This is a powerful piece. It shows that administration lawyers made a conscious decision to allow Bush and his administration to get away with open-ended definitions of torture and escape international legal scrutiny. A March memo view is in direct conflict with the position the administration has taken in U.S. Supreme Court regarding Constitutional protections for prisoners.
When too much power is afforded to people who can easily abuse it, we shouldn't be surprised if and when we find ourselves well outside the realm of the rule of law.
A team of administration lawyers concluded in a March 2003 legal memorandum that President Bush was not bound by either an international treaty prohibiting torture or by a federal antitorture law because he had the authority as commander in chief to approve any technique needed to protect the nation's security.
The memo, prepared for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, also said that any executive branch officials, including those in the military, could be immune from domestic and international prohibitions against torture for a variety of reasons...
The March memorandum...is the latest internal legal study to be disclosed that shows that after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks the administration's lawyers were set to work to find legal arguments to avoid restrictions imposed by international and American law.
...lawyers who drafted the torture memo in March could face professional sanctions.
[LINK-NYT}
The memo, prepared for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, also said that any executive branch officials, including those in the military, could be immune from domestic and international prohibitions against torture for a variety of reasons...
The March memorandum...is the latest internal legal study to be disclosed that shows that after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks the administration's lawyers were set to work to find legal arguments to avoid restrictions imposed by international and American law.
...lawyers who drafted the torture memo in March could face professional sanctions.
[LINK-NYT}
Today, Attorney General John Ashcroft, without offering sound reason, said he would not discuss the contents of the Justice and Pentagon memos, and would not turn over the Justice memo to the committee.
I believe it is essential to the operation of the executive branch that the president have the opportunity to get information from the attorney general that is confidential," he said.
Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) and Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) warned Ashcroft that his refusal might place him in contempt of Congress.
[LINK-NYT]
Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) and Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) warned Ashcroft that his refusal might place him in contempt of Congress.
[LINK-NYT]
UPDATE-June 9:
Washington Post Editorial- LEGALIZING TORTURE
Perhaps the president's lawyers have no interest in the global impact of their policies -- but they should be concerned about the treatment of American servicemen and civilians in foreign countries.
Washington Post-Memo on Torture Draws Focus to Bush ; Aide Says President Set Guidelines for Interrogations, Not Specific Techniques
Josh Marshall Commentary (Josh is an intuitive pundit; consistently ahead of the curve.)
Now, we know that presidents sometimes break laws and they frequently bend them, if only in cases where the laws don't seem to anticipate a situation the president finds himself confronting. There is even an argument that the president can refuse to enforce laws he deems unconstitutional.
But there is no power inherent in the president simply to set aside the law.
But there is no power inherent in the president simply to set aside the law.