Bush: The Country Is at War, Therefore We Do Not Torture
While I wait patiently for the press to notice that George Bush admitted to instituting a regime of torture last Friday, I wanted to call your attention to one of Bush’s most famous statements purportedly denying that we torture. The statement came on November 7, 2005, just after Dana Priest’s Black Sites article appeared, and in the middle of Congress’ efforts to forbid torture. The statement came within days–if not hours–of the time when the CIA (supposedly working on its own) destroyed the evidence of torture.
The statement starkly follows the logic of John Yoo.
Q Mr. President, there has been a bit of an international outcry over reports of secret U.S. prisons in Europe for terrorism suspects. Will you let the Red Cross have access to them? And do you agree with Vice President Cheney that the CIA should be exempt from legislation to ban torture?
PRESIDENT BUSH: Our country is at war, and our government has the obligation to protect the American people. The executive branch has the obligation to protect the American people; the legislative branch has the obligation to protect the American people. And we are aggressively doing that. We are finding terrorists and bringing them to justice. We are gathering information about where the terrorists may be hiding. We are trying to disrupt their plots and plans. Anything we do to that effort, to that end, in this effort, any activity we conduct, is within the law. We do not torture.
And, therefore, we’re working with Congress to make sure that as we go forward, we make it possible — more possible to do our job. There’s an enemy that lurks and plots and plans, and wants to hurt America again. And so, you bet, we’ll aggressively pursue them. But we will do so under the law. And that’s why you’re seeing members of my administration go and brief the Congress. We want to work together in this matter. We — all of us have an obligation, and it’s a solemn obligation and a solemn responsibility. And I’m confident that when people see the facts, that they’ll recognize that we’ve — they’ve got more work to do, and that we must protect ourselves in a way that is lawful.
Note the logic of the statement:
- Our country is at war
- The executive branch has the obligation to protect the American people
- The legislative branch has the obligation to protect the American people [Remember, Bush and Cheney were successfully convincing Congress not to prohibit the CIA from torturing]
- What we are doing is "aggressively" fulfilling our obligation to protect the American people
- Our "aggressive" efforts to protect the American people consist of: bringing terrorists to justice, gathering information about where the terrorists may be hiding, trying to disrupt their plots (that is, torture)
- Anything we do to the end of protecting the American people is within the law
Bush does not say, "torture is illegal, but we do not torture, therefore we are working with the law." He flips the whole question around, as Yoo did. He basically states that anything the executive does to fulfill its obligation to protect the American people is–because it is done in the name of protecting the American people–within the law. The rationale for these activities–protecting the American people–and not the nature of the activities themselves, is what makes them legal, according to Bush.
Anything we do to the end of protecting the American people is, therefore, within the law.
Stated, as Bush did it, in response to an implied yes or no question, "do we torture?," it appears to be a denial. But stated after you’ve read Yoo’s memo, it is, rather, an assertion of extra-legality. Anything Bush does to the end of protecting the American people is within the law, Bush promoted a torture regime ostensibly to the end of protecting the American people, ergo, torture is within the law.
It took them five years to declassify the OLC memo, but in truth, Bush has been waving it around like a red flag since it was issued (the memo had already been rescinded by the point Bush makes this statement, though it had been replaced by a still-classified Bradbury memo in early 2005).
Of course, Bush’s response to the question was not presented in the press as an assertion that "Anything we do to the end of protecting the American people is therefore within the law." Rather, it was presented as a sharp denial that we torture:
Bush: "We do not torture" terror suspects
Bush defends interrogation practices: "We do not torture"
US does not torture, Bush insists
We do not torture detainees, says Bush
Bush: "We do not torture"
Which I’m guessing is the problem the press, all of it, is now having with Bush’s admission on Friday. On Friday, Bush glibly admitted to approving of meetings at which is top advisors approved water-boarding. We all know water-boarding is torture. Therefore Bush has glibly admitted to instituting a program of torture.
But the press has been uncritically accepting Bush’s twisted sophism for years, interpreting a claim of extra-legal powers as, instead, a denial of torture. How can the press explain now that, contrary to what the press reported for years, all along Bush has been claiming that torture is legal?
You are waiting patiently.
Any ideas of “how” to get the press to respond?
I suggest using the “spotlight” feature of this website– It’s much more useful than the Digg feature. Get this into the hands of reporters across the country, and add your cover message about why this is so important in your own words. You’re limited to target 10 reporters in each spotlight, but if you choose well, that’s no problem. And if lots of us do it, there will be a multiplier effect.
Bob in HI
There are to many people to whom it can be spotlighted. I needs to be coordinated in order that one news organization or a couple of journalists hear from all of us.
Bob,
I like your idea. I know you posted it in another thread too. Thought I would just put up a few email addresses. Did not include WaPo or WallSTJ. Thought about adding The Guardian and the Toronto Star. All of EW’s posts on this should be Spotlighted. As you said, the more of us who do it, the better…
LA Times:
[email protected]
SF Chronicle:
[email protected]
Chicago Tribune:
[email protected]
Boston Globe:
[email protected]
NYTimes:
[email protected]
McClatchy:
[email protected]
Please, add to this list!
He’s always been parsing his words on this, as Gonzo did over and over again. “We do not torture”, could mean that Bush and Mrs Bush, personally, don’t torture, right?
What does Cheney have to say on torture? Sometimes, he’s a little more forthcoming but his comments often get dismissed as being so off the wall.
I think its more like Barney doesn’t torture because every time I have to listen to him, its definitely torture.
He says waterboarding (”a dunk in the water”) is a no-brainer.
Somewhat O/T, but Scott Horton is alluding to a coming “mass media” article about ?War Crimes? charges against Yoo et al….
Horton at Balkinization
I’m thinking that the mass media and the prosecutors Horton wrote about are probably not American mass media or US Attorneys, but am waiting anxiously for the news. Also, I urge everyone to call and to send emails to Congress demanding accountability.
Anything we do to the end of protecting the American people is, therefore, within the law.
That, of course, is their major argument.
But they also had another one, just in case: whatever we do to the detainees is stuff we don’t consider torture, therefore we don’t torture. Maybe in the eyes of the rest of the world it may be torture, but we don’t think it is. Simple.
Yes — even if he’s saying something close to “If the executive does it, it’s not illegal,” he is still also saying that torture is not “torture.”
Wasn’t it Kenneth Wainstein who testified to the SJC that waterboarding (as the CIA did/does it) was not “waterboarding”? Not that he would explain the difference.
Well, if the President does it, it’s not illegal.
Does the term “special prosecutor” hold any meaning here, or what?!! The implication is clear: Cheney/Bush are torturers and should be renditioned to the Hague for trial…and, through their own hubris, their own admission! This is outrageous: We are in more danger now than ever before in our history! Sign onto ACLU’s Petition to Congress for A Special Prosecutor.
Thank you ezdidit @ 8 for the link to the ACLU petition. I’ll pass it on to others to sign.
EW, you are nothing short of tenacious…please don’t stop covering these important crimes and the press’s criminal neglect to investigate and expose them to light. We need your journalistic voice!
If ever we needed a Special Prosecutor it is now…the crimes are piling up on this admin.
Done: Rush/Durbin/Obama.
Thanks for the link to the ACLU, I just used it.
OfT, regarding this:
Although I doubt you intended it, it was imo very disrespectful to emptywheel. It also displayed a massive unfamiliarity with her work.
Speaking Friday at Duke University, on a panel discussion of extraordinary rendition, Michael Scheuer, the man who first developed the extraordinary rendition program under President Clinton, said, “I’m perfectly happy to do anything to defend the United States, so long as the lawyers sign off on it”. This another statement, like Bush’s, turning the argument on its head and saying that it’s legal because attorneys in the administration have signed off on it. How he can be “happy” with this is beyond me, but I think very illustrative of the sickness in the Bush administration.
At that program, there are further revelations about the nature of extraordinary rendition before and after 9/11. I have posted more on this topic, and links to press accounts of the panel discussion at ondelette’s new blog on torture.
Bullseye.
Pointing out the Grand Canyon-like contradiction differences in Bush’s words is a great start to getting the MSM’s attention. I’m off to make the WaPu aware of this in their online politics discussion today.
I just sent this to the WaPu link I referenced above.
I doubt they’ll publish it, but I tried to make it as amenable as I could. If others want to take a shot, the hour-long chat starts at 11 EST.
Oath of office is to “protect the Constitution.” Not the people. So, what happened to that priority??? If we get our priorities straight, it will be clear that “torture” cannot be condoned.
“Oath of office is to “protect the Constitution.” Not the people. So, what happened to that priority??? If we get our priorities straight, it will be clear that “torture” cannot be condoned.”
The precise words, “Protect and Defend the Constitution of the United States” are interesting and critical here. Has anyone ever heard a reference to the oath, and the concept behind it in any Bush utterance other than when he was sworn in? I can’t find one.
What does it mean, conceptually, to shift the job description of President from “protecting and defending the Constitution” to the non-constitutional construction of “protecting the American People”?
Sara – this is a profoundly important point, and very apt considering the militarization of American society. Moving from the protection and defence of the Constitution to “protecting” the American people is trying to turn the clock back from the Enlightenment to the Middle Ages. Instead of a society based on the inalienable rights of free individuals, which was envisioned by the founders, focusing on the Leader’s “obligation” to protect the people is analogous to feudal social structures, leading to hierarchal relationships between lords and vassals and peasants, with the vassal performing military service for the sovereign and the peasant performing physical labour in return for “protection”, which tends to work out more for the protection of the assets of the nobility than the actual protection of the poor serfs and churls and peasants.
You nailed that Ishmael.
We are serfs and der Leaders need to protect us. Bernard Lewis would love the Middle Ages Clash of Civilisations.
Me , not so much.
“What does it mean, conceptually, to shift the job description of President from “protecting and defending the Constitution” to the non-constitutional construction of “protecting the American People”?”
The actions of this administration are treasonous. 911 provided the opportunity for the neocon fascist to undermine the “Constitution” just as the “Gliewitz Incident” was by used Nazis to launch WWII’s Nazi Blitzkrieg while consolidating power. Does not matter if 911 was canned or not! The “Iraq Oil Plot” with Shock and Awe followed. Now we are in the mess we are in, with no accountability! This is what happens when you shift the job description, for the interests of corporate aristocrats, from defending the constitution, to defending “corporate profit” under the guise of protecting the American people. After the “Gliewitz Incident,” Nazi Germany rationalized its attack on Poland as “protecting the homeland.”
Tell that to American paying 4.25 for fuel who has lost his job, health insurance, home and now his son in Iraq….. Protecting the homeland, with the logic of witch hunts, we have seen this before! This is treason and Jefferson’s worst fear, a shredding of the constitution by corpo-aristocrats usurping the constitution in the lust for endless profit, similar to a King and his corpo-cohorts in colonial crime as they mercantiled the colonists. Would the current “policy makers” meet FDR’s definition of fascism? Reality enabled by…. a conceptual shift!
No silent German here!
YES! The MSM has not even decided IMHO to write clearly and unambiguously that waterboarding is torture. It is safer to write about the Yoo memo, even though it is not ubiquitous, because it crosses the line about torture. But they do not want to get into a legal argument about what “techniques” are torture I would imagine. The free pass they have been giving about what is and is not torture is doing a great deal to hold them back.
Since we are on the topic of telling the truth, I thought I might link to the truth telling award for some inspiration…. Here are some bios about this year’s winners and last year’s winners of the Ridenhour Prizes… Bill Moyers won the courage award. Christy linked to his speech on Saturday in her Pull Up A Chair…
http://www.ridenhour.org/prizes_03.shtml
http://www.ridenhour.org/recipients_03e.shtml
http://www.ridenhour.org/recipients_03d.shtml
Here is the speech from this year’s winner.
http://www.ridenhour.org/diaz_…..ript.shtml
These awards were just awarded on April 3, 2008.
http://www.ridenhour.org/index.shtml
One of my favorite parts of Moyers’ speech was:
.
(my bold)
Enjoy reading about life from the “truth base”. Thanks for being a big part of the “truth base” EW. Thanks for your endurance and exhilaration! You and Moyers are kindred spirits!
O/T (something else to do during what could be a long-assed wait; I talked to some well-informed folk this weekend who had heard nothing of Bush’s admission):
I often say that there’s no game plan or playbook that tells you how to run a Great Depression. However, if I wanted to take that as my objective, one thing I’d probably try to set up would be a housing crash that takes in all of CA and FL and … well, the United States, and also London, Madrid, Australia, Hong Kong, New Delhi, and Tallinn.
Not saying it would, but that just could get ‘er done.
emptywheel:
I read the weekend’s posts and comment threads and was stunned by that “the suicide attack — I mean, the 9-11 attacks” slip LS and Hmmm also noted. Bush, the poor bundle of nerves, always lets the cat out of the bag. Any ideas what the cat is, if there is one?
“Anything we do to the end of protecting the American people is, therefore, within the law.”
Transcription to Bush-Mind [Rovian] “Morality-Free” Thinking:
1 – If I ‘demonize’ my Enemies first
2 – Then I can do anything I want to them
Otherwise known as The Grand Inquisitor’s Model:
Anything we do to the end of protecting the Church, therefore, is within God’s Law.
Absolute Power will Corrupt Any Container…
He was going to say “…they’ll recognize that we’ve acted lawfully”, but that’s oldspeak, not the same as this new doctrine: We are the law.
This is fascism………..
Yes, it is, isn’t it. “Fascism Done Right!”
O/T — The Preznit and The Pope on CNN. I’m waiting for Preznit to give Pope a backrub or a McCain huggie.
But hasn’t the congress already given Bushco retroactive immunity for torture/lies/warprofiteeering through one of the many Protect
BushAmericans Acts? I think it was the one which passed after the fake terrorist attack on Rayburn alert just before one of the many recesses?It’s easy really. The media have been willing to ignore that this emperor has no clothes for years. So when the President’s own statements catch the media with their pants around their ankles, they follow the example they have set and ignore their own sartorial choices.
corpogovernment……….
Orwellian doublsspeak !
I would give a lot to see Bush seated across the table from the Patrician of Anhk-Morpork. The Patrician would steeple his fingers, sigh and say, “Ah, Mr. Bush………..”
Their approach to torture is cut from the same cloth as their military adventures: pre-emptive attack on you name it — Iraq, detainees, political enemies, the Constitution, the rule of law.
and any of the media who are still foolish enough to believe in a free press.
America is bleeding and some people are more concerned about comments concerning bitterness?? Retarded………
Every American should be pissed/bullshit/ and bitter at the fascism shoved down our throats these days under the facade of protection!! Just like Nazi Germany!!
Protecting the American people is nowhere in the president’s job description. But both congress and the president take an oath to protect the constitution. And the president has a duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,”
….faithfully executed to protect the present energy delivery system at the expense of America and the constitution, should we continue to permit it!!!
the “Iraq Oil Plot” is the “1933 Business Plot” never realized because of the actions of Gen. Smedley Butler! Fascism is alive and well in America today because people permit it. No silent German here!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nor is he our ‘Commander in Chief’ as the Dems continue to let the media proclaim.
I would also point out that the media have managed not to notice for more than 7 years that Bush is the worst President in our history. If they have dutifully not picked on this, none of us should be surprised that they fail to report on Bush’s most recent admissions on torture.
My thanks to whoever first came up with the Upton Sinclair quote:
This is the most concise and accurate history of the media in our times that I have found and think could be found. They have chosen to be complicit and keep their jobs.
That is true. But can’t we hijack them somehow? Let’s fake a terrarist attack and then whip out our signs and banners….
What an apropros quote for our corrupt times.
JamesJoyce — I have no doubt that your fuel story is true and that even a cynic/realist would be shocked at the depths of corruption going on these days.
Please explain…. DOJ conducts investigation into “chocolate’s” price fixing, meanwhile oil speculators and energy providers control our lives liberties and happiness via underlying cost of energy. The rising cost of gas! Then to add insult to injury…..using the state tax code legislatures now penalize the taxpayer citizen who fails to comply with laws mandating one now purchases health insurance, from, get this…. tax exempt health insurance corporations doing “business” in the state. They argue its like auto liability insurance! Really now, tell me how after paying monthly payments for a car, then, the sales tax, exercise tax, insurance fees, gas tax, license fee for the privilege to drive, you are legal and “free” to operate your car once you buy the gas, if you have the cash?
Now using the color of law citizens are penalized and taxed for having a life (and car) (”by state and corp-government” collusion), if they have not the ability to pay for.. mandated health insurance’s inflated premiums and inflation costs. Oh cost of oil just went up!! So? Meanwhile, people who create illegalities blame others who point it out!! A text book
nazitactic! BTW what is the status of the DOJ’s “IMPORTANT” chocolate price fixing case, in Pennsylvania where thecandidatesare? What is that word…Oh yes…. special prosecutor, Mr Conyers????? Please, any chance any chance????Diesel fuel 4.25 a gallon for the average stiff here. Hunt Oil Texas sells fuel to large corporate trucking firms at $1.50 per gallon per assertion of educated Oregonian American trucker who was in the eastern USA making deliveries. He states Americans have no clue as to the level of corruption!!
..and get tased in the streets
Victoria, I will not be tased by anybody. I can protect myself very well!
…and rendered somewhere on the dark side
You have nicely articulated the gene splicing technique for constructing an English sentence that Bush’s rhetoric relies on. It’s implications in light of his admitted illegal behavior are startling. They reveal the “open” lies he’s been using for years, which many inside the Beltway would have known about but kept to themselves. As you’ve asked before, if Bush admits to torturing his prisoners, what has he done and authorized that is so much worse that he still hides it?
Churchill, whom Shrub’s writers creatively compare with their boss (inherently demeaning WSC) fought mightily to master the simple English sentence. He did and worked wonders with it. So do Bush’s writers, but they do it by splicing it to fit their master’s grade school level English and to say the truth while lying about it. They tack unrelated phrases next to each other, implying a logical sequence that they don’t mean and isn’t true. That doesn’t give us Dolly the Sheep herded by Cheney, but a two-headed monster.
Spying on US from the get-go…
Torturing at the First Opportunity he got…
Lying US into a Pre-emptive War of Choice…
Is it any wonder Bush is losing E-mails, operating out of the RNC, failing to preserve any documentation, unwilling to cooperate with anyone, making blanket assertions of Executive Privilege, etc, etc?
He’s been Running from his Mistakes of Twisted Judgment for Years – Enabled and Shielded by his Blindly Loyal “Can’t Tell Right From Wrong” Sycophant Gooper Courtiers – and his goal is that the Truth Never Come Out, at least not until after he comfortably passes away of old age in his Servant-filled Mansion…
…everyone else be damned.
Shorter Junya’s Administration: “EJM – Ends Justify Means.”
It has always seemed more than passing strange that Bush nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.
It obviously wasn’t her idea.
What did she do for Bush that made him want to Reward her, like Bybee, with a Lifetime Appointment to the Bench, and, in her case, to the Bench on the Highest Court in the Land?
What did Harriet do for Bush?
Thanks again emptywheel! Stay on this topic until the “good Germans” wake the fuck up.
Another great read today (via eschaton): http://www.chris-floyd.com/content/view/1485/135/
Is anyone ever going to mention that the country is not “at war”. “Terrorism” is not a country, so the only thing we are “at war” with is the notion that there are people who would do us harm. Well, there will always be those who would do us harm.
We are not at war w/ Iraq, we are not at war w/ Afghanistan. Just because the military has been mobilized doesn’t make it a war (or else, we were at war w/ Katrina, too) and the laws regarding torture shouldn’t be different just b/c Bush says we’re at war.
Hell, isn’t it this administration’s view that Al Queda detainees are NOT prisoners of war?
NYT is reporting Justice is investigating James Reisen and anyone who talked to him. Maybe that’s part of why the press ain’t exactly jumping on this.
That might indeed be their excuse du jour, because I’m pretty sure this was already known. Have further steps been taken, or did they just have a feeling we might be wondering?
192 billion for the cost of war through 2013????? Suicide??
11 billion a day we spend on gas????
If Illuminati members heavily infest the management of MSM then it makes entire sense they will play dumb and spin things away from Bush and the game plan. This scenario does explain everything.
… support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic …
He thinks he was elected to be Big Brother.
“He thinks he was elected to be Big Brother.”
It also is a complete rejection of the “rule of law” conception. Afterall American Law, one way or another, all derives from the Constitution. Law either fits within it as determined by practice or court decisions, or it doesn’t, and gets cast out. I don’t think near enough has been made of this as part of the public debate. Ishmael makes the point it is pre-enlightment — totally agree. Caste and Class determine whether one has the “protection” of the Prince, and the religion of the Prince must also be your religion in the pre-treaty of Westphalia construction of it all.
We need a clear way to make this distinction very obvious to a very broad swath of American Voters.
Agreed, finding a way to articulate this message in a much better way than I did is vital – distilling the message from abstract historical and philosophical summary is the problem. We need a metaphor and a communication strategy that everyone can understand – Jefferson did something similar with the Missouri Compromise, a complex political and philosophical question, when he said its enactment… “like a fire bell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror. I considered it at once as the knell of the Union.”
For King George’s party purposes the “War” plays well for impoverishing the middle class with a class depressions. As Krugman points out this morning in the NYT “Crisis of Confidence” the shock has hit our budgets.
Historically war has impoverished the lower classes.
Where it is all going is to establish an Uber Class with all the assests. The economy depends 2/3s on consumer spending so government tax cofers are in the red. Services are fast shrinking for the already impoverished with more joining their ranks. TORTURE is a fear factor to keep them in line…1984
“Historically war has impoverished the lower classes.”
Except for one war, the Second World War for the US Military.
The Draft did not really discriminate by wealth or class, though smart upper class types knew to volunteer for Officer Candidacy School gigs before the local draft board got to their number.
If one lived through it, you got a free first class college education, free vocational technical education, and a no down payment starter house mortgage, after you put your time in as a Private First Class at $21.00 per month, with allowances for wives and children.
Rationing meant that even if you had trade relationships, you still stood in line. One of the rare arguments I can remember my parents having had to do with stamps for fuel oil for the furnace. One family friend (a lawyer) who didn’t want to be drafted, moved back to his family’s
farm in Iowa, (from Akron Ohio), and declared himself a farmer for the purposes of getting a draft exemption. Some months later, he sent some ration stamps that could be used for either the Iowa Tractor or a furnace in Akron, and there was a huge argument as to what to do with them. Eventually after major argument, we handed them out a few at a time till the winter of 44-45, when our next door neighbor needed more heat. Her son had been in the first wave at Omaha and was in the Bulge — so we handed the remainder off to her. Then when it got really cold, we went visiting. So what do you do with a draft dodger’s blackmarket fuel oil stamps? For most Americans this was totally upended with Vietnam. Draft avoiders became heroes, (we elected two of them President), and no sacrifice was asked of many.
Because of rationing and price controls, the sacrifice in WWII was pretty much shared about, and at war’s end, the people I knew who had worked shift and a half for the duration in the Rubber Factories, (average temp on the line was 125F) as tire builders, had major league savings, even with wage controls. They had money to buy, sometimes build, a new house, new appliances, maybe a car, and eventually for a TV. And the GI’s had the same asset level. In fact by putting the GI Bill into the National Budget, holding that potential segment of a workforce off the job market for a few years while they did college or voc/tech schools and thus had higher value skills, the industrial labor force got rewarded with higher wages and benefits, plus seniority.
So why did it happen thusly? Why did the middle and working class benefit from a national war? Because FDR put into place the plan to end it this way. GI Bill was premised on a pre-war study that pointed out that in the 30’s, only 5% of High School grads went on to college or tech schools, and it was only in 1940 that we reached graduating 50% of our 18 year old’s from High School (in part due to National Youth Administration programs that kept kids in school during the 30’s). To sustain a higher tech industrial culture, we needed to send at least 30% of our High School Grads to College or tech schools, and the GI Bill moved us in that direction. FDR believed that one cause of the depression was too many unskilled workers competing for too few unskilled jobs, and little understanding of the importance of investing in higher skills in the workforce. When the American Legion and VFW joined up supporting the GI Bill with educational benefits, in 1944, FDR just said, well that isn’t how I would have crafted the skill deficit resolution, but maybe it will work. And so it did.
When you work out who structured the end of the sharecropper culture, and things like it, Just do the history.
Sara at 52
Bush makes a reference to the Constitution here – From a 12/11/05 article at the Leftcoaster:
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/006250.php
(cut cut cut)
GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.
“I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”
“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”
“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”
[Author Doug Thompson] talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution “a goddamned piece of paper.”
Larry Johnson informed us earlier on good authority that orders to torture were issued from the top and that Bush himself witnessed the interrogation (via tape, or live?) of Abu Zabaydah. Knowing what we do know about this president, this shocking and unthinkable charge only makes sense. OF COURSE George W. Bush would want to watch, would want to participate! It is certainly no surprise that Bush was not kept out of the loop, but was actively involved with the whole development of the torture policy. I am certain that he wanted to know every detail. It is likely that he also has “trophies” of the horror. Trophies are big to a man with a certain type of mind-set. Some private contractors have videotaped their pot-shooting assassinations of innocent Iraqis in cars, for sport. Some U.S. soldiers transmitted gruesome images of dead Iraqis in exchange for internet porn. The killer of Che Guevera recently auctioned off a lock of Che’s hair that he had kept as a personal trophy all these years. Bush himself is known to keep as a trophy the handgun of Saddam Hussein. Perhaps he also kept the flightsuit he wore when he landed on the deck of the Navy carrier. (He wants so much to be part of the action). I wonder what other trophies Bush is keeping for his personal viewing pleasure. (You know he’s got them!) Didn’t his college fraternity, Skull and Bones, keep the skull of Geronimo in its display case as a trophy? (And wasn’t it even his own grandfather who stole the skull for the fraternity in the first place?) Didn’t he brag immediately with a smirk on his face that Zubaydah broke easily and gave away a trove of secrets, naming names? He was crowing then and we didn’t even know the half of it.
There is also the Orwellian (forgive me, St George) inside-out use that the cons make of words that sound positive, even cheery, on the surface: protect, security, prosperity, safety, etc. In practice all those words are meant by these regimes, yours and ours, to scare people. If the people need to be protected or the “homeland” needs to be secured, the implication is that they are in some danger and the people should be afraid, be very afraid. The Security and Prosperity Partnership (NAFTA plus) implies that the whole of North America faces security threats, and that our prosperity is somehow endangered (which of course it is, but first of all by the sneaks who are running the show).
Department of Public Safety, anyone? We have one. The tall forehead who thought that one up had obviously never heard of Robespierre.
I googled Bush and Torture, Cheney and Torture; not one major US paper reported on ABC news interview of Bush authorizing torture! What in the fuck is wrong with this country, our Congress and MSM. We all should be up in arms over this instead we get zip, zilch, nothing!
Oh, I did find on Google News one report — from a TV station in Louisiana (Shreveport). It is a short report, but it included both of the diagnostic quotes from Bush (both “approved” and “enabled”).
-There was some reference at the Baltimore News Sun on their political blog but it was quite limited…
EW,
Submitted a comment with some great links. Once again I think it is “gone”. I sent it shortly after my comment at 1…
It had some nice links about telling the truth…and Bush…
Klynn, if you will refresh your screen, it should now be there at about 15. Comments with multiple links often go into the moderation queue. Sorry about that.
Hey thanks bmaz! I knew posts with multiple links did have “lag” I’ve just had a bunch of posts blip away as soon as I hit submit. It’s been happening since last week. I noticed a few other posters noted the same problem. I only post a comment if they “blip” when I think they are not in “moderator mode” in hopes of addressing any problems coming up with the site.
Thank you for your help.
(75 & 77)Sara and RHGrn you might appreciate Bill Moyers’ quote @ 15 above…
Hey, klynn — suddenly I see what you mean because I try to read everything along the way, and I’d never read that post before. I’m glad I have now, though.
Is it time for a Torture Timeline to track the history of this criminal enterprise?
Northward on this very page. True, the focus is a bit diferent, but it’s a start.
Here’s another from Larisa that focuses on Bush and his war crimes. Apparently there’s more of this one in the works.
Timeline of Prisoner Abuse in Iraq, Afghanistan and Elsewhere from History Commons (the folks formerly known as Co-operative Research Network). Nicely categorized, so that for instance one can call up articles discussing human rights groups, types of abuse performed, interrogation centers, etc.
The NSC involvement – directly – in the Torture Program makes the Rove-Hadley e-mail containing one of Karlie’s Hysterical Classics:
“I didn’t take the bait…”
all the more interesting. Was the e-mail system ‘manipulated’ with a ‘planted’ piece of fiction to alibi Rove? What are the forensics on that particular e-mail?
What did Hadley know, and How did he know it?
Did Bush engage in Reverse-Pixie-Dusting by ‘creating’ a ‘factual-looking’ record of ‘the Truth?’
IOW, would Bush present Lies as Truth, in order to Convince US to go his way?
This phrase,”We are at war”, has a familiar ring to it. I don’t have the research skills to locate the info, and I invite those who do to find the data, and correct me if I’m wrong about this, but I seem to recall it being reported that on the morning of 9/11, the president was reading a story to school-children in Florida when his Chief of Staff, Andrew Card, approached the president and whispered into his ear these (or similar) words: “A second plane has hit the World Trade Center. The United States is under attack; we are at war”. Much mockery has been made over the long “puzzled” and “helpless” look on the president’s face that follwed.
I have often thought about that look with a much different take on it. I think he was considering the long-range implications of his advisor’s words- and so should we. My first reaction was to the words; being at war triggers the Commander-in-Chief authorities. In hindsight we can more clearly see what lay ahead , and I think that was just what the president was thinking about as he waited for his staff to arrange getting him out of that classroom in an unpanicked manner.
My next set of thoughts about those words concerned how strange it seemed that they should arise so quickly from the executive branch and anticipated we’d soon see some interaction with congress about the War Powers Act. Still, even though the executive does have emergency powers, it astounded me that the words, “We are at war”, instead of comming FROM the president to marshall his administration to a course of action, were being said TO HIM.
Some have taken this as an indication of puppetry, but I suspect another interpretation is in order (but not one that denies such puppetry). It is conceivable to me that it was anticipated that some event would occur, or be orchestrated, to invoke to Commander-in-Chief authorty, in order to carry out the Unitary Executive program, and the invasion of the middle east. I am not suugesting that the WTC attack was planned,(nor ruling that out), but saying that I think some event was expected which would allow the triggering of CinC authority, and series of executive orders that would follow, which would tansform the nature of the republic, perhaps forever.
So now we again have these words, “the country is at war” being used to JUSTIFY political action of one human being over another that the revolution of 1776 and the subsequent Constitution was intended to abolish. The reaction of corporate media and corporate congress seems to be: “Old news”, “So what”, and “Who cares?”
In in old PBS series, I, Claudius,there was an exchange between the Roman Emperor Claudius and his son that bears remembering. Claudius was wishing for a return to the republic which long ago had been abandoned in favor of empire. In his old age he was advising his son on a course of action he could take to advance that return. The son replied, ” Dad, I don’t care about the republic, and none of my friends care about it. The only one who cares about it is you.” Indeed, who cares?
Frankly, I’m beginning to think the strategy of more and “better” Democrats is not the answer. I don’t envision a Progressive wing of the Money Party. What I,m considering is akin to what I recall from a song from the early Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young, called ‘Wooden Ships”, in which a group of disenfranchised claim the dominant society doesn’t value them so they decide to leave it.
“What I,m considering is akin to what I recall from a song from the early Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young, called ‘Wooden Ships”, in which a group of disenfranchised claim the dominant society doesn’t value them so they decide to leave it.”
Which is precisely what the left did at the end of the 60’s, “Turn on, Tune in, and Drop-out.” All too many who were hit up the side of the face in the streets of Chicago by Mayor Daley’s thugs, decided not to stick around for the next engagement — having tried with Robert Kennedy and Gene McCarthy to change the course of things, they decided to retire from the field. Some went nuts and became weather persons, others sought solace in hemp and other things, but most just turned off. Hopefully people know enough about that rather recent history to understand that change does not come easily, and backing off the field of encounter is not exactly recommended.
I noted on this site back on the 4th of July that my son asked us to leave the 4th of July fireworks in our fair city before the finale ended. Exxon Mobil was the sponsor of the finale and the music which was played in synchronization to the finale was the piece from Star Wars, The Death Of The Republic.
My son totally understood what message was being given that evening and walked away from the event loudly expressing how incomprehensible it was and others started to understand what he was saying and began to walk away from the finale as well. Few clapped for the finale.
It left an emptiness in us. And made us contemplated “that expression” on the President’s face on 9/11 and the words, “We Are At War…”
Why didn’t Card just stop at, “We are under attack.” Hmmm?????
Card probably never said it. It was more likely a line invented to add a dramatic flourish to the narrative, and, in the long run, to establish the necessary “state” under which they could dismantle constitutional government.
75 – In retrospect, Andrew Card’s wording so early on 9-11 is odd. Pre-planned with deeper meaning, even.
It (the unitary executive and war in the middle east) was pre-planned…the neocons wrote that in order to execute their agenda a new Pearl Harbor was needed.
In the interview why does Bush ask twice, “you mean back in 2003″?
(my bold)
Nice catch brendanx
I’m assuming the bumbling nervous nellie is letting something slip again with this.
I’d say so… probably confused with:
The “We are at War” statement was made independently by a number of Senators, members of Congress, pundits, etc., on 9/11. It may have come from the Bush circle too for all I know, but by late afternoon there was a real effort to change the Rhetoric away from the “War” theme. The reasons for this are interesting.
Once the WH had the chance to consult with their lawyers — likewise the legislators — they came to understand that any “Declaration of War” had huge implications, given contract law, insurance policies and all — most have clauses in them making them inoperative in time of war. In fact, it took about ten years after WWII to untangle such commercial and legal matters that arose simply because of the suspension of so much normal commercial law, given the legal state of war beginning in December, 1941.
That’s why we don’t declare war anymore — we just do war. It is why the Presidential Warpowers Act was such a difficult piece of legislation to write, and why so many think it would be unconstitutional if tested in the courts.
Anyhow, mid afternoon on 9/11, the word went out not to use the phrase, so as to not stir up a movement demanding such a formal declaration. It could well be the reason Bush abstained from using “POW” and substituted “Unlawful Combatant” in their rhetoric.
I have wondered about Card’s farewell speech…
brendanx & Sara,
You’re correct Card did not say it…Bush did here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..Jun17.html
9-11 Panel
Something is definitely up with Bush’s determination to only speak about “2003″ with Raddatz.
What is the solution to our corporate owned media. We need a short term plan and a long term plan.
Short term plan would be what? How do we get the american people to understand that our democracy was turned upside down when Bush decided that defending the people “his way” was more important than the constitution. How do we get the word out, if we cannot rely on mainstream media??
This is probably a historic moment for america, and what we do in response determines our direction. Deeper into fascism, or save our constitution and democracy?
Sara @77
Yes, there are different ways of leaving. I didn’t want to “leave” thing as I did in my comment, but it seemed to be getting a bit longish (In fact upon rereading it, I wish I had not even begun the last paragraph, as the comment had more to do with the phrase, “We are at war”). I wasn’t advocating any such mindless dropping out (and for that matter, Tim Leary didn’t either). What I had in mind is what many Germans did when it became clear what the Nazis were up to in the 30s, and what the Puritans did when religious pressures began to pile up in England on certain ways of thinking. I also see problems with this, since wherever one goes, there are others already there who may not share your enthusism for establishing a new order; consider the American Indians’ problem with westward expansion. Also consider what happens if the United States should regard some new settlement which intends to create a truly democratic republic as presenting some kind of threat.
What I’m pondering is, as the Weathermen did, how do you deal with a superpower who has all the means of annihilation, especially when its actions seem to be endorsed, at least passively, by the society as a whole. More and better Dems doent seem to cut it. I stopped being a Democrat when Hubert Humphrey would not reject Johnson’s war policy,for fear of alienating the “silent majority”. I still see many who cannot envision an existance outside the Democratic party, and not unlike the blacks who seemed to have no other place to go, are stuck with a party that continues to take them for granted. The leaving I’m thinking about is for progressives to begin considering leaving that party for their own “territory”.
Another masterful parsing of bush·speak! I read the 2005 comment in a less sophisticated way, “You can’t yet prove that we torture, and you don’t yet know how we’ve redefined torture, ergo ‘we don’t torture‘.”
I wonder if bush·speak has been officially adopted as an Official Republican Language. I’d hate to see us spend all this time learning to translate it for naught…
You wouldn’t know until they officially denied it; then you’d know they had.
I think Harry, Nancy, and Barack would use the FEC and the courts to destroy any liberal attempt at a third party. Not only could we not elect candidates, I doubt we could get them on the ballot. I also don’t think African Americans or the Unions would leave the Democratic party. I think any liberal party would be intellectuals and the GLBT community. I think we have more leverage staying nominally inside the Democratic party. I also think the sub prime meltdown is going to move the entire nation significantly to the left, closer to what used to be considered “moderate.” The real underlying issue imo is excluding corporate money from elections. Sara has already written about it. IIRC, it had to do in part with restricting campaign donations to registered voters.
“I think any liberal party would be intellectuals and the GLBT community. I think we have more leverage staying nominally inside the Democratic party. I also think the sub prime meltdown is going to move the entire nation significantly to the left, closer to what used to be considered “moderate.” The real underlying issue imo is excluding corporate money from elections. Sara has already written about it. IIRC, it had to do in part with restricting campaign donations to registered voters.”
I have absolutely no intention to leave the DFL. My own history involves getting involved early in the 60’s before Vietnam became an issue, and because it was DFL’ers who were carrying Civil Rights for the most part. I’ve managed 20 legislative campaigns, mostly for women, spent ten years on the State Central Committee, and done much else that required endless meetings. I’ve retired from that now, except as a commentator and intrepretor, but believe me you don’t walk away just when it gets tough — you stay, work out how to win, fight the right fights when necessary, and try to move matters just a little closer to your goals. There is no reason to leave so long as politics can still be done.
I am so pleased with what I have seen this far this year. We had about 220 thousand DFL’ers show up for precinct caucus — in a blizzard. All of the party offices now being filled at District and County Conventions are competitive contests — the Obama people are not winning all of them, but enough so that for the next two years they will be attending all those endless meetings, and learning how to do detailed politics. Rather than just promoting elected officials up the ladder, new candidates are getting endorsement (see CD#3 last Saturday), Al Franken is close to endorsement for the US Senate, and polling even with Coleman, and the real campaign hasn’t started yet. We won’t win everything this year, but with 81% of the country agreed that we are on the wrong track, the ground has been tilled for a huge change and a whole new crop of congresscritters and (hopefully) presidential appointees. It is a long hard slug — but you don’t want to consider third parties and other back-out strategies when you are actually making progress.
What is important is to understand that should we win much this year, we may only have a two year window in which to get things done. Last time we had such an opening was 1965-1967 — with a few opportunities post Watergate. Priorities will need to be set, and Progressives will need to learn all the arts of compromise, lobbying and advocacy so as to make all that time count double, and possibly get a renewal of the franchise in 2010.
So much as I dream of a mass waterboarding, hanging, drawing and quartering on the Mall of the departing Bushniks, my priority is to deal with programs that impact working class and middle class voters, such as Education, Health Care, Housing Finance, Re-Regulation of Financial institutions and much else first, and let the Presidential Historians do their number on the Bush Administration. I am a very practical political hack, and you have to change that 81% wrong track number, and get a significant majority saying, in 2010, that they are better off now than they were in 2008. And it would be nice if the rest of the world more or less follows that projected trend.
Sara I share your agenda but you know who needs to be nuetraslized before that is allowed to happen. The best campaign for our next candidate is to reveal to “We The People” what the press is covering up…those crimes by the administration through the Impeachment investigations. And that my good lady is exactly what the Rethugs did to us by tarring our brand they were able to beat Gore. Just sayin with due repect to your credentials it’s politics ya know
Eliminating corporate money from the electoral scene is crucial. If you don’t think so already take a look at Robert Reich’s recent book Supercapitalism: The Transformation of Business, Democracy, and Everyday Life . It’s the most common sense analysis I’ve ever run across as to how and why we got where we are today. He really gets past the knee-jerk bromides of both the left and the right. Other important steps are to implement some form of ranked voting, such as instant-runoff, and preserving and even enhancing network neutrality. The latter is important for defanging the MSM over the long term. Their business models, as well as those of the communications providers, are collapsing and you can make a case that this is a major reason why their news coverage has gone to hell.
“Eliminating corporate money from the electoral scene is crucial.”
Yep, but it has to be done functionally. What we have now is a set of industries that have their business plans blessed by congress in such a way that the Lobbyists cream off the money from Big Pharm, Big Insurance, Big Finance, Big Real Estate, and they divide up some part of the takings among the PACS, the member’s campaign committees, and all the rest. Thus the money cycles from the corporations to the lobbyists, to the political scene, and that generates monopoly opportunities, protected profits and all the rest, and then it cycles back again. So how to change????
With Big Pharm — regulate the price of drugs, perhaps through mass purchasing programs, perhaps in other ways. Re-Regulate advertising. Change the tax breaks on R&D. Above all, put a limit on the cost of Lobbying, government relations, and free-bees for Medical Personnel that can be taken as “cost of doing business” in Corporate tax calculations, which will quickly remove the incentive for spreading “street money” around in congress when a vote is due. Require Big Pharm to pay realistic royalities or license fees on basic research done on the public dime, such as through NIH Grants. It is complicated, but the one thing the constitution prevents us from doing is limiting a corporation’s free speech. We just have to make such speech much less profitable.
In otherwords, taking corporate money out of politics is about restructuring the markets so as to remove the incentive to buy into the political process, and increase the incentive of the corporations to make money the old fashioned way, (make better widgets). It will be the combination of changing the business regulatory environment and the tax laws that industry by industry will create the needed change.
Well, I hate to say this, but I think you could state with some accuracy that Bush/speak is language used to deceive and avoid accountability.
Which translates to “sociopath” speak. Listen in on a sociopath sometime and listen to the way they use language when they speak about their misdeeds. It’s the same language.
And if you think about it, the same behavior. They have broken laws for which they know they are accountable, but choose not to be held accountable. Sociopath.
Maybe all will be revealed in Rumsfeld’s memoir to be published in 2010. I assume he will write the memoir standing up, in a stress position – because we know he loves to be in a stress position. Perhaps even suspended from the ceiling by his wrists, dictating into a tape recorder.
Why did Bush say “You mean back in 2003″ twice to Martha Raddatz? And why did he say “the suicide…the 9-11 attacks?”
Wiki says that the mastermind behind the USS Cole bombing was captured in 2003: “[Walid Muhammed Salih] Bin Attash was captured by U.S. forces in May 2003 in Karachi, Pakistan.”
These items may not be related, or maybe they are related.
OT – Glenn Fine on the required handoffs by his office to OPR.
emph added.
ot, but glenn fine is scheduled to testify before the HJC tomorrow:
1 pm – House Judiciary
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties
Hearing on H.R. 3189, the “National Security Letters Reform Act of 2007”
as reported by the ACLU, witnesses will include:
Glenn Fine, DOJ Inspector General
Valerie Caproni, FBI General Counsel
Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU National Security Project
also tomorrow:
9:30 am – House Armed Services
Building Partnership Capacity and Development of the Interagency Process.
Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Defense
Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State
Michael G. Mullen, USN, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
2:30 pm – Senate Foreign Relations
To hold hearings to examine protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949….
John B. Bellinger, Legal Adviser, Department of State
Charles A. Allen, Deputy General Counsel, International Affairs, Department of Defense
Brigadier General Michelle D. Johnson, Deputy Director for the War on Terrorism and Global Effects, J-5 Strategic Plans and Policy Directorate, Joint Staff
Besides the propaganda Bush+co spouted concerning the covert program of tortcha, the next part of his remarks also conceals fakery, the statement about “bringing (the captured people) to justice”. There is a long record in this administration of creating biased adjudicatory venues for the detainees, but the Republican majority in congress assured the scraps of due process would shield the quasijudicial artifices from scrutiny. But there is a showtrials process beginning. Read how solicitor general Clement uncomfortably expresses the same ideas as Bush in the Padilla transcript interchange with justice Stevens pp8-10 April 28, 2004. I doubt Clement believed the Bush+co denials about torture in 2005.
Hello folks.
You’ve been busy today. I took my aunt and uncle on a drive around MI’s thumb to see lighthouses–we must have stopped at six lighthouses.
Did anyone quit? How many laws did Bush break today?
Wow, sounds like you had the most fun!
How many laws did Bush break today?
I guess he’s not really breaking a law just by still being in office … For sure, the very war crimes laws we’ve been discussing, including the aggressive war one.
Not exactly OT, I just ran across something and I don’t recall whether it’s come up around here:
Train Wreck at the Justice Department: An Eyewitness Account, by John McKay. The full paper should be downloadable to the world from any of the sites near the bottom of that page.
It’s an interesting read, isn’t it? I’ve linked to McKay’s article over @ FDL proper several times since I got a draft copy from someone last Dec.- glad to see it showing up over here as well. Scott Horton wrote a piece highlighting it in March:
The Gathering Storm at Justice
Since Glenn Fine’s answering other HJC questions tomorrow, maybe someone in committee could try to nail down when his report on all this is coming out…
If all law flows from Bush, how can he break laws? That sounds like a reality-based question to me.
I believe a red-faced mea culpa is in order. I stated this morning that I lacked the research skills to verify what I recalled Andrew card “reportedly” said. This afternoon, I struck upon the ingenious notion of a Google search of the terms: Andrew Card,9/11/01/, “We are at war”. An early response led me to the 9/11 Commission Report which cited Card as having NOT uttered the words,”We are at war”. As any good memory expert will tell us: People remember things that never happened. Peter Jennings or someone else may have said those words, but apparantly I just had it wrong. I’m sorry for any perturbances I may have caused.
RHG,
No need to worry. Go read the response @ 87. The 9-11 Commission reported that Bush said those words in a phone call to Cheney shortly after the plane hit the Pentagon.
But you were correct Card did not say them.
What I found interesting was the scripture Card referenced in his farewell speech…
Ecclesiastes 3 1-8 (my bold)
I do not think his reference was “passing”…
You sure the chump wasn’t ripping off The Byrds?
Yeah, thought about making that pop culture turn, turn…
Corporations do not vote. Corporations have clearly no voting rights.
Both “democracy” and republic” are defined by who does has the right to vote.
So why are corporations permitted to give funds to politicians?
Perhaps ONLY VOTERS should be allowed to give funds to politicians?
Corps may not have suffrage, but under the law they are considered to be a “person”. Therefore, they have free speech rights and what you propose is arguably unconstitutional.
Thanks Selise. Further to what JL has @ 107, maybe what Congress should do is call Mukasey and Luttig to testify in their capacity as the Judges to whom DOJ argued the case for allowing Padilla to be disappeared into military custody with no representation and ask them if DOJ withheld from the Court the evidence of approved courses of abusive interrogation to be used detainees or if they made their rulings with full knowledge that the “Principals” and “White House TortureLawyers” were authorizing that kind of treatment to detainees or if they thought the evidence and information of abuse was just not relevant.
An absolutely awesome idea! Since neither one will be in a position to hear any further potential proceedings on the case, they don’t have that dodge either. This is like my idea to subpoena Addington to testify about his actions and duties as custodian of records for OVP (and to some extent the WH as a whole) in certain discovery productions. Both ideas are too blindingly simple and efficient to ever be taken up by our derelict congress.
mary @112 and bmaz @114 – if only conyers would put the two of you along with marcy in charge or organizing his hearings…
idea to subpoena Addington to testify about his actions and duties as custodian of records for OVP
Heh.
Well done Sir. You hit all the points, but I would like to add this:
Why isn’t Nan Pelosi wigging out about this? Well, because all the head Dem’s were probably in the loop too. Surely BushCo made them complicit by keeping them in the loop.
It all stinks to high heaven..and yet we bombarded with this:
People in PA are bitter and love their guns and their GAWD?
If you search on the previous thread for ‘radiofreewill’, you’ll find some interesting surmises to the effect that Pelosi and Reid are being very careful when dealing with Bush, who doesn’t come across as a stable individual. Worth going back to check RFW’s comments, as s/he has an interesting perspective on the Dems.
And yes, the media make themselves irrelevant when they devolve into circus tactics. However, as someone earlier on this thread (Sara, perhaps) pointed out shrewdly this is in large part of function of the economic challenges the MSM encounter at present. They simply don’t appear to have the reporting depth to tell better stories.
Be interesting to read Glenn Greenwald’s thoughts when I pick up my copy of his new book tomorrow. We won’t clean up politics until corporate money is addressed, nor until the ’storytelling’ and communication about politics improves.
Someone in the MSM needs to be explaining how Bush’s willingness to commit war crimes endangers our own troops. That’s a key point that the general public needs to understand.
I find this mildly encouraging. Will Bunch asked Barack Obama if he would investigate crimes involving torture, rendition, and wiretapping. Obama’s answer:
What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that’s already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can’t prejudge that because we don’t have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You’re also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we’ve got too many problems we’ve got to solve.
So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment — I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General — having pursued, having looked at what’s out there right now — are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it’s important– one of the things we’ve got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing betyween really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I’ve said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law — and I think that’s roughly how I would look at it.
It’s nice to see a tone-down, reasoned response.
I note this is longer than a sound bite, and in my mind underscores the enormous value of giving a candidate more time to respond to a question.
I don’t find this encouraging at all. If Obama has not figured out that there crimes committed by the Bush Administration in regard to wiretapping/surveillance, at a minimum, then he isn’t even paying attention, much less interested in shepherding accountability. And if he is “reserving impeachment” for “exceptional circumstances” and he hasn’t seen any yet, he is either willfully blind or so full of political shit his eyes are brown. I wonder exactly what then would be sufficient for Mr. Obama.
Interesting take. Me, I read the Obama quote as fully compatible with the idea that there are more, even less ignorable and less refutable revelations still to come, and when they do, it’s *POW!* time. Puts me in mind of Scott Horton’s hints the other day that (and here I paraphrase by, I admit bizarrely, quoting the Arthur C. Clarke story ‘2010′) “Something’s coming. Something wonderful.”
I see it as mildly encouraging because he’s committed to looking into it. We know McCain will cover it up. I honestly don’t know what Clinton would do. I’m firmly convinced that a honest review of the facts will lead to to the outcome that you and I desire.
As much as I would like to see a fire-breathing attack against the perfidy of the current administration, I recognize that it is better politics to offer the hand of fellowship now and strike back hard when it is rejected. Now, I don’t know that Obama will follow that course, but I hope and pray he will.
I agree with that for the most part, and I was not trying to shoot you as the messenger (I hope it did not come across that way). I agree that firebreathing at this point in time would be counterproductive. But the overriding concern for the thought that Goopers may call something a partisan witch hunt and that this all may have just been some “dumb policies” really sticks in my craw. The Republicans are going to shriek hissy partisan fits no matter what he does, and on everything he does. What they say is irrelevant if the integrity of the Constitution demands certain action, and it does. But more than anything, the bit about not approving of impeachment because it should be “reserved for exceptional circumstances” just sent me over the edge. There are plenty of ways he could have begged off the impeachment issue without saying he has seen no basis; that is not what I want to hear from a supposed Constitutional scholar.
I agree that the impeachment answer was a disappointment, but it is, in my opinion, too late for impeachment anyway (at least for Bush, Judge Bybee is still available).
John Edwards for Attorney General
I do think Obama needs the cool measured response on this, to negate the partisan Repug crap that will be flying soon. However, for Obama to not seriously consider impeachment at this point “Sends me over the edge too.” We have been in the trenches on this for so long. But I think Obama knows that crimes have been committed. I don’t think he wants to say that in public right now. I can only hope if he is elected that he would follow through on the crimes and prosecution. (but none of us can preidct that now)The only prediction I have is that someone in the admin will be facing criminal charges before next January.
I am not so sure which way Hillary would go on the issue of investigating and prosecuting for war crimes. I think she would stay away from pursuing the crimes of the Bushies.
I disagree a little here. My impression is that Obama was saying that he’ll let his AG investigate and see where things go. The answer really seemed to make me think he’d put a Patrick Fitzgerald-type in as AG, someone who he knew would follow the investigation wherever it took them. I agree that it’s pretty damn clear that some serious crimes have been committed, but my take is that he was saying he’d let the AG figure out exactly who did what, and then decide if charges should be filed. That’s a good answer. He can’t be accused of prejudging any investigation, and an answer like this should scare the hell out of everyone who’s been breaking laws left and right for the last seven years. A lot more people are going to want pardons after an answer like that.
I sincerely hope you are right and I am wrong. I have seen absolutely nothing out of Obama that would indicate that this is anything but hollow rhetoric (seen nothing out of Clinton either to be honest; Dodd and Edwards were the only ones that gave me any confidence at all that they might really do something).
It has the shiny patina of a good answer, but here is the problem; and I have been trying for a long time now to get this across to those that keep pinning their hopes on prosecutions by a succeeding administration. There is this little thing called a statute of limitations. For all non-capital crimes, the Federal general statute of limitation is five years from the date the crime was committed, for contempt based crimes, it is one year. Assuming that Obama’s AG nis confirmed by the Senate in a timely manner (pretty unlikely with the current GOP group of blockers), he would take office in February or March. Then, how many months for the “investigation” Three? Four? Five? This makes the earliest you might reasonably expect an indictment, in the extremely unlikely event that an Obama DOJ could actually bring itself to render one, would be the fall to late fall of 2009. That basically eliminates any crime committed during the first Bush term, when the real damage was initiated and done. You might could bootstrap some in through a conspiracy charge for ongoing overt conduct, but I think the way the Bushies appear to have shell gamed and morphed “The Program”, not to mention their other little structures such as torture, makes this pretty dicey. This is the best case scenario understand you. Above and beyond this, however, lies the clear fact that impeachment, not criminal charges, has always been, is now, and will continue to be, the far more appropriate vehicle for investigating and addressing what the Bush Administration has done. While Obama may not have much real experience as an actual litigator, I believe he is far too bright and educated not to understand the above, that is why I consider his statement here to be nothing but hollow political rhetoric. Sounds good; signifies nothing.
Hi bmaz: The only thing I can add is this link to this Dkos article by attytood:
Post Game Show
Before leaving office, those filthy whores will light a match, torch, and shred ALL documents…
They are already running the drills.
Yet, “Come, come, come, come, give me your hand: what’s done
done cannot be undone.”
Macbeth, V.i
Manny was Manny last night.
Yeah, I feel like a real shit bum…
I went to bed when they were losing…
I picked up Reynolds on my team. You like him?
Papi had two bingles last night..
I’m finishing up my last tax return, and then breaking loose
with a Corona…
I like Reynolds. Excellent power, decent enough defense; seems like a good kid with his head screwed on straight. I tell you, they are not the Red Sox yet, but these young DBacks really have something going. Lots of young solid talent (youngest team in the league), and they already have pennant race and playoff experience under their belt.
Olbermann on Countdown predicted the DBacks in the WS v. the Red Sox. Would be a hellava series IMO. Let’s see how right you both prove to be.
Well, i am not going to get ahead of myself, but they are mostly all organization grown talent, not bought and paid for (like our 2001 WS winners) free agents. They are fun to watch and all really seem to be good apples. That is all a good thing, we’ll see how far it goes. Kind of proud of them so far though.
It’s being able to strike that balance that is the critical skill, not recognizing that it has to be struck. Granted, his style is consistently to avoid confrontation. But as Paul Krguman has suggested, if he thinks Rove’s GOP is going to willingly cooperate on anything, let alone on investigating Cheney/Bush’s regime, his administration will fail in year one.
There can’t be enough prosecutions to satisfy me. Accountability means punishment, regardless of whether the whiny bedwetting Repubs weep about the unfairness of it all. It didn’t work for telcom immunity, and it won’t protect Gonzo, Bybee and Yoo and Addington and the rest of the torturers.
The wait for the press to respond will be infinite. They don’t know and they don’t care.
Basically, there is now one branch of government in the U.S.–the execulegjudicial, ELJ for short, and the two that used to exist were packmanned/have been totally cowed by the executive. The indifferent American people absolutely have the lack of democracy they deserve.
That’s why the announcement that John Yoo arrogantly and ignorantly wrote a memorandum that wouldn’t even pass the Westlaw/Lexis search test for toruture and waterboarding, electing to selectively ignore cases like U.S. v. Lee 744 F.2d 1124 (5th Cir. 1984) that has been kicking around on the web, that Whitehouse adopted for his site, and LHP underscored elicited a big “So…….” as does every other Bush initiative to marginalize the Constitution.
Simply put barristers…do we live by the rule of law? Your call you are the lawyers. For me Impeachment Investigation now. It’s is not a damned witch hunt it is seeking justice for the millions of wronged people including Iraqis and Americans and all the losses we all incurred. Probable cause anyone…suspected crimes and misdameanors…high crimes and treason. What do you need…appeasement…never ending. What a sorry bumch you are…parsing torture, murder, obstruction. You who defend this will share the guilt. Look at yourselves what you have or are becoming and the legacy you leave. No apologies from the moral left.
Remember what Bush did to Scooter? If investigations on others were started now couldn’t Bush assume they were guilty and pardon them on his last day? Could not he pardon even though they had not yet been sentenced? To prevent the “pardoner” from his doing his schtick he can’t be allowed the opportunity so we have to wait until he’s out and that is what Obama is doing.
What I meant to add was, in addition to Spotlighting, email personally as well. I think doing both will have impact.
I thought I would post the text from argument cited @107 in the comment about the political wrangling by Clement arguing about Padilla, and justice Steven’s limpid stripping of the attempted sleights of hand in the issues of evasions by changing custody and charges for that detainee.
The link to the case is in @107, above.
2004 at supreme court [1]:
QUESTION [2]: Where does jurisdiction lie for someone in Guantanamo, do you suppose?
MR. CLEMENT: Well, if, let me answer the question this way, which is if you had a citizen in Guantanamo.
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. CLEMENT: And under this Court’s cases like Toth against Quarles and Burns against Wilson, that citizen is unable to file a habeas petition. Our view is that the proper place to file that would be either in the Eastern District of Virginia, if you were naming the Secretary of Defense or if were you naming some official present in the district, you would sue in the District of Columbia. But the important thing is even in that case, the court where you filed the petition would have jurisdiction, territorial jurisdiction over the Respondent and what is so anomalous here is in a sense, it doesn’t, I mean it matters to us in the sense that we think the proper Respondent is Commander Marr, but even if you assume the proper Respondent here is secretary Rumsfeld, the case still shouldn’t be brought in the Southern District of New York. It should be brought in the Eastern District of Virginia.
QUESTION: But why? Why, what difference does it make to the government where they defend?
MR. CLEMENT: Well, I think there are a number of –
QUESTION: I mean, there are offices all over the country.
MR. CLEMENT: I think that’s right, Justice Stevens. I think it only makes sense to have the defense mounted in the place where the detention is taking place. And I think that’s particularly true in this case, because this isn’t a petition that only challenges the fact of confinement. If you look at the, the petition in this case, the amended petition, joint appendix page 56, the relief that’s sought here also goes to the conditions of confinement in Commander Marr’s brig. Now, in a case like that, it seems –
QUESTION: Yes, but I’m not sure that’s, that’s appropriate relief in a habeas petition, anyway.
MR. CLEMENT: Well, I think you can file a mixed petition and seek that kind of relief, but in any event, I think that what they are looking for is not just release from detention, but the stopping of the interrogations.
____
[1]Transcript April 28, 2004 in re Padilla v Rumsfeld, pp8-10; argued same day as Hamdi v Rumsfeld.
[2]Questioner likely associate justice J.Stevens. In 2004 the supreme court reporter service, Alderson Reporting Co., utilized a semi-redactive mode of formatting Scotus transcripts which hid the identity of the individual justices. Alderson has remedied that obfuscatory practice. I am not sure that this obfuscatory practice ended because of a communication of mine, however, an official with that court reporting entity engaged in a colloquy with me concerning the obstacles it produces for obtaining accuracy in media and in research work, and shortly after that exchange of emails, Alderson began generating fully attributed transcripts.
If this country is at “war” I missed the formal declaration that the Constitution says is required of the Congress. Oh, but the “decider” says we’re at war, so I guess we are.
Shameful