Gaining ‘clarity’ by making things less clear

September 16, 2006

At yesterday’s White House press conference, the [tag]president[/tag] used one word 11 times in describing his proposal for interrogating detainees. See if you can spot it.

“What I’m proposing is that there be [tag]clarity[/tag] in the law so that our professionals will have no doubt that that which they are doing is legal…. The professionals will not step up unless there’s clarity in the law…. We’re trying to [tag]clarify[/tag] law…. The point is that the program is not going to go forward if our professionals do not have clarity in the law. And the best way to provide clarity in the law is to make sure the Detainee Treatment Act is the crux of the law.”

And on and on it went. It’s almost as if Karl Rove conducted some poll saying that people would be more inclined to tolerate the president undermining the [tag]Geneva Conventions[/tag] is they believes Common Article III is too vague.

The irony, of course, is that the White House isn’t trying to add “clarity” to anything.

[T]he senior official who addressed the legal issue yesterday said the standard the administration prefers is “context-sensitive,” a phrase that suggests an endlessly shifting application of the rules.

The reason is that the administration’s language would in effect ban only those interrogation techniques that “shock the conscience.” That phrase, drawn from a judicial interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, is a “flexible” standard, the official said. Others have said that standard would allow interrogators to weigh how urgently they felt they needed to extract information against the harshness of their techniques, instead of following rigid guidelines.

The official did not try to explain how embracing such an inherently flexible standard would actually create clarity, the watchword of the administration’s public campaign for its version of the bill.

You see, U.S. officials will have “clarity” if they have amorphous rules, open to interpretation, that mean different things under different circumstances. When [tag]Bush[/tag] emphasizes “clarity,” this is what he means.

It’s just another day in Bushville, where up is down, black is white, war is peace, and ambiguity is clarity.

Like butter, Bush’s brain has been clarified.

  • Like butter, Bush’s brain has been clarified.

    Comment by Michael7843853 G-O in 08

    Great line, Michael#.

    I wonder if these “professionals” Bush is so worried about were clear that you shouldn’t tape up an Iraqi in a sleeping bag, beat the hell out of him and then sit on him until he suffocates? I know that torturing is a precision profession requiring clairty for its members to be able to do their delicate job.

  • I think it is clear from the context that Bush means that these “professionals” should clearly understand that there will be no consequences for them should they torture detainees. Also, note that Bush keeps referring to the wood be torturers as “professionals”. I suspect that this is so people don’t think of them as thugs. Remember however that strictly speaking a hit man, who takes money in exchange for killing someone, is also a professional, as well as a thug.

  • The Bush Crime Family has turned the art of “don’t blame me” into carte blanche for whatever the Regal Moron feels like doing at the moment. “Context-sensitive” standards are no standards at all. It’s like a game of Calvin-ball.

  • Warning: Entering an infinite regress.

    I can blame that one on my spell checker.=I can’t blame that one on my spell checker.

  • In other words: What did we already do that was wrong so we know how much trouble are we already in so we know how deep to bury the bodies.

    I’m still waiting for Bush to clarify (since he can’t or won’t understand that CA III is not specific because the framers knew creeps like him would come along) why a suspected terrorist who is apprehended by or handed over to the CIA should be treated any differently than a suspected serial killer arrested in the US?

    Also, it would be nice if he would clarify how his little “exception” won’t effectively gut CA III. What checks are in place to make sure the CIA can’t just take all the suspects from the Army’s custody?

    The man is about two seconds away from sprouting horns, cloven hooves and a tail.

  • wood be=would be
    I can blame that one on my spell checker.

    Comment by rege

    I kinda liked the typo. It set up a sort of intertextual tension between meaning and subtext of the psychosexual proclivities of Bush and his fellow torturers, that is to say in the verncular that they get “wood” or “pop a woody” from their activities. I may have just read this in one of the reviews of Bil Keane’s Family Circus books on Amazon.

  • My only surprise at this point is that Bush didn’t call his efforts to legalize torture the “Happy Prisoners” bill, to go along with ‘Healthy Forests” and “Clear Skies”.

    I am simply horrified and disgusted at where he and his republicans have taken this country. He is setting terrible precedents, and, once set, precedents are hard to go back on.

  • “Happy Prisoners” – N.Wells

    Excellent point! Their mediocrity is exceeded by their hypocrisy which is exceeded by their evil. Sometimes it makes me feel like Dick Cheney looks. And that’s bad.

    Speaking of reformations, this country is going to need one when the Republignats get through with it.

  • They want a “context-sensitive” policy? This from a man who bragged about not doing “Nuance” in 2000? Gag me!

  • “Context Sensitive” is exactly what they’re playing at. “Right” and “wrong” will be fined by the individual or group they’re talking about—so the word “Cheney,” the phrase “Republican Party,” and the sentence “I am the President of the United States” will automatically redefine the word “crime” into the phrase “doing the right thing.”

    On the other hand, the word “anti-war,” the phrase “Iraqi civil war,” and the sentence “I think we should stop sending our troops into a war that Dubya lied us into” will enter the lucky participant into a drawing to win an all-expenses-paid trip to the prison cell of Dick Cheney’s choosing….

  • N.Wells: My only surprise at this point is that Bush didn’t call his efforts to legalize torture the “Happy Prisoners” bill, to go along with ‘Healthy Forests” and “Clear Skies”.

    so true, so true…and torture is ‘liberty lovetaps’ or ‘democracy diddling.’

  • Dear President Bush,

    It is with great concern that we read about your plan to ignore the Geneva Convention with regard to the treatment of prisoners. The Supreme Court has ruled clearly that the treaty does apply in this case. The Senators are right to block your action. Certainly, you realize that the atrocities which have occurred in Iraq have turned the Iraqi people against us, and created more terrorists than existed prior to the Iraq invasion. We will not win a war against terrorists nor bring democracy to conquered nations by torture. Nor can we expose our own defenders to any more danger than they already face.

    Your baseless threats to cease prosecuting terrorists unless you get your way are an outrage. We suffered enough on 9/11 from your lack of leadership on terrorism and your misguided and ill-advised efforts since then have compounded that tragedy. It was with apprehension that we watched as you declared war on a word “terror” , and now it appears that you are losing a war to a word. That is unacceptable. You will do your job to the best of your ability and protect this country from further attack. You will work closely with Congress and figure out how to end this tragic mess you have made in Iraq. You will do all of this and obey the law.

    You need to cut out all the pissing and moaning while you do your job. It’s a hard job, we all know it. You’ve mucked it up and we all know that too. It’s tough to watch you make a complete fool of yourself in public knowing that you represent us all. So buck up.

    You need to go spend more time with your dad. He is part of the greatest generation. He actually fought wars against real threats to this country. He was part of a winning team. You are in serious danger of losing a war to a bunch of guys that live in caves. Luckily our great country will survive your bumbling lack of leadership, but you need to get some good advice from your dad if you have any desire to salvage your own reputation.

    Your boss,

    John Q. Public

  • Boy, Glen, mentioning his dad will REALLY piss him off. Remember, this psychotic twerp supposedly has his finger on “the button.”
    But I’m not worried. Cheney & his staff know how to filter letters like yours out, so he will never see it. As far as the Regal Moron knows, we are all behind him & cheering him on.
    Besides, do you really think Cheney would give him the REAL launch codes?

    • Comments are closed.