Folks, I did not make this up:
"I didn't authorize anything. I conveyed the authorization of the administration to the agency, that they had policy authorization, subject to the Justice Department's clearance. That's what I did."
"The United States was told, we were told, nothing that violates our obligations under the Convention Against Torture, and so by definition, if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Convention Against Torture."
Rice is obviously doing a little bit of C.Y.A. here. But this is typical of the Bush administration. Any competent legal opinion would have been based on precedent that has already been upheld in courts. But instead, what we have is a totally novel legal theory that did not rely on any kind of legal precedent, but made up ad hoc legal theories that were simply efforts to weasel out of the US obligations. And what's more, they didn't work -- the fact of the matter is that the people who captured Zarqawi did so by NOT torturing.
And, of course, there is the obvious matter of the Bush administration, of which Rice was a part, simply making up our governmental system. Last time we checked, it was the intent of the Founding Fathers to create a system of checks and balances in which one branch of government would not be too powerful. But in their radical reinterpretation of the Constitution, Rice and her minions held that the Unitary Executive was the only theory that mattered. The Bush administration was so beset with hubris that they actually sought to totally remake the Constitution in their own image.
tags: condolezza rice george w bush torture constitution
links: digg this del.icio.us technorati reddit

