Sen. Jeff Sessions on Face the Nation today pleaded that the American people approved of torture during the Bush Administration, but that simply isn’t the case. We did not tell Bush and his people to do “anything” they wanted to defend the country. The directive of the American people on what we want our government to do is clear, well-written and unambiguous on this point. It’s time that someone called the Republicans on this big lie.
I’m extremely tired of people pretending that it’s okay to break the law in order to defend the country. The President of the United States is arguably the most powerful ruler in the world, with literally millions of people at his/her beck and call. There is no need and never conceivably could be a need to break the law to defend the country. Long before that would be necessary, many, many people would have to fail at their jobs.
And yet, we have Sessions on national TV telling us:
The President said—there’s no doubt about it—he said, “I want to use every power I have to defend the American people.” The American people said, “Yes.”
This is the crux of the problem. When President George Bush made that statement, I think the American people thought he was an honorable person and that he obviously meant “every legitimate power I have”. Sadly, this is not what he meant.
Our contract with the government (it’s called the Constitution) spells out in clear and unambiguous language what powers are legitimate. That document is backed up with some very clear federal statutes that detail how that legitimate power is to be used. We have, as a people, through the Senate, ratified various treaties that clarify exactly what kinds of power can be used in the international sphere.
The Bush Administration took none of this into account. They acted as if the American people had said, “protect us at all costs”. I just don’t remember giving them carte blanche to torture people, spy on Americans without proper warrants, or run up a trillion dollar tab on my account to please their friends. That was not what I said, and it is not what the American people said when they said, “Yes”.
Nor do I want the current administration, nor future administrations, to think that it’s okay with me for them to break their agreement with me about how to govern. They need to read and abide by the contract. If they are having any trouble interpreting what it says, just ask. I’ll be happy to tell them.
And, let’s just be clear about what I want. When it comes to the rights of the people, I want the most liberal interpretation of the terms. The government has to show great need before violating people’s rights. Violating the right of one person is violating the rights of everyone. Torturing one prison[er] is not just violating the rights of a putative terrorist. It’s violating my rights and your rights. It is, in its own right, an act of terrorism.
I want those guilty found, prosecuted, convicted and punished. Does that make it clear, Sen. Sessions, what the American people want? If not, then I suggest you read the Constitution. Perhaps that will make it clear to you.
Other howlers:
Sessions: I would just say that on that, Abu Ghraib, there was no evidence that the higher-ups participated in any way.
Reminder: Some of those who worked at Guantanamo on “enhanced [torture] interrogation techniques” then went to work at Abu Ghraib. I would certainly consider this evidence. Beyond that, there’s ample evidence that members of the administration were promoting torture. Recent evidence reveals that George Bush himself was trying to get Attorney General Ashcroft to re-up the torture waver long before Abu Ghraib came to light. The evidence is that the culture of torture started at the top and was pervasive. I’m morally certain that the higher-ups participated in any torture that occurred simply by not making a statement to the lower-downs demanding that prisoners be treated according to law and custom. This was not an innocent omission. It was, IMO, a deliberate policy designed to encourage abusing prisoners.
And, the evidence is that torture was a deliberate policy designed to get false confessions of links between Al Qaeda and Iraq. That’s a very compelling motive for a crime.
Sessions: I believe that Vice President Cheney served his country with as much fidelity as he could possibly give to it.
Five deferments?
Further note: While I’m not fond of Sen. Patrick Leahy’s idea of a “truth commission”, I’m happy to report that he’s against immunity for the guilty:
Obviously, Eric Holder is a superb Attorney General. . . I just don’t want to see an instance where, if the higher-ups gave the order to break the law, that the ones who get punished are basically the ones on the front line, the lower-level troops.
This is my concern, as well. If Holder appoints a special prosecutor and that process tries to grant immunity to anyone, then I want to make sure that the result is for all those who are guilty of major crimes to get convicted. It would be a travesty of justice for people who broke U.S. and international law in committing war crimes to go free. What kind of a message does that send to the world?
We have to hold officials accountable, for a multitude of reasons outlined in Framed: Prosecuting Officials for Crimes. Please let your representatives in Congress know that you are adamant that our government hold those who committed these vile crimes accountable.