This was too good to pass up and I haven't seen anyone else post about it, so I figured I'd jump on it.
Basically, Bush came right out and said "I am above the law! If I do it, it's legal!" Would he be so brazen?
Yes.
Observe.
Bush "We Do Not Torture"
but we do want an exemption to laws prohibiting torture
and another article with the same name but slightly different content:
Bush "We Do Not Torture"
So here's the excerpts:
Bush did not confirm or deny the existence of CIA secret prisons that The Washington Post disclosed last week, and would not address demands by the International Committee of the Red Cross to have access to the suspects reportedly held at them.
coughwarcrimecough
"Anything we do to that end in this effort, any activity we conduct, is within the law," Bush said. "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."
That's the kicker right there. He's not saying that they are obeying the law. He's saying that anything they do is within the law, by virtue of their doing it. He is saying not that they are complying to any rules, because they aren't (except for ones they make up to justify their actions), he is saying that their actions are the rules. Legality is defined by what they do. Scary.
Vice President
Dick Cheney has been spearheading an effort on Capitol Hill to have the CIA exempt from an amendment by Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record) that would ban torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners.
The exemption would cover the secret prisons that the Post said were located in several eastern European democracies and other countries where key al Qaeda captives are being kept.
"I'm confident that when people see the facts, that they'll recognize that we've got more work to do and that we must protect ourselves in a way that is lawful," Bush said.
Shouldn't we take an l off that last word there? If we are conducting ourselves in accordance in the law, why are the Powers That Be so terribly afraid of the law? Make no mistake, the McCain amendment is a WEAK amendment, it should be in much stronger terms. But the Administration is fighting even that. They cannot bear even some slight control over their power by any political party or by any branch of the government. The Executive branch wants its power to be supreme, so it can "fight terror more effectively." Of course, given the on-the-fly redefinitions of many other words like torture and humane, it would be wise to be on the lookout for a new definition of terrorism to come down. Probably has already.
Of course, there are Republicans in the Legislative branch who realize that presidents come and go, and they like to keep the power they have now.
Bush spoke a day after Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record) told ABC's "This Week" that the Bush administration was making a "terrible mistake" in opposing the McCain amendment.
Hagel said that taking that stance also showed the need for Bush to widen his net of advisers as a way to regain his credibility with the American public amid sagging poll numbers over the Iraq war, soaring gasoline prices and other troubles.
The Senate voted 90-9 for the McCain amendment to prohibit the use of torture and abuse of prisoners in U.S. custody, adding it to a $440 billion defense spending bill despite a White House veto threat.
Ninety Senators have a conscience? I'm stunned.
The White House position is that international treaty obligations already on the books govern the treatment of suspects and that the United States is observing those rules.
Well anybody who has read the international treaties knows that we're already in violation of those nine ways to sunday and we've gone way past our own Law Of Armed Combat regulations as well. But we're used to such... "creative manipulations" of the truth.
Here's my question. Bush has been saying, clearly, that We Do Not Torture. I don't know if he expects us to be proud of that fact or something, when it's like saying We Do Not Eat Babies or We Do Not Push Old Women Down Stairs, but that's beyond the point. The point is,
Why does the White House... want an exemption (for the CIA) to an amendment prohibiting torture... if we do not torture?
I want a WHPC reporter to ask that question. It's always fun watching Scotty flop-sweat. It's so simple! Anyone with an above room temp IQ can see the hypocrisy and contradiction there! As such, we can expect roughly 51% of the voting population not to see the hypocrisy and contradiction there, but oh well, you work with what you have.
So, how would you answer that question?