1115.org

(1) Case-by-Case Law
When it comes to breaking the law, it’s the thought that counts, according to Mukasey’s Justice Department. At least with regard to torture.

Turns out, it’s not true that we don’t torture. We just don’t torture without good reason. But torture in a good cause? Perfectly okay. That is to say, interrogation methods which would otherwise violate the Geneva Conventions can be okayed on a case-by-case basis (even though the Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that all prisoners in American captivity must be treated in accordance with Common Article 3 of the Geneva conventions).

The Justice Department has told Congress that American intelligence operatives attempting to thwart terrorist attacks can legally use interrogation methods that might otherwise be prohibited under international law.
[…]
“The fact that an act is undertaken to prevent a threatened terrorist attack, rather than for the purpose of humiliation or abuse, would be relevant to a reasonable observer in measuring the outrageousness of the act,” said Brian A. Benczkowski, a deputy assistant attorney general, in the letter, which had not previously been made public.
[…]
Some legal experts critical of the Justice Department interpretation said the department seemed to be arguing that the prospect of thwarting a terror attack could be used to justify interrogation methods that would otherwise be illegal.

“What they are saying is that if my intent is to defend the United States rather than to humiliate you, than I have not committed an offense,” said Scott L. Silliman, who teaches national security law at Duke University.

Well, at least law schools will be able to create whole new departments, and promote people to be chaired professors in Situational Law. In addition to case law, law schools will now teach case-by-case law.

Here’s the part I liked best, though:

But a senior Justice Department official strongly challenged this interpretation (Silliman’s interpretation) on Friday, saying that the purpose of the interrogation would be just one among many factors weighed in determining whether a specific procedure could be used.

This was apparently meant to be reassuring. So do you find it reassuring that the Bush administration will deem torture to be legal based not just on the purpose of the interrogation, but on other factors as well?

At the risk of people emerging from the woodwork again, and demanding to know (over and over again) what’s my point, is every senior Bush administration official an absolute clown? Or is it just the Justice Department ones?

The same senior Justice Department official (obviously on a roll):

“I certainly don’t want to suggest that if there’s a good purpose you can head off and humiliate and degrade someone,” said the official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he was describing some legal judgments that remain classified.

“The fact that you are doing something for a legitimate security purpose would be relevant, but there are things that a reasonable observer would deem to be outrageous,” he said.

At the same time, the official said, “there are certainly things that can be insulting that would not raise (sic) to the level of an outrage on personal dignity.”

That is to say, insulting things that would rise to the level of an outrage on personal dignity when they are done for other reasons, no longer rise to the level of an outrage on personal dignity when they are done to thwart terrorist attacks. And so-called terrorist attacks too, naturally. (I don’t know about you, but I’m thinking of the paintball warriors known as the “Liberty City Seven” or the “Seas of David” cult.)

Then there’s Mr. Benczkowski again:

In one letter written Sept. 27, 2007, Mr. Benczkowski argued that “to rise to the level of an outrage” and thus be prohibited under the Geneva Conventions, conduct “must be so deplorable that the reasonable observer would recognize it as something that should be universally condemned.”

That is to say: “Henceforth only a damn outrage is an outrage; a mere outrage will no longer be regarded as an outrage for purposes of determining violations of the Geneva conventions.”

(Funny thing is that a lot of people — and not just on the Democratic side of the aisle — are regarding Mr. Benczkowski’s letters as so deplorable that the reasonable observer would recognize them as something that should be universally condemned.)

(2) The Stain of Bush
It clearly doesn’t matter whom you put in charge as Attorney General. They all get corrupted by Bush-ism, and it’s basically bye-bye to all our traditional principles of law and justice. It happened to Ashcroft, it happened to Buttercheeks (and how), and now it’s happening to Mukasey. Call it The Stain of Bush.

(3) I Have Nothing But Contempt For You, George
Speaking of Bush, here’s an interesting little situation. The Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that all prisoners in American captivity must be treated in accordance with Common Article 3 of the Geneva conventions. In response, Slippery George issued an executive order in July 2007 “that President Bush said meant that the CIA would comply with international strictures against harsh treatment of detainees”. Benczkowski’s letter of March 5 makes it clear that Slippery George lied. The executive order only pretended to bring the CIA into compliance with the Geneva conventions. The Justice Department had already secretly agreed that the CIA could violate the Geneva conventions on a case-by-case basis.

So how is this not contempt of court? (Oh, I see that I mis-punctuated the sub-heading. It should have read:
“I Have Nothing But Contempt For You!” — George)