![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
McCain, Bush, torture and the law
Lots of folks are getting gooey because Bush has accepted the McCain amendment prohibiting torture.
This was, by me at least, expected. Bush has been fond of talking tough, dragging out the "V" word, but the record shows that when someone calls his hand on that one, he always folds.
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad McCain found some small piece of the spine he used to have, the one he seems to have given up after the 2000 Primary season.
He'll never get my vote. There was a time when my vote for him might have been in play, but the events of the campaign in 2004 made it a pretty slim hope (the Dems would have to have run Nader, or perhaps Lieberman to make McCain look acceptable).
After he voted for Bertie "It ain't torture if they don't die, and the pres can authorise that anyhow" Gonzales though, forget it.
It's Bertie, by the way, which makes me think this whole amendment issue is great theater, but all in all has no real effect.
Recent events (the NYT article on spying by the NSA, spying on American citizens, without a warrant, for more than a year [because it wasn't new when the Times found out about it, and they admit to sitting on it for a year. Where has the spirit which ran the Pentagon Papers gone? I don't see any affliction of the comfortable {well, not since they swallowed the Whitewater, Vince Foster, Travelgate nonsense, but since that was afflicting "a liberal," or at least a Democrat no one seems to think it was bad, but holding Bush's feet to the fire, that's not on. Sorry, back to business) imply the administration doesn't think the law applies to it.
They are still playing as if the rhetoric of war (even though none has been declared. This is, perhaps a technicality, but bear with me, it's an important one) means all restraints are off. They think Bush is Consul and Tribune, that he has the, "inherent power" to set aside the law if he thinks it interferes with national security.
So what makes us think they will obey this one? Just because Cheney asked for the CIA to be allowed to do it? That doesn't make me think they'll refrain from having anyone they can find to squeeze the pliers from breaking peoples fingers.
These are the same people who still think Ollie North is a hero. They let him run for office in their party. He lost, but they gave him their seal of approval. Why?
Because he broke the law, to fulfill the wishes of the president.
So, we now have a US law, which confirms a ratified treaty. It's already illegal to torture POWs. The law which prohibits it is one step below the constitution. If they thought that didn't matter, why in the world should anyone think they will decide to obey the demands of Congress?
It's pleasant theater, but it won't change a damned thing.
The only thing that will is an honest election, and that turning them out of office.
This was, by me at least, expected. Bush has been fond of talking tough, dragging out the "V" word, but the record shows that when someone calls his hand on that one, he always folds.
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad McCain found some small piece of the spine he used to have, the one he seems to have given up after the 2000 Primary season.
He'll never get my vote. There was a time when my vote for him might have been in play, but the events of the campaign in 2004 made it a pretty slim hope (the Dems would have to have run Nader, or perhaps Lieberman to make McCain look acceptable).
After he voted for Bertie "It ain't torture if they don't die, and the pres can authorise that anyhow" Gonzales though, forget it.
It's Bertie, by the way, which makes me think this whole amendment issue is great theater, but all in all has no real effect.
Recent events (the NYT article on spying by the NSA, spying on American citizens, without a warrant, for more than a year [because it wasn't new when the Times found out about it, and they admit to sitting on it for a year. Where has the spirit which ran the Pentagon Papers gone? I don't see any affliction of the comfortable {well, not since they swallowed the Whitewater, Vince Foster, Travelgate nonsense, but since that was afflicting "a liberal," or at least a Democrat no one seems to think it was bad, but holding Bush's feet to the fire, that's not on. Sorry, back to business) imply the administration doesn't think the law applies to it.
They are still playing as if the rhetoric of war (even though none has been declared. This is, perhaps a technicality, but bear with me, it's an important one) means all restraints are off. They think Bush is Consul and Tribune, that he has the, "inherent power" to set aside the law if he thinks it interferes with national security.
So what makes us think they will obey this one? Just because Cheney asked for the CIA to be allowed to do it? That doesn't make me think they'll refrain from having anyone they can find to squeeze the pliers from breaking peoples fingers.
These are the same people who still think Ollie North is a hero. They let him run for office in their party. He lost, but they gave him their seal of approval. Why?
Because he broke the law, to fulfill the wishes of the president.
So, we now have a US law, which confirms a ratified treaty. It's already illegal to torture POWs. The law which prohibits it is one step below the constitution. If they thought that didn't matter, why in the world should anyone think they will decide to obey the demands of Congress?
It's pleasant theater, but it won't change a damned thing.
The only thing that will is an honest election, and that turning them out of office.
no subject
K.
no subject
no subject
Our Founders set things up this way because they knew we couldn't count on the President (or anyone else in government) not to be crooked, foolish, or misled.
Civics 101--why do people in the military have a better grasp of it than the civilians?!??!
(BTW, my brother-in-law, the old navy officer, refers to North as MR North--because he should have been cashiered, instead of allowed to leave the service intact--if he hadn't resembled a war hero, and had Protection in High Places, he might have been.)
no subject
Me, I think he ought to have been court-martialed, cashiered, paraded before the corps (on television), in his dress blues, with sword.
Beat the drum at tattoo, form an open square at the slow march, read out his name, strip him of every insignia, award and honor. Return any unit citations to the Corps, and break his sword, before striking his name from the rolls and dismissing the troops, leaving him in an empty piece of ground.
My father, who was in the corps, well I'm not old enough to repeat his opinions of Ollie and, what should have been done to him.
TK
no subject
We get to ponder who will be ordering what, and what may be ordered.
TK