The Divine Right of Usian Presidents?

[E.J.Armstrong]

It appears you can indeed just make it up.


'...Rice touched off a firestorm last week when she told students at Stanford that "we did not torture anyone."

"The president instructed us that nothing we would do would be outside of our obligations, legal obligations, under the Convention Against Torture," Rice said at Stanford, before adding: "And so, by definition, if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Convention Against Torture." ...'

From http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/03/AR2009050301739.html?wprss=rss_print/asection

And here's me thinking only the Pope was infallible when he wanted. Silly me.

The lesson for today brethren is that when the US president speaks even the gods in heaven above tremble - well dictionary definitions go out the window when he wants.

[Dancing David]

Well, there was this trend towars the Imperial Presidency, it takes an allignment of issues , fear and a president willing to break the rules. (Nixon, Regan, Bush II) Yet the system maanges to balance after a while, usualy when the silly ones realise they do not want the opposition to have the same level of power.

Now some may mention FDR , but they forget that as with Clinton, FDR had to work very hard and compromise to get things done, and lost some major battles anyway.

[Ladewig]

ETA: stuff about Usian removed
. . . . . . . .
Just to stay on topic, I agree with you and disagree with Rice.

[Darat]

Discussion about the word "USAian" has been split to its own thread: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=141919

[Darat]

The article in the opening post does not give enough information to understand what her comment actually meant. From the article it could be that she was merely saying that the President ensured that all his orders were legal when he issued them rather than her saying that because the orders came from the President the orders were legal.

My personal take is that she is a smart person so I doubt she would be saying that just because President orders something that makes it legal.

[rwguinn]

The article in the opening post does not give enough information to understand what her comment actually meant. From the article it could be that she was merely saying that the President ensured that all his orders were legal when he issued them rather than her saying that because the orders came from the President the orders were legal.

My personal take is that she is a smart person so I doubt she would be saying that just because President orders something that makes it legal.
Didn't Nixon put the lie to that anyway?:D

[Donal]

Not exactly "if the President does it, it is not illegal". I read it more as each action was carefully considered and that illegal orders were not issued. More like "we believed it was not illegal, so the president ordered it."

[theprestige]

Not Divine Right.

Democratic Responsibility.

The authority and power of the President derive not from god, but from the people who ratified the Constitution and elected him to office.

And the authority and power are not rights, or an entitlements, or privileges. They are duties and responsibilities to be carried out on behalf of the people who gave them to him.

The rest is just details of implementation, differences of ideological opinion, and partisan bickering over whether or not this or that specific president is doing his job well or poorly.

[shawmutt]

Bush--so bad his detractors can't shut up about him even as a former president. It was a bad eight years, let's move on and keep on the up and up.

[INRM]

Well, I personally think the logic that Condoleeza Rice is using is more or less the same as the logic that Richard Nixon used during an interview with David Frost when he said "Well, when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal..."


INRM

[applecorped]

bush--so bad his detractors can't shut up about him even as a former president. It was a bad eight years, let's move on and keep on the up and up.

bush in 2012!!!!!!

[Travis]

It appears you can indeed just make it up.


'...Rice touched off a firestorm last week when she told students at Stanford that "we did not torture anyone."

"The president instructed us that nothing we would do would be outside of our obligations, legal obligations, under the Convention Against Torture," Rice said at Stanford, before adding: "And so, by definition, if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Convention Against Torture." ...'

From http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/03/AR2009050301739.html?wprss=rss_print/asection

And here's me thinking only the Pope was infallible when he wanted. Silly me.

The lesson for today brethren is that when the US president speaks even the gods in heaven above tremble - well dictionary definitions go out the window when he wants.

The bolded part is important as it undermines the point in blue.

[Beerina]

The article in the opening post does not give enough information to understand what her comment actually meant. From the article it could be that she was merely saying that the President ensured that all his orders were legal when he issued them rather than her saying that because the orders came from the President the orders were legal.

My personal take is that she is a smart person so I doubt she would be saying that just because President orders something that makes it legal.

Exactly. Wasn't that the point of all the memos from the legal staff? To put out a case, correct or not, that it's legal?

[E.J.Armstrong]

The bolded part is important as it undermines the point in blue.

It doesn't actually.

While I am pleased that her attempts to justify torture met such a response in the USA it was deeply depressing to read that the child's original question was toned down so thoroughly. It is as though some Usans are still not yet prepared to face up to the torture their elected government carried out in their name.

Does a people or a government have values just because they say they have them or because they actually follow them in practice?

[Donal]

By the way, the Pope is infallible in matters of faith and morality. Not whenever he wants. But, then again, that sort of statement is par for the course with you.

As has been pointed out here and in many, many threads:

1) The Bush administration has been given tremendous criticism both foreign and domestic on this and many issues. I don't get where the "when the US president speaks even the gods in heaven above tremble" comes from

2) The Bush administration was looking at the legal ramifications, realizing they were quite susceptible to criminal prosecution. Ironically, it is the Watergate scandal that makes this clear. "We believed it was legal, so we did it" is very different than "We did it, so we believed it was legal".

[Praktik]

2) The Bush administration was looking at the legal ramifications, realizing they were quite susceptible to criminal prosecution. Ironically, it is the Watergate scandal that makes this clear. "We believed it was legal, so we did it" is very different than "We did it, so we believed it was legal".

Well that would be a charitable way of putting it. From my reading of the memos, and from my reading of the ideology of many of the Bush team (Cheney, Yoo, Addington especially) it seems to me that their "penumbra" of Presidential power is the widest of nearly any prior administration.

Many had a hardon for rolling back some of the curtailments of exec power post-Nixon.

You have your signing statements abuse, the invocation of executive priviledge in a wide array of areas, and with the torture memos especially I think its clear that the legal team was trying to create a legal wall around a policy already decided.

Now this is all a matter of interpretation of course, but I feel confident in this assessment. While EJ's language is colourful and playful, I think the point underlying it is actually fairly strong: there really wasn't much the President couldn't do, cause well, he's the President!

"L'état, c'est moi"

[Praktik]

Further reading: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/20/AR2005122001858.html)

From shielding energy policy deliberations to setting up military tribunals without court involvement, Bush, with Cheney's encouragement, has taken what scholars call a more expansive view of his role than any commander in chief in decades. With few exceptions, Congress and the courts have largely stayed out of the way, deferential to the argument that a president needs free rein, especially in wartime
...
The vice president entered the fray yesterday, rejecting the criticism and expounding on the philosophy that has driven so many of the administration's actions. "I believe in a strong, robust executive authority, and I think that the world we live in demands it -- and to some extent that we have an obligation as the administration to pass on the offices we hold to our successors in as good of shape as we found them," Cheney said. In wartime, he said, the president "needs to have his constitutional powers unimpaired."
...
For Cheney, the post-Watergate era was the formative experience shaping his understanding of executive power. As a young White House chief of staff for President Gerald R. Ford, he saw the Oval Office at its weakest point as Congress and the courts asserted themselves. But scholars such as Andrew Rudalevige, author of "The New Imperial Presidency," say the presidency had recovered long before Cheney returned to the White House in 2001. The War Powers Act, the legislative veto, the independent counsel statute and other legacies of the 1970s had all been discarded in one form or another.

"He's living in a time warp," said Bruce Fein, a constitutional lawyer and Reagan administration official. "The great irony is Bush inherited the strongest presidency of anyone since Franklin Roosevelt, and Cheney acts as if he's still under the constraints of 1973 or 1974."Worth reading the whole thing.

Also thought the WaPo Cheney series, "The Angler" (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/) had some good insight into Cheney's views on executive power.

[Donal]

Ya, that was kind of my point though. It has been discussed here and in many places.

I don't get what she hopes to gain from starting yet another thread using hyperbole and high drama.

Does she actually work for Bush and want us to eye roll every time the topic is brought up?

[E.J.Armstrong]

By the way, the Pope is infallible in matters of faith and morality. Not whenever he wants. But, then again, that sort of statement is par for the course with you. Au contraire. The Pope chooses when to make his infallible statements - exactly as I stated. Whenever he wants he can make infallible pronouncements.

As has been pointed out here and in many, many threads:

1) The Bush administration has been given tremendous criticism both foreign and domestic on this and many issues. I don't get where the "when the US president speaks even the gods in heaven above tremble" comes from Then you need a sense of humour. if you thought I was referring to real gods who really tremble when the Usan president speaks can I suggest a reality check. I was sarcastically referring to the way the USA signed up to international agreements such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights then arbitrarily redefines critical words in that document to avoid its obligations. I acknowledge that my cultural allusion appears to have flown over your head.

2) The Bush administration was looking at the legal ramifications, realizing they were quite susceptible to criminal prosecution. Ironically, it is the Watergate scandal that makes this clear. "We believed it was legal, so we did it" is very different than "We did it, so we believed it was legal".

The fact that a Usan redefines words with well known meanings whenever it wants has no effect on the actual meaning of the words. Torture remains torture, whatever Usan presidents choose to do.

Condolezza Rice a major player in a regime that officially sanctioned and authorised the use of torture and whether any US president gives Usan torturers a pardon the decent world will one day hold her to account for her part in the official Usan torture programme.

Claiming that the US redefined 'torture' to mean 'not torture' means it was legal will not save her from being held to account - even if the USA will not do it. And the world knows that the USA will not hold their own torturers to account - to such an extent that a child is not even permitted to ask a simple question. Hooray for free speech.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Exactly. Wasn't that the point of all the memos from the legal staff? To put out a case, correct or not, that it's legal?


The point of the memos apparently was to justify the unjustifiable namely that 'torture' was magically 'not torture'. The USA had previously declared that water boarding was torture when it had been used on its own military. Now that it wanted to use that torture method on others it had to invent a smokescreen for its official torture programme.

The USA signed up to the International Declaration of Human Rights. The redefinition of 'torture' to 'not torture' was to avoid its international responsibilities and to allow it to abuse human rights.

That is why the US government speaking about human rights is a bit now like the Mafia talking about law and order. Something that should not be taken too seriously.

[Praktik]

That is why the US government speaking about human rights is a bit now like the Mafia talking about law and order. Something that should not be taken too seriously.

Well for those of us versed in Latin American history and US involvement in the Middle East that kind of moral posturing was not taken too seriously even before President-Select Dubya came to power.

[JihadJane]

Bush--so bad his detractors can't shut up about him even as a former president. It was a bad eight years, let's move on and keep on the up and up.


Oh, I see, that's how democracy works. Lies, murder, mayhem, torture, abuse, massive financial fraud then "move on". No consequences for the offenders.

What is the "up and up" referring to, btw?

Or were you joking, shawmutt?

[Skeptic]

I don't think "USAian" is a word.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Ya, that was kind of my point though. It has been discussed here and in many places.

I don't get what she hopes to gain from starting yet another thread using hyperbole and high drama.

Does she actually work for Bush and want us to eye roll every time the topic is brought up?

I seem to have annoyed you by commenting again on the US torture programme and the people who authorised it. Why is that I wonder? Is that not allowed now on JREF?

[E.J.Armstrong]

Well for those of us versed in Latin American history and US involvement in the Middle East that kind of moral posturing was not taken too seriously even before President-Select Dubya came to power.


Absolutely correct.

Many in the USA never agreed to, participated in or sanctioned the abuse of human rights that the USA government got up to in their name. More power to their elbows.

What a pity that they had to watch a human rights abuser serve out his full term and get away within the USA with his crimes against humanity.

Is it possible for those people to persuade school boards that free speech means allowing children to ask their questions to those who authorised and sanctioned human rights abuses as Condaleeza Rice did?

[Darth Rotor]

Why is that I wonder? Is that not allowed now on JREF?
Dumb question. Of course it is allowed on JREF. There have been, in the past three years, numerous threads dedicated to the topic.

Care to try again?

DR

[Alareth]

I don't think "USAian" is a word.

Welcome to the club, perhaps you would like to discuss it? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=141919)

[Dancing David]

My idignant post did not get posted

EJ , I resent all your stupid moralizing about the US as some sort of homogenous 'moo-moo, baa-baa' nation. I resent that fact that you say our government has no right to comment on human rights, as the government is fluid and representative. I did not support Regan, BushI nor BushII.

I probably put my self on watch lists by calling and protesting and writing and protesting.

I will try to reproduce the best parts of my post:

" I resent your continual overgeneralizations about USers, so take your stupid biggoted and judgemental EJian crap and shove it in your pie hole!

David the Uber Liberal aka 'reformed socialist' (read Commie Pinko and fellow traveller."

[E.J.Armstrong]

My idignant post did not get posted

EJ , I resent all your stupid moralizing about the US as some sort of homogenous 'moo-moo, baa-baa' nation. I resent that fact that you say our government has no right to comment on human rights, as the government is fluid and representative. I did not support Regan, BushI nor BushII.

I probably put my self on watch lists by calling and protesting and writing and protesting.

I will try to reproduce the best parts of my post:

" I resent your continual overgeneralizations about USers, so take your stupid biggoted and judgemental EJian crap and shove it in your pie hole!

David the Uber Liberal aka 'reformed socialist' (read Commie Pinko and fellow traveller."

Interesting.

You claim you protested about your governments actions yet strangely when I do the same you choose to hurl personal abuse. How sad.

The simple fact is that the US govermnment cannot be taken seriously when it preaches to others about human rights given that: -

1/ It organised and authorised an official torture programme and
2/ It has allowed the tortureres to go free in the USA
3/ It has indicated recently that it may not publish pictures of abuse of prisoners by the US military overseas

The US government might be taken more seriously when it starts to take its human rights duties seriously and apologise for lying to the world about WMD in Iraq and for abusing human rights and brings the abusers to trial for their crimes.

You may not like the message but just because the US government prefers not to deal with its own torturers and torture organisers that does not mean that anyone else in the world has to or will do likewise. People will continue to highlight the hypocrisy of a country that demands from others what it will not do itself when they choose - not you.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Dumb question. Of course it is allowed on JREF. There have been, in the past three years, numerous threads dedicated to the topic.

Care to try again?

DR


Excellent.

So there is no reason to hurl personal abuse those who highlight the human rights abuses of the US government and the ongoing failure of the US government to bring the responsible people to trial.

I'm glad we've got that straight.