The president’s surprise press conference this morning didn’t produce too much in the way of news and/or revelations, but Bush did offer an interesting response to a question about his administration’s policy on torture.
Q: Could you call on your Texas straight talk and make a clear and unambiguous statement today that no American will be allowed to torture another human being anywhere in the world at any time —
Bush: Yes. No American will be allowed to torture another human being anywhere in the world. And I signed the appropriations bill with the McCain amendment attached on because that’s the way it is. I know some have said, well, why did he put a qualifier in there? And one reason why presidents put qualifiers in is to protect the prerogative of the executive branch. You see, what we’re always doing is making sure that we make it clear that the executive branch has got certain responsibilities. Conducting war is a responsibility in the executive branch, not the legislative branch.
But make no mistake about it, the McCain amendment is an amendment we strongly support and will make sure it’s fully effective.
What’s wrong with this? Not much, if the president was telling the truth this morning. Unfortunately, there’s every reason to believe he isn’t.
Earlier this month, Bush administration officials kept taking a “yes, but” approach to torture. Did the president sign the McCain language into law? Yes, but he added a signing statement suggesting Bush might ignore it if he feels it’s necessary. Did the administration consider the McCain language law? Yes, but the president needed to maintain some “flexibility” when it comes to the law’s application.
“We are not going to ignore this law,” the official said, noting that Bush, when signing laws, routinely issues signing statements saying he will construe them consistent with his own constitutional authority. “We consider it a valid statute. We consider ourselves bound by the prohibition on cruel, unusual, and degrading treatment.” But, the official said, a situation could arise in which Bush may have to waive the law’s restrictions to carry out his responsibilities to protect national security. […]
“Of course the president has the obligation to follow this law, [but] he also has the obligation to defend and protect the country as the commander in chief, and he will have to square those two responsibilities in each case,” the official added. “We are not expecting that those two responsibilities will come into conflict, but it’s possible that they will.”
These blanket statements on torture with key caveats have become something of a habit with these guys.
Last month, Condoleezza Rice was in Europe facing questions from officials and journalists about whether the U.S. supports torture. Rice set many minds at ease by categorically saying that the United States prohibits all its personnel from using cruel or inhuman techniques in prisoner interrogations, whether inside or outside U.S. borders. The important aspect of Rice’s explanation was what she didn’t say.
That is obviously what Rice wanted people to hear — that U.S. personnel are prohibited from engaging in “cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment” anywhere. But it is not what she said. Here’s the out: While Rice asserted that the U.S. abides by the “obligations” of the anti-torture treaty across the globe, the administration’s legal position is that those “obligations” don’t extend to the treatment of foreigners being held overseas. In other words, according to the administration’s long-standing legal position, CIA interrogators in say, secret prisons in North Africa aren’t bound to treat foreign prisoners humanely.
It’s why the reporter’s question to Bush this morning was worded in such a specific way — “no American will be allowed to torture another human being anywhere in the world at any time…”
Bush said that accurately reflects his administration’s policy. Either Bush is wrong and doesn’t fully understand what his administration’s policy is, or he broke new ground this morning. I’m leaning towards the prior.