What's the coherent critique of Bush that will resonate will voters? ... So what to do? Here's my nomination: George Bush doesn't play by the rules. From the Iraq war, to the South Carolina primary against McCain, to the outing of Valerie Plame, to putting political hacks into career civil service positions, to not holding enough press conferences, to refusing to release records, to his National Guard service ... all of these are examples of not playing by the rules.
- Unfogged [see comments to his post for other possibilities, e.g., "phony," "buck stops where?," and "nice guy but incompetent."]
"I accept the legal conclusion of the attorney general and the Department of Justice that I have the authority under the Constitution to suspend Geneva as between the United States and Afghanistan, but I decline to exercise that authority at this time,"
-- President Bush [general info; see also here]
Hi. I'm stupid.
I don't think I am ... oh, sometimes ... you know, like when you are asked something and you are totally clueless? Now, that is a moment when I really feel stupid. Still, overall, I don't think I'm stupid. The President appears to think I am though.
See his administration just released a document saying that he agrees with various memoranda putting forth what many are calling a "royalist" view of the presidency. As commander-in-chief, he has broad powers, including not obeying various treaties, laws, and amendments to the Constitution [especially the Eighth, involving "cruel and unusual punishments," ironically one that grew out of an English protection enacted partly as a result of executive abuses during religious troubles and threats of rebellion in the 1680s] in these perpetual times of war.
Likewise, logical applications aside, the Geneva Convention didn't apply in many situations one might think it would. Still, he will basically follow them, except when "military necessity" would prevent it. Or, when he "chooses" not to. It is unclear if the document applied to the CIA, who were involved in some of the controversial interrogations. I say "basically" since I don't know if that loophole really follows the spirit. As you can see, the President believes certain laws (except for parts of Art. II ... "commander-in-chief" vs. "he shall take care that the [not "some"] laws be faithfully enforced") are optional.
Also, a key requirement is something known as a "Article V" hearing, which would determine if the detainee was correctly held. Not to worry ... again, the administration had its own procedures. As noted, the Constitution is mostly a advisory document to them (e.g. the Fifth speaks of "due process of law," which is legally mandated procedures, not whatever the executive thinks is fair -- which would somewhat miss the point). These procedures do tend to be slow, though interestingly, after the current controversy began, many more suddenly were processed out.
Anyway, like a teenage boy who agrees he has the right to have sex with your daughter but assures you he will not (but lets his pal get his hands on her, though bad mouths him afterwards), just how much is the President's word worth? It is to be noted that Secretary Rumsfeld signed off on guidelines for interrogations many would consider torture, guidelines documentation suggests were seen as applicable to Iraq as well. The administration also has a somewhat um creative definition of "necessity" as well as "imminent threats" that require special action.
There is also rhetoric used that demonized and dehumanized the people interrogated. Clearly the people on the ground "didn't get the memo" about how their superiors was against this sort of thing. This is not too surprising, since it seems that now and again pretty important information doesn't reach the President. And when it was reported, it took awhile for much to be done about it. This, lest we forget, is why the photos were probably leaked by an insider. So, again internal investigations suggest some concern, but the net value is somewhat open to debate.
Actually, Congress also still didn't get the memoranda either ... perhaps, the Justice Department are waiting until they are examined and updated (reports are out that the memoranda the President accepted, but didn't apply ... no really ... are now being reviewed). Now, call me paranoid, but if you have nothing to hide, why do you refuse to supply the documentation? Perhaps, you are afraid they will be misinterpreted ... darn Congress! Such a pain in the ass. And the courts. And the people. Can't they just trust us?
Apparently, we are stupid sheep. Baa!!!!
[One final thing ... Why can't the guy pronounce the name of the prison camp correctly? The height of embarrassment was when he pronounced it three ways in the space of a few minutes. Maybe I'm being petty, but this is a pretty damn serious matter, and perhaps he can learn how to say the word ... Abu Ghraib. This sort of thing, my President basically sounding like a freaking idiot, is supposed to not matter. Sorry, it does to me. But, hey, I'm stupid ... What do I know?]