Gonzales And Ashcroft Disagree With Rice: Just Because A President Says It Does Not Make It Legal
Gonzales And Ashcroft Disagree With Rice: Just Because A President Says It Does Not Make It Legal
Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently tried to defend the Bush administration’s torture program in a discussion with a group of Stanford students on April 27. Channeling Richard Nixon, Rice said that “by definition,” once the president authorized “enhanced interrogations,” they were automatically legal:
Q: Is waterboarding torture in your opinion?
RICE: I just said, the United States was told, we were told, nothing that violates our obligations under the Convention Against Torture. And so by definition, if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Convention Against Torture.
Today, Dan Abrams released the transcript of a panel discussion he conducted with former attorneys general John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales that same day. When Abrams asks them a question similar to the one posed to Rice, Ashcroft and Gonzales come to a very conclusion — Nixon is wrong:
ASHCROFT: When the President does it. If he has the authority to do it, it means it’s not a crime.
ABRAMS: Take away the caveat there. If has the authority to do it. What President Nixon was saying was “When the President does it, that means its not illegal.”
ASHCROFT: Well, no. Obviously the President does not have carte blanche to do things – [Applause] that are illegal. [...]
ABRAMS: Do you disagree with President Nixon as well? [...]
GONZALES: I think that’s its dangerous to say that the President would have that kind of authority.
Also in the interview, when asked how about the job President Obama is doing, Gonzales replied, “I tend to follow President Bush’s model in terms of saying less — as opposed to Vice President Cheney’s [Laughter]. I’m often asked the same question.”
Transcript:
DA: Let me ask you – I want to read a famous quote, Attorney General Ashcroft. Richard Nixon. . .when he said “The President does it – [Laughter] that means it’s not illegal.” And the follow up was, “If the President for example approves something because of the national security, or in this case because of the threat of internal peace and the order of significant magnitude, then the President’s decision in that instance is one that enables those who carry it out without violating the law, otherwise, they’re in an impossible position.” Do you agree with Richard Nixon?
JA: There are –
AG: I’m glad he asked you that – [Laughter]
DA: Well, you’re getting it too. [Laughter]
AG: I want to see how he answers that.
JA: There are things that a President only has the authority to do. And no one else has the authority to do.
DA: But when the President does it –
JA: When the President does it. If he has the authority to do it, it means its not a crime.
DA: Take away the caveat there. If has the authority to do it. What President Nixon was saying was “When the President does it, that means its not illegal.”
JA: Well, no. Obviously the President does not have carte blanche to do things – [Applause] that are illegal. And the law –
DA: Even because of national security?
JA: That’s correct, there are certain things the President doesn’t have the right to do, even in national security. But there are significant powers that the President has in national security, and I believe that there are some powers that are “inherent’ in the presidency that come to him in the constitutional designation as Commander In Chief.
DA [to AG]: Do you disagree with President Nixon as well?
AG: I think that the President can make the decision for the executive branch. But the courts have the final say. The framers envisioned a system of checks and balances, and the checks on the executive branch are the decisions by the court. And so if the courts tell President Nixon that he’s done something that’s unlawful –
DA: But if the courts haven’t ruled on it yet. There’ll be times when the President will have to make a decision. President Nixon was saying — if the President approves something because of national security, or because of the threat to internal peace and order, than the President’s decision in that instance is one that enables those who carry it out to carry it out without violating the law.
AG: I think that’s its dangerous to say that the President would have that kind of authority.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Gonzales says: Just because the President does it, doesn’t make it legal.
Gonzales wrote: The laws and treaties of this land are quaint and are to be overlooked in ‘wartime’.
G*dd*mned f**king liars, every single one of them. And Ashcroft is slipperier than most, so he will most probably evade prosecution. Not lucky, just smarter than the average neocon Bush-enabler.
May 4th, 2009 at 12:11 pmSo, when a president does it, it’s legal…..or, NOT!
May 4th, 2009 at 12:12 pmJust ask Tricky Dick, collect call in Hell.
I wonder how much Gonzo got paid?
I wonder if Gonzo is having trouble with his house payment?
I wonder if Gonzo will look good in prison stripes?
May 4th, 2009 at 12:12 pmUh oh, the talking points twitter must be down. Who will be the first to flip? My money’s on Gonzo the Weak.
PEACE
May 4th, 2009 at 12:13 pmLegal, or not? Or both? Or neither?
These so-called human beings have nothing. Not a thing. Their motto should be: If you can’t dazzle ‘em with brilliance, (ha ha) baffle ‘em with b*llsh*t.
May 4th, 2009 at 12:14 pmAre simultaneous Republican brain farts a sign of the apocalypse?
May 4th, 2009 at 12:14 pmSure, now that Bush is OUT of office he believes that.
May 4th, 2009 at 12:17 pmDon’t be alarmed, just a momentary lapse of lying.
May 4th, 2009 at 12:20 pmI can picture it now every single one of them in an ORANGE jump suit………and a new dancing partner(hopefully named Leroy) every day.
May 4th, 2009 at 12:22 pmAgain with their justification of ‘HOW DIFFICULT TO PROTECT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DURING THIS TIME’. I HATE these bast#rds for USING ‘we the people’ as their EXCUSE to commit torture and war crimes in my name and your name! They jive and jump all over the place with their non-answers when Dan Abrams asks them specific questions concerning torture and fail to directly answer. They weren’t quite a stupid as Condi using her Nixonian rationale. They are WEASELS and someone needs to stop them dead in their tracks. Abrams said there were 2500 peeople in the audience most of whom were neocons laughing and clapping for Assw*pe and Gonzonuts, but Abrams continued to push back at every opportunity. The transcript is awesome.
May 4th, 2009 at 12:23 pmDon’t they mean when a republican president does it, it’s not illegal?
May 4th, 2009 at 12:28 pmBob says:
It’s not Fascism when we do it!
May 4th, 2009 at 12:31 pmpeople.tribe.net
I’m sure Rice is being scolded by the former Torture Administration. Ms. Rice since you “claim” your family was not welcomed by the Dems, wait until you to see what these “evil-doers” of the republicans have in store for you?
As long as Rice is teaching a ‘political science’ class at Stanford University, I will withhold my endowment contributions to Stanford University. I have great respect for Stanford University but to hire this women is like hiring Hitler.
May 4th, 2009 at 12:38 pmNIXON all over again.
Republicans are pathetic.
May 4th, 2009 at 12:40 pmSo why is Lyndi Englund in prison if what Bush authorized was above the law?
May 4th, 2009 at 12:44 pmRecall that Nixon authorized wiretaps and had to resign.
May 4th, 2009 at 12:45 pmWell , Ashcroft and/or Gonzales weren’t Bush’s girlfriends …………Then again , maybe they were , and Bush dumped them for Condi………
May 4th, 2009 at 12:47 pmIsn’t it nice that these two criminals can joke and laugh when asked serious questions about the Constitution and torture? Effin’ barstids!
May 4th, 2009 at 12:50 pmI can’t fathom how Asscroft can even be near Gonzales after he tried to get him to sign off on papers while he was hospitalized. If it wasn’t for Comey filling in, it would have happened.
Ashcroft & Gonzo…does America have too many inept lawyers?
May 4th, 2009 at 12:52 pmXisithrus Says:
So why is Lyndi Englund in prison….
That b¡tch belongs in jail no matter who authorized what.
May 4th, 2009 at 12:54 pmThat wasnt the point I was trying to make AIO. If Bush authorized it why didnt he, or Rice, or Cheney or anyone defend that authorization
May 4th, 2009 at 1:01 pmThree traitors in the quagmire, which one will the quagmire bless?
May 4th, 2009 at 1:01 pmAnd again with the ‘I can’t discuss that publicly’ EXCUSE. Isn’t it enough that all the bushies have admitted to torture [in one way or another even if stating that it was NOT ILLEGAL SINCE THE POTUS APPROVED] that we can just skip all their BS posturing and start an independent investigation geared to trial and prosecutions?
I wonder how many of these ‘elected [by ignorant to FACTS idiot voters] officials’ are planning to leave our country? Since they were ‘ignorant enough’ to approve torture, it makes me think they would be ‘arrogant enough’ to travel to Europe or other countries thinking no one would dare arrest them for war crimes.
May 4th, 2009 at 1:03 pmI registered for this site just so you could know I’m laughing. You anti-torture advocates are hilarious!
Let the investigations begin! I think it’s unethical to prosecute our public servants for providing advice and doing what they were authorized to do, but if it will show you that what they did was perfectly legal let them conduct the farce. I like how those in congress need cover for what they approved and now have to pretend they were lied to. lol!
I believe torture has negative consequences for our nation, but get real people! Not everything is torture and the line had to be drawn somewhere. The resposibility to draw the line is the President’s.
May 4th, 2009 at 1:03 pm.
Whereas some people prefer to play “FOLLOW the LEADER”…
… America was founded on playing “FOLLOW the LAW”!
.
May 4th, 2009 at 1:04 pmAlberto Gonzales: “I think that the President can make the decision for the executive branch. But the courts have the final say. The framers envisioned a system of checks and balances, and the checks on the executive branch are the decisions by the court.”
Well, what do you say AG Holder? Even Gonzo the Braindead agrees that the COURTS need to decide on the legality or illegality of Bush’s decisions. Bush also feels that accusations of torture need to be investigated, at least according to the record. It’s bad enough that this criminal Administration shit all over America’s and international laws and ethics for eight years. Now Cheney, Rice, Gonzales, Ashcroft, Bybee and the whole lot are just laughing at you and the current Administration’s reluctance to call their bluff. It is embarrassing and needs to be settled…not with a toothless commission but by legal proceedings. The avalanche of mounting evidence is mind boggling. The entire previous Administration should be shackled and marched off to federal prison WITHOUT parole until a time when this shit can be fully sorted through. Allowing them to traipse about the Country pushing their propaganda to anyone who will listen needs to stop! Let the evidence speek for itself. If it implicates Dems in the process then SO BE IT! An example must be set in order to disuade future Presidents from picking up the torture meme and running with it to even worse consequences to America. If AG Holder and President Obama love and respect our Constitution, our Country and the rule of law even half as much as they say then the question of criminal charges being brought against the previous Administration should be when not if!
May 4th, 2009 at 1:06 pmOf course nothing the President does is legal. We have a democratic president so that getting to do whatever want rule is no longer in play
May 4th, 2009 at 1:07 pm“Not everything is torture and the line had to be drawn somewhere. The resposibility to draw the line is the President’s.”
Karamozov, torture HAD been defined and the line HAD been drawn long before, by our own laws, by the Geneva Conventions, and by the Uniform Military Code of Justice.
May 4th, 2009 at 1:13 pmK-zov says:
News alert!
May 4th, 2009 at 1:14 pmJust because someone got an ok to torture does NOT mean it’s legal.
How many Nazi concentration camp guards were exonerated because they Were just following orders?
# 22 Xisithrus:
I knew what you meant, Xis,;
May 4th, 2009 at 1:19 pmIt’s because those weasels, including Bush and Cheney, didn’t want the authorization traced back to them, and wanted the public to think that it was just a few low level hooligans perping the torture and humiliation.
Karamazov Says:
“Not everything is torture and the line had to be drawn somewhere. The resposibility to draw the line is the President’s.
Sorry fool, it is not the Presiden’t decision to make. The issue of the illegality of waterboarding has been settled long ago by both US and international courts. The Bush Administration decided that it would try to come up with a legal position that would come within a hair’s breath of the line and stop there is a farce. Waterboarding along with the various techniques employed by Bushco went far over that line. The simple fact that they tried to keep what they were doing secret for so long underscores this. Why do you think the WH authorized the destruction of interrogation tapes? Why was AG AShcroft so worried about holding meetings in the WH where they discussed exactly what could and couldn’t be done? Why was the FBI after voicing their worries over these techniques kept out of future interrogations? Karamazov, why did many lawyers in the office of Ashcroft’s Justice Dept threaten to quit over Bush’s approved techniques? Where is the mountain of evidence that points to their techniques working? I’ll answer that one for you, THEY DON”T WORK! They tortured in order to obtain forced confessions that would implicate Saddam Hussein as being involved with al Queda. PERIOD.
May 4th, 2009 at 1:21 pmAnd I wish the students at Staford University would protest against Rice teaching at the university.
May 4th, 2009 at 1:33 pmJane E. Schneider Says:
The Geneva Conventions to which the US rightfully subscribe cover uniformed soldiers. UCMJ covers US military. I know of no civilian laws specifying what is torture. Please enlighten me.
May 4th, 2009 at 1:40 pmWhen you’re so far to the right that even Gonzo and Ashcroft deny your claims………
May 4th, 2009 at 1:44 pmThe Supreme court says it also covers ‘enemy combatants”. I’ll take their word over yours.
May 4th, 2009 at 1:48 pmA Patriotic Anopheles Acting Says:
If it is so clear why have the prosecutions not begun? Please show me the clearly defined line. Which law outlaws specific acts?
May 4th, 2009 at 1:49 pmKaramazov,
I agree with you on a couple of points:
Let the investigations begin!
Hell yes! Let’s do it and let the chips fall where they may. We are a nation of laws and owe it to ourselves and the honor of our country to pursue this. Of course you realize (or maybe not) that the outcome might not be what you expect.
The resposibility to draw the line is the President’s.
I couldn’t agree more. You are ok with torture, but people have been executed for the same thing Bush authorized. How are you going to feel to see the tips of his shoes swinging a few feet from the floor?
May 4th, 2009 at 1:54 pmUncle Ho Says:
You are right, my blanket statement was a bit generalized. Following unlawful orders is never acceptable. You think the orders were unlawful. I do not. If we have to let the courts prove me right, so be it. I empathize with the victims of your overzealousness.
May 4th, 2009 at 1:57 pmIt doesn’t matter what you think. The SC has already decided; the Geneva Conventions apply to ‘enemy combatants’.
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/waronterror/p/hamdan.htm
May 4th, 2009 at 1:59 pmKaramazov Says:
I empathize with the victims of your overzealousness.
But not with the victims of _their_ overzealousness?
May 4th, 2009 at 2:06 pmKaramazov Says:
The Geneva Conventions to which the US rightfully subscribe cover uniformed soldiers. UCMJ covers US military. I know of no civilian laws specifying what is torture. Please enlighten me.
Interesting question. If the US military sub-contracts the interrogations / tortures to civilians, are they (the military doing the sub-contracting) responsible for the actions of those civilians?
May 4th, 2009 at 2:09 pmnanlcihi says:
I know how I’m gonna feel when chimpy is swinging from the gallows. BLOCK PARTY!
K-zov says:
You don’t think treaties are the law of the land?
May 4th, 2009 at 2:12 pmTHINK AGAIN DUFUS!
nanlichi Says:
Of course they might not be what I expect. There are plenty of examples where US law has been overridden by activist judges. While I personally find some forms of sodomy pleasurable, it doesn’t mean we need go beyond our borders to overrule the law.
I am not ok with torture. First, is water boarding torture? By my standards it is, but that doesn’t make it illegal. Second, I am also not ok with killing. However, I know that sometimes killing is ok.
I would feel profoundly saddened. How will you feel when he is isn’t prosecuted?
May 4th, 2009 at 2:14 pmK-zov says:
You find sodomy pleasurable, that explains a lot. Been buttphucking Flush Limpdick a lot?
May 4th, 2009 at 2:21 pmKaramazov Says:
First, is water boarding torture? By my standards it is, but that doesn’t make it illegal.
All nations that are signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Torture have agreed they are subject to the explicit prohibition on torture under any condition. So yes, it is illegal.
May 4th, 2009 at 2:22 pmwags Says:
Another poor decision not based on US law including treaties we have ratified. We have now encouraged our enemies not to wear uniforms and to mix with civilians which only increases collateral damage. We rightfully did not ratify that portion of the Geneva Conventions to prevent this. Now the SC interprets as they see fit.
May 4th, 2009 at 2:24 pmUncle Ho Says:
lol! This is the last place I would have expected intolerance of sexual inclinations. You Liberals continue to surprise me.
May 4th, 2009 at 2:29 pmLuis Chapulin M Says:
Part I
Article 1
For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
Where does it say water boarding is illegal? I believe interpretation is required. Of course, you interpret it differently than Bush does, but it wasn’t your call.
May 4th, 2009 at 2:32 pmKaramazov Says:
First, is water boarding torture? By my standards it is, but that doesn’t make it illegal.
With all due respect, there is little point in discussing the subject with you because you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about. Your personal standards do not determine international law (thankfully). The people who do determine the standards say waterboarding is torture. The treaties we signed say torture is illegal. It is illegal. Those same treaties say there is never any justification to waterboard anyone.
If this is too difficult to understand, then perhaps you should refrain from commenting on it. Or did you just come here to waste our time? If that’s the case, then I’ll say goodbye to you now.
Goodbye.
May 4th, 2009 at 2:34 pmWayne Ant Schneider Says:
Goodbye.
Hello! This is my third request for a clear prohibition on specific acts. I am ready to admit I am wrong.
May 4th, 2009 at 2:39 pmAgain, it doesn’t matter what your opion on the matter is. The court has spoken.
May 4th, 2009 at 2:42 pm“…torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.”
It’s right there. Waterboarding was made with the consent and/or acquiescence of the US military, caused pain and suffering, with the intention of obtaining information.
May 4th, 2009 at 2:45 pmOh, and waterboarding would be included in the “any act” part of that definition.
May 4th, 2009 at 2:46 pm“This is my third request for a clear prohibition on specific acts.”
You yourself posted the Convention’s definition of torture. Specific acts are not listed. So, in your view, does this mean that if any specific act is not listed, it is not torture or illegal?
May 4th, 2009 at 2:48 pmK-zov says:
You’re condemning liberals as intolerant- again.
A nondenial denial. And avoided answering the question.
How often have you buttphucked Flush Limpdick?
May 4th, 2009 at 2:48 pmOr do I have that turned around? Does he do it to you?
Luis Chapulin M Says:
This is the heart of why I find you all ludicrous. You don’t know any more than I do what “any act” includes because who defines “severe”? You want to discount my opinion but don’t recognize yours for what it is. Don’t be so sure of yourselves.
May 4th, 2009 at 3:02 pmKaramazov Says:
This is the heart of why I find you all ludicrous. You don’t know any more than I do what “any act” includes because who defines “severe”?
I agree that the definition of “severe” could be debatable. But this is what you were asking:
Where does it say water boarding is illegal?
You want a clear, explicit sanction of waterboarding. There isn’t one. If there were such a thing, they would switch to, I dunno, jello-boarding or tomato-juice-boarding and claim that legally there were different acts.
May 4th, 2009 at 3:07 pmUncle Ho Says:
I believe Freud would say you have a fixation. I did not deny your claim to see if anyone would spring to the defense of sexual preference. Wrong crowd I guess.
May 4th, 2009 at 3:10 pmKaramazov,
With all due resepct, it is you who is being ludicrous. You agree that waterboarding is torture, yet somehow you can’t make the leap and see that it is illegal by international treaty. For some reason, you believe that the use of waterboarding on prisoners is ever justifiable. It isn’t.
Specific acts do not need to be listed in the treaties to make them illegal. You can’t shoot prisoners in the kneecaps with a gun. The treaties don’t specifically say that, but anyone with an IQ in the three-digit range could infer that from the list of things prohibited.
Personally, I think you’re just trying to deliberately waste our time. You obviously have no intention of discussing the issues rationally. Please go and enjoy the rest of your day.
May 4th, 2009 at 3:12 pmIt is an embarrassment for the USA to have these WAR CRIMINALS speaking about their TORTURE PROGRAM and excuses about TORTURE.
May 4th, 2009 at 3:22 pmThe more the USA delays their PROSECUTION, the less the World Community trusts the US.
It is becoming common knowledge the fact the US signs treaties and conventions, but does not respect these treaties and conventions. The US, with ObaOba or not, will be farther isolated. No one trusts the USA!
K-zov says:
I have a fixation?!
YOU ARE THE ONE who brought up the topic of sodomy.
BTW- you STILL have NOT answered the question.
Since I’m sure you will avoid an answer to a direct question, I’m off for vacation.
May 4th, 2009 at 3:31 pmSince I’m leaving for several days, please keep hammering the troll for being such a clueless twat, er, twit.
May 4th, 2009 at 3:34 pmLuis Chapulin M Says:
No, I do not. We have that legal opinion already:
http://luxmedia.vo.llnwd.net/o10/clients/aclu/olc_08012002_bybee.pdf
They conclude these techniques do not produce “severe pain or suffering”
Again, opinion. There is no law forbidding or condoning it.
May 4th, 2009 at 3:37 pmKaramazov
I empathize with the victims of your overzealousness.
Who would this be, specifically?
May 4th, 2009 at 3:42 pmKaramazov Says:
I did not deny your claim to see if anyone would spring to the defense of sexual preference.
Why would a defense be needed in this case? It was simply a question of preference directed at you. I don’t read any specific condemnation into that post by Uncle Ho.
May 4th, 2009 at 3:44 pmWayne Ant Schneider Says:
Specific acts do not need to be listed in the treaties to make them illegal. You can’t shoot prisoners in the kneecaps with a gun. The treaties don’t specifically say that, but anyone with an IQ in the three-digit range could infer that from the list of things prohibited.
Personally, I think you’re just trying to deliberately waste our time. You obviously have no intention of discussing the issues rationally.
My point was that I discount my own opinion when it comes to torture. My opinion was ethical not legal. The fact that you actually believe Bush administration lawyers were idiots or criminals is what is amusing. Read the memo, it is well argued and considered.
I am not wasting your time nor is it my intention. I find your viewpoint extraordinary and want to fully understand how reach your conclusions. If you find my inquires without merit, do not read them or reply. That is your choice.
May 4th, 2009 at 3:47 pmTweedster Says:
Anyone with an IQ in the three-digit range could infer that he implied my arguments were without merit due to my sexual inclination.
May 4th, 2009 at 3:52 pmKaramazov:
Read the memo, it is well argued and considered.
Please provide a specific example.
May 4th, 2009 at 3:54 pmKaramazov Says:
Anyone with an IQ in the three-digit range could infer that he implied my arguments were without merit due to my sexual inclination.
I’m not sure why you would need to imply a lack of intelligence on my part. I didn’t see any specific condemnation of sodomy in his post.
May 4th, 2009 at 3:56 pmTweedster Says:
Karamazov:
Read the memo, it is well argued and considered.
Please provide a specific example.
Well?
May 4th, 2009 at 4:00 pmKaramazov,
I find your viewpoint extraordinary and want to fully understand how reach your conclusions.
May 4th, 2009 at 4:04 pmUncle Ho, have a nice time! :D
May 4th, 2009 at 4:07 pmWhen will the U.S. media stop excusing Criminal behavior and stop creating phony debates and when CNN played Rice’s despicable excuses for torture and her baseless claim it did not violate any laws , they didn’t present the obvious facts , they did violate International Laws , Geneva accords and military law , as far as I know .
But this is typical of the Infotainment channel , telling the whole truth about TORTURE is not important , having silly , meaningless ” discussions ” all day long about the problems w/ the republican party and what they should do to repair their image , oh that they have time for .
And this despicable and misleading framing of torture by apologists like CNN , who paint the opposition to torture, by some vague description ” Some people Say ” ….” Some People Say ” .
May 4th, 2009 at 4:09 pmNO , it’s not some people say, G.D . It’s the damn International law , Geneva Accord ..tell the damn truth CNN & others , get a journalistic backbone and challenge Condesleeza Rice ludicrous comments , especially when you KNOW , you KNOW she is a damn LIAR !
“Pursuant to my authority as commander in chief and chief executive of the United States, and relying on the opinion of the Department of Justice dated January 22,2002, and on the legal opinion rendered by the attorney general in his letter of February 1, 2002, I hereby determine as follows:
a. I accept the legal conclusion of the Department of Justice and determine that none of the provisions of Geneva apply to our conflict with al Qaeda in Afghanistan or elsewhere throughout the world because, among other reasons, al Qaeda is not a High Contracting Party to Geneva.
b. I accept the legal conclusion of the attorney general and the Department of Justice that I have the authority under the Constitution to suspend Geneva as between the United States and Afghanistan, but I decline to exercise that authority
at this time. Accordingly, I determine that the provisions of
Geneva will apply to our present conflict with the Taliban. I reserve the right to exercise the authority in this or future conflicts.
c. I also accept the legal conclusion of the Department of Justice and determine that common Article 3 of Geneva does not apply to either alQaeda or Taliban detainees, because, among other reasons, the relevant
conflicts are international in scope and common Article 3 applies only to
“armed conflict not of an international character.”
d. Based on the facts supplied by the Department of Defense and the recommendation of the Department of Justice, I determine that the Taliban detainees are unlawful combatants and, therefore, do not qualify as prisoners of war under Article 4 of Geneva. I note that, because Geneva does not apply to our conflict with al Qaeda, al Qaeda detainees also do not qualify as prisoners of war.
3. Of course, our values as a nation, values that we share with many nations in the world, call for us to treat detainees humanely, including those who are not legally
entitled to such treatment. Our nation has been and will continue to be a strong supporter of Geneva and its principles. As a matter of policy, the United States
Armed Forces shall continue to treat detainees humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva.
4. The United States will hold states, organizations, and individuals who gain control of United States personnel responsible for treating such personnel humanely and consistent with applicable law.
5. I hereby reaffirm the order previously issued by the secretary of defense to the United States Armed Forces requiring that the detainees be treated humanely and,
to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva.
6. I hereby direct the secretary of state to communicate my determinations in an appropriate manner to our allies, and other countries and international organizations cooperating in the war against terrorism of global reach.
/s/ George W. Bush
May 4th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
http://www.pegc.us/archive/White_House/bush_memo_20020207_ed.pdf
May 4th, 2009 at 4:17 pm..detainees be treated humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva.
Take a whiff of that weasel. Basically, this language completely guts Geneva and places military necessity as the threshold filter. Burning a prisoner’s fingers off with a blowtorch is acceptable if deemed to be militarily necessary.
This is not reasoned opinion and wouldn’t hold up as a defense. But let’s see if it would.
I can see this flipped back at us in the next conflict. “I thought that the red haired boy from Nebraska knew of some plans to bomb our country, but he wouldn’t talk so we cut his eyes out with a dull pocket knife. It may sound harsh to you now, but we thought it was a military necessity at the time. Can I go home now?”
May 4th, 2009 at 4:36 pmDan Abrams is on MSNBC right now elaborating on the interview.
May 4th, 2009 at 4:47 pmKaramazov
Your attitude is FASCIST. The President is not KING. He doesnt get to draw lines that make what is illegal legal. WE PROSECUTED Japanese officers for the exact same thing we are doing and called it a warcrime. The Bush administration DID torture period. Yes let it ALL come out. I suspect we will find we did more things than waterboarding. At Abu Ghraib it is KNOWN electric shock to genitals was used. Blunt force trauma KILLED detainees in more than a couple of instances. Bush SAID it was a few bad apples but then he said we didnt torture and waterboarding IS torture it was used during the Spanish inquisitions. I love the way you talk about us anti torture advocates. What kind of soulless husk of a human would be a torture advocate?
May 4th, 2009 at 4:47 pmWhy aren’t these men in jail?????
May 4th, 2009 at 4:48 pmKaramazov Says:
The Geneva Conventions to which the US rightfully subscribe cover uniformed soldiers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Among OTHER protected classes. This rightwing canard is a zombie meme. You guys trot it out no matter HOW often we PROVE that is NOT the ONLY protected class nor that it SPECIFICALLY says that no person can be put beyond the law.
UCMJ covers US military.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes it covers what OUR military personal can DO and what it CANT do like TORTURE.
I know of no civilian laws specifying what is torture. Please enlighten me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Convention against torture statute which we are a signitory of. When a treaty is ratified it becomes the Supreme Law of the land equal to Federal LAW.
May 4th, 2009 at 4:51 pmKaramazov Says:
This is the heart of why I find you all ludicrous. You don’t know any more than I do what “any act” includes because who defines “severe”? You want to discount my opinion but don’t recognize yours for what it is. Don’t be so sure of yourselves.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
No you find us ludicrous because you are too stupid to understand simple FACTS. If WE considered it torture when we convicted the Japanese of it and called it a warcrime then WE defined it as torture ourselves. Try to keep up
May 4th, 2009 at 4:54 pmI’m reading the transcript of the interview http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dft6kzgt_23gjhchbgk Here’s something interesting:
DA [Dan Abrams]: “Judge Gonzales, I’m going to ask you a very direct question. And it relates to something you just said. Do you believe water boarding is torture?”
AG: “Here’s what I’ll say. I think that the U.S. government provided advice to CIA interrogators based upon the best legal reasoning by the lawyers in the Department of Justice. Was it torture, when that advice was given? No. Were the interrogations harsh? Yes. Did they save lives? Absolutely.”
Aaarrgghhh! Lying weasel!
May 4th, 2009 at 5:10 pmWhat about the 1983 Texas case that Reagan’s DOJ prosecuted and won where a Texas sheriff and his deputies used waterboarding to gain confessions?
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0904/S00266.htm
May 4th, 2009 at 5:11 pmWhen Abrams asks them a question similar to the one posed to Rice, Ashcroft and Gonzales come to a very conclusion — Nixon is wrong:
ASHCROFT: When the President does it. If he has the authority to do it, it means it’s not a crime.
ABRAMS: Take away the caveat there. If has the authority to do it. What President Nixon was saying was “When the President does it, that means its not illegal.”
ASHCROFT: Well, no. Obviously the President does not have carte blanche to do things – [Applause] that are illegal. [...]
ABRAMS: Do you disagree with President Nixon as well? [...]
GONZALES: I think that’s its dangerous to say that the President would have that kind of authority.
*****************************************************
That’s rich, considering that both Ashcroft and Gonzales were probably two of the biggest bobbleheaded yes-men ever to hold the post of Attorney General — had this not been the case, it’s very unlikely that they would have been offered the post in the first place since Bush’s actions consistently made it clear throughout the eight years of his administration that he had absolutely no tolerance for people who questioned or thwarted him.
If I were Rice, I’d start watching my back — the fact that Ashcroft and Gonzales have apparently decided to turn their backs on her, despite each having essentially offered Bush carte blanche himself while serving as Attorney General, suggests to me that they won’t even think twice about hanging her out to dry if push comes to shove.
May 4th, 2009 at 8:22 pmI THANK
May 5th, 2009 at 7:11 amSesli Sohbet
Sesli Chat
SesliSohbet
SesliChat
sesli ve görüntülü chat
sesli ve görüntülü sohbet
Chat
sohbet MaviSakaL
SanaLBurda
Go away blogwhore
May 5th, 2009 at 7:45 amI SAY F@CK…
Sesli Sohbet
Sesli Chat
SesliSohbet
SesliChat
sesli ve görüntülü chat
sesli ve görüntülü sohbet
Chat
sohbet MaviSakaL
…AND THE BLOG THEY RODE IN ON
May 5th, 2009 at 10:22 amIf the president does it or says it’s legal, why do we have an impeachment process? Why was Bill Clinton impeached?
May 5th, 2009 at 3:16 pm