The Root Beer Blog

June 09, 2004

Well, Ashcroft Said It Was OK!!

Here's some reading on the whole torture thing.
Memo Says Bush Not Restricted by Torture Bans;
Bush Didn't Order Any Breach of Torture Laws, Ashcroft Says.

If you don't want to read it, here's the quick sum-up: Ashcroft has said, this week, that the President "'made no order that would require or direct the violation' of either the international treaties or domestic laws prohibiting torture." Good. Last year, Ashcroft's department published a memorandum that said the President has no obligation to follow such treaties or laws. So Ashcroft's not saying "the President didn't order the torture," he's saying "the President didn't order any torture that, in our opinion, he's not allowed to order." That's a big difference, especially since he's said the President can order any torture he wants to. Given the circumstances of a slipping Presidential approval rating and upcoming election, wouldn't you think that, if Bush hadn't ordered any torture at all, Ashcroft would've said "President Bush never ordered torture," instead of "President Bush never ordered torture that violates treaties or laws," ESPECIALLY in light of the recent discovery of this memorandum? Certainly...if that were the case.

The justification for allowing the President to order torture that would otherwise violate international treaties or domestic laws seems pretty tenuous. Actually, it seems barely justifiable, and if it weren't for having seen this administration try to justify an entire war on shaky evidence, I'd have trouble believing Ashcroft could actually get up in public and pretend to be serious in his legal assessment. We're at war, and the President is in charge of the conduct of the war, so he's not bound by treaties prohibiting torture. OK. Surely we can't hold Saddam Hussein accountable for his torture either, because Iraq was at war when he committed those atrocities. Surely we can't hold Hitler responsible for the Holocaust, because Germany was at war. Some may counter that those nations deliberately and wrongly went on the offensive to create those wars. So did we. Ah, but they were...evil! So are we. Seriously. So what's the difference? Why is ousting Saddam a good thing? Why isn't anyone invading our country to oust Bush? How can we justify the prosecution of other nations' leaders for war crimes? Is the President, by virtue of being in charge of a war he created, bound by NO law or treaty? It would seem the case.

Here's another thought: we're not at war. We haven't declared war in 50 years. Not in Nam, not in Iraq, not in Somalia, Kosovo, Iran, Nicaragua, anywhere. So you don't get to say "he's in charge of the war:" there's no war to be in charge of. There's undeclared military action without provocation or justification. Ah, the high moral ground we possess. Thank God Saddam Hussein's out of power: the world's much safer now!

Here's another thought: Clinton wasn't impeached for adultery, remember? He was impeached for lying, because the other side couldn't stand him. Why hasn't the other side decided to do the same to this guy? Have we the beginnings of a one-party state? Hyperbole? Perhaps. But why? Why don't we fight? Why did we learn the wrong lesson from the Republican surge? Who's running this goddam show?

Here's another thought: five days of mourning for Reagan? Constant news coverage? Why don't we just have the richest 1% mourn for five days and let it trickle down?

Here's another thought: I'm right, and you're either with me, or you're for the terrorists and all the sushi-eating Howard Dean-buttfucking Vermonters.

Here's another thought: If we're just going to sacrifice all the liberties we're supposed to be struggling to protect, we might as well just save the lives and money and surrender now, convert to Islam, buy stock in veil companies, and learn Arabic.

Here's another thought: Bush hasn't done anything to reduce the problem of terrorism. In fact, he's cut funding for first responders (police, EMTs, and firepeople of either or both sexes) across the nation. The Homeland Security Agency has failed to do anything at all except to point out that duct tape makes you immune to radiation, and red is a scarier color than orange. Invading a sovereign Arab nation is unlikely to endear many Arabs to our cause. Picture if Saddam had invaded Canada last year. Would you have converted to al Queda? So I'm curious: what exactly has he done that makes him so strong in the war on terror? Cut funding for anti-terrorism and invaded a state that posed no national or terrorist threat to us. Sweet! If the war on terror is nearly as important as Bush makes it out to be, voting for Bush is morally indefensible.

Here's another thought: fuck Diebold.

Here's another thought: during Reagan's funeral, George W. Bush will be sitting next to Bill Clinton. On Clinton's other side will be George H. W. Bush. Then Carter and Ford. Picture Clinton sitting between those two Bushes! That's a once-in-a-lifetime entertainment opportunity!

I'm out of thoughts. That's it.

Posted by Chris at June 9, 2004 10:38 PM | TrackBack