either had to invoke executive privilige or Ashcroft had to cite a statutory provision allowing him to withold the memo.
Ashcroft steadfastly refused to do either yesterday.
So apparently, the Bush administration thinks no one else needs to see the memo, nor do they deserve an explanation other than: We don’t want you to.
What fools these mortals be
while the explanations for why the administration should be “allowed” to torture POWs or citizens and whatnot without probable cause are laughable; the issue is a bit more sticky for terrorists, at least from a legalistic standpoint.
The real issue raised by this document goes beyond even the question of torture in itself. The problem is that this document, requested by the administration and composed most likely by the administration’s political appointees, views the president as being “inherently” above the law. This is an indication of systemic corruption inside the administration.
But SK, doesn’t the law give the president certain extra powers during wartime? And since the current declared “war” is against terrorism (which is like, a war against a concept, which is kind of stupid, but let’s give the administration the benefit of the doubt and treat it as if it were a war against another country), thus the treatment of terrorists (soldiers of terrorism) would fall under these extra powers, which I think might be what Merl’s talking about? So it might be so that the president is still acting within the confines of U.S. law, at least. But even so, that would give terrorists POW status, which Merl, you’ve already said their views are laughable about. Unless there’s a separate “terrorist” status as defined by U.S. law, which gives the executive branch somehow different powers over their care and treatment.
Regardless though, shouldn’t international law (regarding torture and human rights, regardless of terrorist status or not) be seen as overruling any sort of U.S. laws which might run contrary to it? I mean…I GUESS we could strongarm everyone into upholding their end of their treaties, without us having to return the favor - we’ve definitely got the military and economic might. But that’s just immoral, and probably bad for the U.S. and certainly the world in the long run.
That the report deliberately spends so much time grasping for ways for torturers to weasel out of being convicted for torture, implies that its authors consider it likely that torturers would get put on trial. If so, then such practices are, in fact, not permitted, “war on terrorism” or no. But as I keep saying, even that isn’t the point. You said something about “soldiers of terrorism.” Well, it’s not clear whom exactly you meant by that, which is exactly the reason why we <i>shouldn’t</i> give the administration the “benefit of the doubt” on the “war on terrorism.” Much like with the “war on evil” advocated by the neoconservatives, terms like “terrorism” become circular, because a war against a concept inherently has indefinite scope and duration.
So, this memo defines “soldiers of terrorism” as “anyone whom Bush deems to be such.” The powers that the report ascribes to Bush <i>don’t</i> just pertain to, say, al-Qaeda fighters, they pertain literally to <i>everyone</i>. That is, the memo says that Bush has unrestrainable, arbitrary power that needs no justification other than his word. Therefore, this is not a case of “If someone is a terrorist, Bush can have him tortured,” it’s “if Bush has someone tortured, that person is a terrorist.” According to the report, this power is “inherent” in the president, and does not require a declaration of war or anything else <i>at all</i> before it can be exercised.