Edgewise

The President Who Could Not Violate the Law

David Kolodney

From today's Washington Post:

The [previous] Post article reported that CIA interrogators in the overseas sites have been permitted to use interrogation techniques prohibited by the U.N. convention or by U.S. military law. Asked about this apparent contradiction, Rice told reporters: "Our people, wherever they are, are operating under U.S. law and U.S. obligations."

DKo: "Apparent contradiction"? Not at all. Since they hold that American law does not apply to prisoners held abroad, nothing we do to those prisoners could possibly violate American law.

It is not even clear how Mr. Bush could go about not "operating under U.S. law and U.S. obligations."

He is allegedly empowered to declare any detainee an "enemy combatant," nullifying the applicability of American laws and treaties. So how could anything he did violate them?

He is also empowered to suspend these laws and treaties. A suspended treaty cannot be violated.

I seriously believe that Rice et al have this fingers-crossed-behind-the-back, juvenile mendacity in mind. It is consistent with previous wiggles, and it has their signature.

The only way the President could violate the law would be this:
--I order this man tortured, as I define torture.
--I do not declare him an enemy combatant.
--I do not suspend any laws or treaties.
--I determine this order to be a violation of United States' laws and treaties.
--As soon as it is carried out, I will turn myself in to the proper authorities.

Today’s Post Article