A simple question (?)

[jonks]

From last week's press conference (i made a few obvious edits)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news.../2007/10/20071017.html

Q Thank you, sir. A simple question.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. It may require a simple answer. [2+2? Pleeasssee!!]

Q What's your definition of the word "torture"?

THE PRESIDENT: [GULP] Of what? [*Loosens tie*]

Q The word "torture." What's your definition?

THE PRESIDENT: That's defined in U.S. law, and we don't torture. [THIS is torture!]

Q Can you give me your version of it, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: Whatever the law says. [Take that! How'm I doin Dick?]
********************************

Ok, so Bush knows that we don't torture, because that's against the law, but he doesn't know what the law says, so how can he say we aren't breaking it? Circuitous you say? Dissenter! Traitor! Pansy!

 

[StageLeft]

Well he knows the US isn't breaking it because he had John Yoo rewrite what torture was, right?

The US engages in torture undoubtedly. The question is really whether it should or not. Certainly it pretends it doesn't, but it does by any reasonable definition of the word.

 

[bamacre]

That question would have been better asked to President Cheney or Vice President Addington.

 

[Lemon law]

As Skoorb points out----Well he knows the US isn't breaking it because he had John Yoo rewrite what torture was, right?

The point being, torture is defined by the Geneva convention that we are signatories of. But then we decide it does not really apply because we are not torturing people who are covered
by the Geneva convention. And on top of that we are at war even though no formal war is declared. All to protect the concept of a unitary President and you seeming must violate laws
to assert the power of a unitary President. Thus do all the circular reasons go.

The point being, the circular reasons go on, and on, and on until this is tested in some court.
And therein lies the main thrust of Cheney and Attington, they keep these issues out of court
at all costs. And if their powers are blunted in any way with legislation, they come in and repair the damage with total fictional signing statements. They always keep a few phony layers of defenses up and no one is really getting to the heart of the matter.

But sooner or later, before or after Cheney, GWB, and Attington are gone, we are going to have to address these basically phony constitutional arguments, and like a vampire pound a wooden stake through its heart so it never comes up again.