A Memo to the Next President -- Concerning Power and Torture

In a LA Times column today, Tim Rutten raises the specter of Bush Administration precedent on things like a "unitary executive" and authorization for things like torture. Commenting on the release this week of the torture memo written by Justice Department lawyer John Yoo, which essentially stated that in a time of war the President, as commander in chief is not limited by Congress, the Judiciary, treaties, statute -- essentially when operating in this mode the President can act as a dictator. None of the current candidates, apparently, ascribe to the tenets of the Yoo Doctrine, but it is there anyway.
So consider:

"In wartime, it is for the president alone to decide what methods to use to best prevail against the enemy," Yoo wrote. Elsewhere in the memo, he argued that "even if an interrogation method arguably were to violate a criminal statute, the Justice Department could not bring a prosecution because the statute would be unconstitutional."

In other words, it doesn't matter if we signed the Geneva Conventions, if the President decides to circumvent these treaties, then he's above the law -- international law at that. If this is true then how can we call any other foreign leader to account. Is it only because we're the biggest team on the block that our leader gets this power. I mean, couldn't Saddam have said the same thing? If we let this go then we are heading down a slippery slope that can endanger our nation and its military personnel.
And, if American response is at the discretion of the President -- acting as unitary executive (according to the Cheney Doctrine) -- could that person, as Rutten ponders, order genocide if that was deemed as the best way of handling a threat? Scary thought isn't it? No wonder the Bush Administration wants to make sure that it can't be held liable for War Crimes.

Comments

Popular Posts