Stop slandering America.
In an interview with British Sky News reporter Adam Boulton, broadcast Tuesday morning on Democracy Now!, Bush once again displays his hostility toward the rule of law, particularly the Supreme Court, who had the audacity to order him -- once again -- to uphold the Constitution.
Boulton: I mean, you’ve talked a lot about freedom. I’ve heard you talk about freedom I think every time I’ve seen you.
Bush: Yes.
Boulton: And yet, there are those who would say, look, let’s take Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib and rendition and all those things, and to them that is the complete opposite of freedom.
Bush: Of course, if you want to slander America, you can look at it one way. But you go down—what you need to do—I think I suggested you do this at a press conference. If you go down there to Guantanamo and take a look at how these prisoners are treated—and they’re working it through our court systems. We are a land of law.
Got that?
Let's review.
Those who would look at the myriad scandals surrounding Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, and those who would question the policy of rendition, well, they're just slandering America.
Later in the interview, Bush says:
My only point to you is, is that, yeah, I mean, we certainly wish Abu Ghraib hadn’t happened, but that should not reflect, you know, America. This was the actions of some soldiers. That doesn’t show the heart and soul of America.
Despite mounting evidence to the contrary, Bush still insists that widespread reports of abuse and violations of the Geneva Convention -- "quaint" though it may be -- are merely the actions of "some soldiers."
This, despite the fact that in April of this year, ABC News broke the story that, in fact, discussions of torture methods went far beyond "some soldiers."
In dozens of top-secret talks and meetings in the White House, the most senior Bush administration officials discussed and approved specific details of how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency, sources tell ABC News.
The so-called Principals who participated in the meetings also approved the use of "combined" interrogation techniques -- using different techniques during interrogations, instead of using one method at a time -- on terrorist suspects who proved difficult to break, sources said.
...
The high-level discussions about these "enhanced interrogation techniques" were so detailed, these sources said, some of the interrogation sessions were almost choreographed -- down to the number of times CIA agents could use a specific tactic.
...
At the time, the Principals Committee included Vice President Cheney, former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft.
...
Then-Attorney General Ashcroft was troubled by the discussions. He agreed with the general policy decision to allow aggressive tactics and had repeatedly advised that they were legal. But he argued that senior White House advisers should not be involved in the grim details of interrogations, sources said.
According to a top official, Ashcroft asked aloud after one meeting: "Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly."
Some soldiers, huh?
Yesterday, Michigan Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, held a hearing investigating this very matter.
From Senator Levin's opening statement:
Today’s hearing will focus on the origins of aggressive interrogation techniques used against detainees in U.S. custody. We have three panels of witnesses today and I want to thank them for their willingness to voluntarily appear before the Committee.
...
So, how did it come about that American military personnel stripped detainees naked, put them in stress positions, used dogs to scare them, put leashes around their necks to humiliate them, hooded them, deprived them of sleep, and blasted music at them. Were these actions the result of “a few bad apples” acting on their own? It would be a lot easier to accept if it were. But that’s not the case. The truth is that senior officials in the United States government sought information on aggressive techniques, twisted the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees. In the process, they damaged our ability to collect intelligence that could save lives.
Today’s hearing will explore part of the story: how it came about that techniques, called SERE resistance training techniques, which are used to teach American soldiers to resist abusive interrogations by enemies that refuse to follow the Geneva Conventions, were turned on their head and sanctioned by Department of Defense officials for use offensively against detainees. Those techniques included use of stress positions, keeping detainees naked, use of dogs, and hooding during interrogations.
Ah, but that's just slandering America, because, Bush insists, "This was the actions of some soldiers. That doesn’t show the heart and soul of America."
Despite the fact that Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell, Tenet and Ashcroft were having top secret meetings in the White House, in which they "choreographed" torture techniques, and that the discussions were so troublesome that even the tender sensibilities of John "Soar Like an Eagle" Ashcroft were offended. Or at least, he had the foresight to be concerned about how history would judge them.
But never mind all that. We're just talking about "some soldiers."
In the same interview, the president also reveals, once again, his shocking ignorance of the judicial process.
Boulton: But the Supreme Court have just said that—you know, ruled against what you’ve been doing down there.
Bush: But the district court didn’t. And the appellate court didn’t.
Boulton: The Supreme Court is supreme, isn’t it?
Let's pause for a moment.
To Bush, apparently, it does not matter that the Supreme Court of the United States -- the highest court in the land and the final voice on whether a law is or is not constitutional -- because the lower courts agreed with him. The fact that the lower courts agreed with him has no legal impact whatsoever, since their holdings were overturned by the Supreme Court, and it is the opinion of the Supreme Court that matters.
Let's continue.
Bush: It is, and I accept their verdict. I don’t agree with their verdict. And it’s not what I was doing down there. This was a law passed by our United States Congress that I worked with the Congress to get passed and signed into law.
Boulton: But it looked like an attempt to bypass the Constitution, to a certain extent.
Bush: This is a law passed, Adam. We passed a law. Bypassing the Constitution means that we did something, you know, outside the bounds of the Constitution. We went to the Congress and got a piece of legislation passed.
Boulton: Which is now being struck down, effectively.
Bush: It is, and I accept what the Supreme Court did, and I necessarily don’t have to agree with it.
See?
The Supreme Court has ruled that it's unconstitutional, but Bush disagrees because, after all, he worked with Congress to pass and sign the law (that the Supreme Court just ruled unconstitutional).
If it sounds like circular logic, that's because it is. Congress passes a law and the president signs it. The Supreme Court reviews the law and deems it unconstitutional. But Bush thinks the Court is wrong because he worked with Congress to pass and sign that law -- and therefore, it can't be unconstitutional.
Are you dizzy yet?
The president is technically correct. He does not have to agree with the Court's ruling. But he does have to follow it. And invoking the rulings of the lower courts is, well, pointless and kind of stupid. But that's what we've come to expect from our president, isn't it?
And for anyone who would question this logic, who would question the activities at Guantanamo that the Supreme Court held unconstitutional, who would investigate the lawfulness of these activities, who would question whether such activities are consistent with American principles, or with Bush's mantra of "spreading freedom," who would seek accountability for possible crimes committed by our government and members of our military, well, they're not actually upholding the Constitution. Not even Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who, during the hearing, denied that Abu Ghraib was just a few bad apples. He blamed bad administration policy, and suggested pretty strongly that Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, Haynes, and Yoo are among those responsible. But Senator Graham and others aren't trying to restore America's reputation in the world.
Nope. They're just slandering America.
[Cross-posted at DailyKos]
No comments:
Post a Comment