Bush is denying torture approval

President Bush, in a directive in February 2002 that set new rules for handling prisoners captured in Afghanistan, broadly cited the need for "new thinking in the law of war" and ordered that all people detained as part of the fight against terrorism be treated humanely even if they were deemed by the United States not to be protected by the Geneva Conventions, the White House disclosed on Tuesday.

  SF Gate article

Uh huh. But that was February 2002.

The White House, true to form, has begrudgingly released some documents relating to the Abu Ghraib prison torture case. Some documents. Not all.

By late 2002, the documents showed, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was fleshing out the policy under intense pressure to squeeze more information from people seized in Afghanistan. He briefly approved techniques including the use of dogs, and by April 2003 he had approved the use, under some conditions, of interrogation techniques including changes in diet, and isolation.

Maybe this buck's going to stop with Rumsfiend? Whatever the case, we can be sure there's going to be every effort made by the White House to stop it before it gets to the Oaf of Office.

White House counsel, Alberto Gonzales, told reporters Tuesday that Bush never considered more aggressive options set out by administration lawyers, including those in an August 2002 Justice Department memo that appeared to offer a legal rationale for justifying the use of torture.

Gonzales said the administration decided to make the disclosures because they "felt it was harmful to this country in terms of the notion that we may be engaged in torture."

Well, gee thanks a lot Bert. For one thing, it's not "a notion". And it's not a "may be". And, even if the Oaf did not personally approve - and, Bert, that's one if that I'm going to have to pass on - "we" are not just the president. So if the military engages in torture according to anybody's directive, we engage in torture. See how that works, Bert? Whether it's written in the rules or not, if we do it, then that means we engage in it.

I think Bert is using the Oaf's dictionary again.

And Bert's own lawyer-speak:

"The president has given no order or directive that would immunize from prosecution anyone engaged in conduct that constitutes torture," Gonzales said. "All interrogation techniques actually authorized have been carefully vetted, are lawful and do not constitute torture."

This is a very specifically worded denial that they have used previously. First of all, it could simply be a lie - something "we" engage in regularly. But, let's assume it's not, for the purpose of analyzing what they're "technically" saying and "legally" doing. So, the president hasn't given an order or directive. He could have been advised not to sign anything but give the verbal go-ahead to someone under him with the authority to direct - such as Herr Rumsfiend. Or, he could have give an order or directive that okayed the torture but did not "immunize from prosecution anyone". Or, he could have given that order, including "immunization from prosecution" to anyone conducting torture, but redefining torture so narrowly that the things they actually did (which were torture by anyone else's definition) "do not constitute torture". And that is what I think happened.

They redefined torture so that the things done were "lawful". They spent a lot of time deciding just what measures could be used, and they made a list. But the final final is that they proclaimed the Oaf of Office king over the law and said, if the Oaf says it's okay, then it's not illegal. A nice circular argument that permits them to do anything and later say it was all legal, and not torture as defined by the (king's) law.

And so, that is how the Oaf can technically and legally deny responsibility.

Asked Tuesday about the prison abuse and torture, Bush told reporters in the Oval Office that torture runs counter to the values of the United States and that he would never sanction its use. "We do not condone torture," Bush said. "I have never ordered torture. I will never order torture."

They began this program immediately after 9/11 when they created new categories for people they rounded up - prisoners in the war on terror. They wouldn't be prisoners, who had international law and Geneva Conventions protections - they would be "unlawful combatants" and "detainees". They set about having other countries sign agreements that said no American soldier or contractor would be subject to charges of war crimes. The tortures are just an aspect of that program.

Okay, preaching to the choir, huh?

Senate Democrats prepared a subpoena requesting more than a dozen additional related documents. That subpoena was blocked Thursday in a 10-9, party line vote of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Yes, I think we've talked about that already. It was necessary for national security to subpoena some women who played Bill Clinton's organ, but torture documents don't concern us. Isn't it handy that the Senate Judiciary Committee is split like that? And isn't it disgusting that our esteemed senators are willing to make this ultimately extremely serious issue that has global implications a partisan one.

Administration officials said the documents did not circulate widely in the government at the time they were prepared and that there was no connection between their exploration of the legalities of various interrogation techniques and what happened at Abu Ghraib.

No connection there. But there's a link between Saddam and al-Qa'ida.

So, now that the issue has blown up in their faces, the Justice Department and the White House are saying that the memo redefining torture and permitting the president to make law at will is "irrelevant".

The department is now rewriting the entire memo in a less abstract, more case-specific context, the official said.

WTF?!?

There you go, rewriting history - the Oaf hates that when his opponents do it.

....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.