War crimes of a "white Republican guy who doesn't get it"

[ProSense]

That's his description of himself:

Bush: "Jim, I don't understand poor people. I've never lived with poor people or been around poor people much. I don't understand what they think and feel about a lot of things. I'm just a white Republican guy who doesn't get it. How do I get it?"




Marty Lederman:

Between this and Jane Mayer's explosive article in August about the CIA black sites, I am increasingly confident that when the history of the Bush Administration is written, this systematic violation of statutory and treaty-based law concerning fundamental war crimes and other horrific offenses will be seen as the blackest mark in our nation's recent history -- not only because of what was done, but because the programs were routinely sanctioned, on an ongoing basis, by numerous esteemed professionals -- lawyers, doctors, psychologists and government officers -- without whose approval such a systematized torture regime could not be sustained.

hilzoy:

These techniques are not just morally abhorrent; they are flatly illegal. One might think that since the President is required by the Constitution to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed", this might be a bit of a problem. Not for the Bush administration. First, John Yoo wrote his famous "torture memo", in which he argued that interrogation techniques were illegal only if they produced pain equivalent to organ failure or death. When that memo became public, the administration disowned it. But they also issued another secret opinion reaffirming the legality of the various combinations of techniques described above, and then wrote another secret memo saying that none of the CIA's interrogation techniques constituted "cruel, inhuman and degrading" treatment.

Digby:

What a surprise. They're still doing it.

When Bush said, "a dictatorship would be easier --- as long as I'm the dictator" he wasn't joking. They simply do not believe that they have to adhere to the rule of law --- it's awe-inspiring in its pathology. And the rest of us are like a bunch of frightened townspeople, hovering behind the curtains just hoping these drunken louts will pass out or leave town before they take a match to the place.

The Uncleansable Stain

Has there ever been a more disgraceful Attorney General than Alberto Gonzales? Has there ever been a more disgraceful Administration than the Bush Administration? No:

[ProSense]

1. Kick! n/t

[ProSense]

2. Kick! n/t

[PDJane]

3. Poor people don't understand Bush either.

[ProSense]

4. A Republican weighs in

Andrew Sullivan:

The way in which conservative lawyers, and conservative intellectuals, and conservative journalists aided and abetted these war crimes; the way in which the president of the United States revealed so much contempt for the law that he put a candidate to run the Office of Legal Counsel on probation before he appointed him in order to keep the torture regime in place, the way in which Republicans and Democrats in the Congress pathetically refused to stand up to these violations of American honor and decency in any serious way (and, I'm sorry, Senator McCain, but in the end, you caved, as you always do lately): these will go down in history as some of the most shameful decisions these people ever made. Perhaps a sudden, panicked decision by the president to use torture after 9/11 is understandable if unforgivable. But the relentless, sustained attempt to make torture permanent part of the war-powers of the president, even to the point of abusing the law beyond recognition, removes any benefit of the doubt from these people. And they did it all in secret - and lied about it when Abu Ghraib emerged. They upended two centuries of American humane detention and interrogation practices without even letting us know. And the decision to allow one man - the dcider - to pre-empt and knowingly distort the rule of law in order to detain and torture anyone he wants - is a function not of conservatism, but of fascism.

<...>

There is no doubt - no doubt at all - that these tactics are torture and subject to prosecution as war crimes. We know this because the law is very clear when you don't have war criminals like AEI's John Yoo rewriting it to give one man unchecked power. We know this because the very same techniques - hypothermia, long-time standing, beating - and even the very same term "enhanced interrogation techniques" - "verschaerfte Vernehmung" in the original German - were once prosecuted by American forces as war crimes. The perpetrators were the Gestapo. The penalty was death. You can verify the history here.

[malaise]

5. Great thread

K & R

[ProSense]

6. Torture Memo 2.0

Jack Balkin:

The twisting of law by the Justice Department under Alberto Gonzales is far worse than Gonzales' misleading testimony in front of Congress about the U.S. Attorney scandal. That scandal dominated the headlines for weeks. This one deserves far more searching press scrutiny. Despite the fact that Congress repeatedly passed legislation stating that it was illegal for U.S. personnel to engage in torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, the Justice Department repeatedly redefined the terms of these prohibitions so that the CIA could keep doing exactly what the Justice Department had authorized to do before. Gonzales treated all of these laws as if they made no difference at all, as if they were just pieces of paper.

What is particularly amazing-- and disturbing-- is that the revelation of the first torture memo had no effect on the Gonzales Justice Department. Instead, they resorted to misleading the public and twisting the law in secret opinions. And, as the Times report suggests, Gonzales found an all-too-eager ally in the talented Mr. Bradbury, who was given a probationary period as head of OLC to see whether he would produce the sort of legal advice that the Bush Administration wanted. Bradbury, it appears, was only too happy to comply. He signed the secret Torture Memo 2.0. And then he wrote another secret memo, Torture Memo 3.0, which held that the recently passed Detainee Treatment Act-- which banned cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment-- did not affect the CIA's practices one bit.

It is well worth asking how many other secret opinions the Justice Department has produced during the Bush Administration that justified violations of the Constitution, federal statutes, the laws of war, and international human rights.

An essential component of the rule of law is transparency. The laws must be knowable, not only so that people can structure their behavior with fair warning, but also to prevent government officials from engaging in abuses of power. The Bush Administration has used the shibboleths of terrorism and national security to violate this basic principle.

The Administration said, "Trust us." And then this is what they did in secret.

[ProSense]

7. Republican denials:

PERINO: Absolutely. This country does not torture.

The "they-do-it-too" argument:

Article neglects to mention we are fighting an enemy that considers powerdrills into kneecaps and videotaped beheading of captives business as usual. That in fact, we have yet to face an enemy in the modern era that observes anything approaching the standards we do. Germany, Japan, North Korea, North Vietnam, Iran, Iraq. Disorientation, isolation, beatings, starvation, summary executions, torture … of the bone-breaking, organ-smashing, electrocuting, bloody-drawing variety.

[Solly Mack]

8. kick

[ProSense]

9. Kick! n/t

[ProSense]

10. White House: Hey, America, Would We Lie to You?

White House: Hey, America, Would We Lie to You?

JB

The White House quickly responded to the NYT article about Torture Memos 2.0 and 3.0 by asserting once again that it does not torture or condone torture. As I read the Washington Post article, the White House response said nothing about whether the U.S. practices cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, which is also a violation of federal law and international law.

If pressed, I assume the White House would also deny that the CIA's practices violate the prohibition against cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. Indeed, that was the point of Bradbury's Torture Memo 3.0. But at this point, how can we really know whether the White House is telling the truth, at the very least until we see the memos? The White House has lost all credibility on this issue. Why after all that has occurred, should we simply take their word for it that they are not twisting the law or violating it? If there is one thing the Bush Administration has demonstrated in the past seven years, it is that without real oversight, its most loyal followers cannot be trusted to obey the law when it comes to detention and interrogation practices.

An aside: Does the title of this thread make anyone uncomfortable?

[ProSense]

11. Who knew?

Kevin Drum:

The Times says that "most lawmakers" didn't know about this secret opinion. That means that some of them did. I'd like to know which ones. I'd also like to hear each of the Democratic candidates tell us whether or not they promise to repudiate all secret Bush administration memorandums on torture and detention during their first day in office. Quickly, please.

[ProSense]

12. Editorial: Torture Laws: Explicit consent?

Torture Laws: Explicit consent?

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER EDITORIAL BOARD

The Bush administration repeatedly has insisted that the interrogation tactics used on terror suspects don't violate anti-torture laws.

So if everything is above board, why the need for secret torture memos? Apparently, House Democrats have the same question, and to that end, they've asked the Justice Department to hand over a couple of secret memos -- legal opinions, in fact -- that allegedly, "explicitly authorize the use of painful and psychological tactics" during interrogations. The White House insists and DOJ insists that there's no change in the administration's policy toward torture as an "abhorrent" means of getting information from suspects. But according to The New York Times, which reported that one of those opinions was written in secret soon after Alberto Gonzales became attorney general in 2005, extremely harsh CIA interrogation techniques were condoned.

"The new opinion ... for the first time provided explicit authorization to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics," reports the paper, "including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures." Even as Congress sought last year to put an end to the use of torture in those interrogations, yet another secret opinion was issued.

Unless the memos are turned over and the opinions thoroughly investigated, the CIA and the Justice Department will be crushed under the weight of apparent hypocrisy of our administration, casting only more doubt on our already painfully dubious war on terror.

[ProSense]

13. Democrats want to see interrogation memo

Democrats want to see interrogation memo

By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer 7 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Senate and House Democrats demanded Thursday to see two secret memos that reportedly authorize painful interrogation tactics against terror suspects — despite the Bush administration's insistence that it has not violated U.S. anti-torture laws.

White House and Justice Department press officers said legal opinions written in 2005 did not reverse an administration policy issued in 2004 that publicly renounced torture as "abhorrent."

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller sent a letter to the acting attorney general saying the administration's credibility is at risk if the documents are not turned over to Congress.

The memos are "critical to an appropriate assessment" of interrogation tactics approved by the White House and the Justice Department, Rockefeller wrote to Acting Attorney General Peter D. Keisler. "Why should the public have confidence that the program is either legal or in the best interests of the United States?" the West Virginia Democrat asked.

more

[Solly Mack]

14. kick

[ProSense]

15. "We do not torture..."

<...>

Irony is not dead. The White House continues on not saying specifically what it does to detainees, not releasing the memo itself, but one thing is clear. The White House insists we do not torture, even as the torture continues.

And now a brief moment of clarity. That’s what the CIA wanted. Clarity.

more

[ProSense]

16. Video:

White House's Torture(d) Explanation

Ugh!

[beachmom]

17. Andrew Sullivan is worth reading today:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/

Multiple posts. His first is titled "War Criminal" with a picture of George Bush.

[ProSense]

18. High crimes and misdemeanors

From May 2007:

The truth is that Bush's high crimes and misdemeanors, far from being too small, are too great. What has saved Bush is the fact that his lies were, literally, a matter of life and death. They were about war. And they were sanctified by 9/11. Bush tapped into a deep American strain of fearful, reflexive bellicosity, which Congress and the media went along with for a long time and which has remained largely unexamined to this day. Congress, the media and most of the American people have yet to turn decisively against Bush because to do so would be to turn against some part of themselves. This doesn't mean we support Bush, simply that at some dim, half-conscious level we're too confused -- not least by our own complicity -- to work up the cold, final anger we'd need to go through impeachment. We haven't done the necessary work to separate ourselves from our abusive spouse. We need therapy -- not to save this disastrous marriage, but to end it.

Nothing has changed.

[Baby Snooks]

19. The "industrious" Bushes

What's interesting is that like his father and his grandfather, George W Bush really never made any money on his own. It was always someone else's money that generated money for them. They're lazy intellectually because they're just plain lazy. And they're used to the silver platter being handed to them. Without even reaching for it. Just sort of laid in their lazy laps. And the two presidential economies reflect an arrogance about it. They don't care if they waste other people's money. They always have their own to fall back on if they lose everyone else's.

If they lost all their money, they would be on welfare very quickly because I doubt any of them really know how to make money on their own. Which is what he really meant when he said he didn't understand poor people. He doesn't understand people who have to work to provide for themselves. He has always been provided for. Like his father and his grandfather. Some would say it was luck. Others would say it was usually larceny. Where the taxpayers are concerned, it definitely is the latter.

[Solly Mack]

20. add this

Memorandrom for Alberto Gonzales

[ProSense]

21. Thanks! n/t