But they didn’t tell me not to!
As stated by President George W. Bush in his remarkably rare (for his presidency, anyway) news conference in Chicago yesterday:
“It didn’t say we couldn’t have done — couldn’t have made that decision, see?” Mr. Bush said at a news conference in Chicago. “They were silent on whether or not Guantánamo — whether or not we should have used Guantánamo. In other words, they accepted the use of Guantánamo, the decision I made.”
In what twisted universe is it that the President of the United States has to be TOLD by the courts that an extra-legal prison that uses “stress positions” and other “coercive” means of interrogation is not only ill-advised in a war that depends more on image than on casualties but also completely contrary to the most fundamental of American values including the rule of law?
I wish I could say this type of “thinking” along with the willingness of many people to actually support it is incomprehensible to me, but it is not. It merely shows how some are willing to twist responsibility into a rationalization of “they didn’t tell me not to” while others are willing to believe whatever their leader tells them. America is not the first nation to support this idiocy, but I had hoped we would be immune.
—
Cross-posted to Random Fate.
7 Responses to “But they didn’t tell me not to!”
Jack, you’re going too far in the exact opposite direction. Bush went too far by saying silence equals assent, but you seem to be saying that such a prison as Guantanamo couldn’t constitutionally exist under any regime. The court seemed to give Bush leeway to pursue the matter with Congress, which he’s going to do. Classic separation of powers case.
Greg, your point is correct in the context of a war–at least a traditional one–but this really isn’t one.
I suggest you folks read up on the Geneva Convention to which our nation and government subscribe, (and until cretin miscreant bush became president)…obeyed the provisions set forth in the Geneva Convention assuring prisoners basic human rights as closely as possible!
Surely the U S did not, does not, supply frills to prisoners of war, either in a conventional or unconventional war, ie WW II, Korea, Viet Nam wars, but neither does the U S intentionally torture or murder except on rare illegal occasions, where U S violaters when caught, suffered under penalty of law.
Our obeyance is what sets OUR nation apart from our enemies during war and like it or not obeying makes us better than our barbaric enemies and I would personally like our nation to continue on that path of obeyance. For if we don’t, we become ourselves barbaric and are no better than those enemies we accuse and know to be barbarians.
I think you’re misinterpreting what the President said. He wasn’t saying the courts sanctioned our conduct in Guantanoamo. He was saying that the courts sanctioned our using the facility for detaining those people. But he didn’t say the courts a-ok’d what we do with them once they’re in the facility.
And I wish some people actually read the entire Geneva convention before they assume that if someone doesn’t want accused terrorists having Geneva rights that it means they don’t want to treat them humanely. For example, according the Geneva convention, POW’s can not be held in a prison ir penitentiary.
There are reasons that some might want detainees not having the rights of geneva besides the desire to conduct harsh interrogations. Although admittedly that is one of the administration’s reasons.
This is just one more piece of evidence that this president is either incapable of understanding the law or believes that he is above it. It has long been clear to me that this president is far more a liability to the United States than ever an asset. The damage he has done to this nation, virtually in every area of consideration, will take decades to repair.
Greg, please explain to me how this prison could exist without compromising the principles underlying our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence, where there are no asterisks next to “all men are created equal.”
Depriving people of liberty without a trial is against all of our fundamental principles. It is well known that many, if not most, of the prisoners in Guantanamo were not “captured on the battlefield” but instead captured in Pakistan or turned in to US troops by the Pakistani government or by local warlords looking for a payoff or revenging themselves in some private matter. Instead of having a legal review of the evidence against these men, or following the Geneva Conventions on prisoners of war, we have created a black hole in which men are *disappeared* with no chance of appeal, and are subjected to interrogation using techniques that provoke cries of outrage when these same methods are used against our own.
So, where did I go too far? When Congress sets up a rational system that allows for the accused to see the evidence presented against them in order for a defense to be presented, THEN it will be Constitutional, but Bush never had any intention of allowing Congress to “interfere”.
Again, where did I go too far?
Jack – “Depriving people of liberty without a trial is against all of our fundamental principles. ”
Jack, get real. Detaining people without trial is done all the time in war – by everyone. In fact, the GC prohibits trials of POWs. POWs get realeased when hostilities cease.
Lefties need to pick a status to argue for these guys, and stick to it. You can’t vacillate between POW/non-POW just to score points. On one hand they demand they be accorded rights under the GC, on the other they demand they are treated like any old gang-banger rounded up by the cops, and tried.
As for the argument that “many or most” of these guys are just bums turned in by crooks for $$$s, how come some of the ones deemed least dangerous have turned up on the battlefield again?
PING:
TITLE: Twisted
BLOG NAME: The Heretik
From the Black is White Department, in other words:
“It [the Supreme Court] didn’t say we couldn’t have done — couldn’t have made that decision, see?” Mr. Bush said at a news conference in Chicago. “They were sile…