Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Was Bush lying when he said he told them to "obey the law"...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-10-04 04:08 PM
Original message
Was Bush lying when he said he told them to "obey the law"...
When asked a question about what his knowledge of the torture of the Iraqi prisoners, he said he told everyone to "obey the law". If you noticed, there were no "uhs" or hesitations before his response. He was prepared for that question and he jumped on it like a duck on a junebug. And when asked about it a second time, he did not veer from his canned response.

My impression was that this has been an obvious topic with himself and someone - Ashcroft or Rumsfeld or Gonzales? I think we are going to hear more of this story when the Democrats return.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
pinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-10-04 04:10 PM
Response to Original message
1. I think it's his "loophole" defense = "DOJ told me it was legal"...n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lanparty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-10-04 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. Get out of jail free "position paper"

This have been used WAY too much. It's time for the courts to strike these things down. Ignorance of the law does not excuse breaking it. Nor should relying on the decisions of people who are PAID to write twisted logic into "position papers" so that you may break the law.

Am I missing something here????? This is effectively what is happening in corporate America today. Lawyers are PAID to write position papers supporting whatever their client wants to do. Then the client uses it to shield them against prosecution!!!

With enough money, you could get a position that justifies murder ... correct????

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bullimiami Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-10-04 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. too late....
""With enough money, you could get a position that justifies murder ... correct????""

Bush already did, and the murders have been done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ewagner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-10-04 04:11 PM
Response to Original message
2. You're right
It appears to be a "canned response".

But the interesting point is that those memos apparently told him it was within his authority and therefore within the law to authorize or condone torture.

Therefore, he didn't lie to the reporters.

You see it all depends on what the meaning of "law" is....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-10-04 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Exactly....
He asked for an interpretation of the law and he was told by Justice Dept and the Pentagon lawyers that he had the authority to authorize whatever he wanted. The State Dept and Colin Powell did not give him the same advice. So the decision was not unanimous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellowcanine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-10-04 04:13 PM
Response to Original message
3. Big Deal. It's "obey the law as I (and Ashcroft) interpret it." That is
not the same as "obey the law."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleApple81 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-10-04 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Bingo. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Disturbed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-10-04 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. Boxed in.
If and that's a big if, the Pres. ordered his Civilian and Military to stay within the law regarding torture then all those that did not adhere to the law must be fired and indicted for War Crimes. It cannot be both ways.


What is a war crime?
By Tarik Kafala
BBC News Online


Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention defines war crimes as: "Willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including... willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile power, or willfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial, ...taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly."


This, international lawyers say, is the basic definition of war crimes.

The statutes of The Hague tribunal say the court has the right to try suspects alleged to have violated the laws or customs of war in the former Yugoslavia since 1992. Examples of such violations are given in article 3:

* Wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity
* Attack, or bombardment, by whatever means, of undefended towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings
* Seizure of, destruction or willful damage done to institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, historic monuments and works of art and science
* Plunder of public or private property.

The tribunal defines crime against humanity as crimes committed in armed conflict but directed against a civilian population. Again a list of examples is given in article 5:

* Murder
* Extermination
* Enslavement
* Deportation
* Imprisonment
* Torture
* Rape
* Persecutions on political, racial and religious grounds.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1420133.stm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lanparty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-10-04 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Well ...

The detainees WERE raped.

I want to here some Wing-Nut tell me that if THEIR child was forced to perform simulated oral sex on a naked person, that's not rape!!!!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-10-04 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #3
10. Exactly n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
camero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-10-04 04:22 PM
Response to Original message
6. Asshole thinks he's Judge Dred
You know the "I am the law".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-10-04 04:45 PM
Response to Original message
11. This Makes No Sense. WHY Would He Feel It Necessary To "AUTHORIZE" Anyone
to stay within the law? This is idiotic!!!

I authorize you not to drunk drive.
I authorize you not to murder and rape.

Are we to assume that if obeying specific laws is NOT authorized, then our Great Leader assumes it's okay to ignore them?

Quote: "What I authorized was staying within U.S. law..." Bush said.

This is fishier than anchovy and sardine puree! He's a god damned CRIMINAL!

-- Allen
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-10-04 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Bingo !
That's it Allen! Why should anyone have to be authorized not to break the law??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ewagner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-10-04 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. Good call!
I missed that but you are completely on the money with that.

He's so crooked he has to screw his socks on!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-10-04 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. yep, and "authorized" assumes tortue was discussed, which means
Bush knew about it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-10-04 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. And he's praying that Colin Powell does not jump the ship....
over this issue. If Powell is thinking of leaving, this is the time. He has the information that could nail Dubya Bush...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mandate My Ass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-10-04 05:12 PM
Response to Original message
17. Were his lips moving?
The problem as I see it is, with the PATRIOT ACT and
its overbroad language, Bush can defend himself from
just about anything because terrorists and terrorism
are whatever he says they are.

Just lump anybody who doesn't agree with you into the
classification of illegal combatant and--presto--they
have no rights anymore.

Memos deem that international law is "quaint" and doesn't
apply to this new kind of war.

He has even redefined "law" to mean whatever he wants it
to mean.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 05:59 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC