I think this is an important point

[bigtree]

Q Mr. President, critics of your proposed bill on interrogation rules say there's another important test -- these critics include John McCain, who you've mentioned several times this morning -- and that test is this: If a CIA officer, paramilitary or special operations soldier from the United States were captured in Iran or North Korea, and they were roughed up, and those governments said, well, they were interrogated in accordance with our interpretation of the Geneva Conventions, and then they were put on trial and they were convicted based on secret evidence that they were not able to see, how would you react to that, as Commander-in-Chief?

THE PRESIDENT: David, my reaction is, is that if the nations such as those you named, adopted the standards within the Detainee Detention Act, the world would be better. That's my reaction. We're trying to clarify law. We're trying to set high standards, not ambiguous standards.

And let me just repeat, Dave, we can debate this issue all we want, but the practical matter is, if our professionals don't have clear standards in the law, the program is not going to go forward. You cannot ask a young intelligence officer to violate the law.(he's more worried about his own law breaking here) And they're not going to. They -- let me finish, please -- they will not violate the law. You can ask this question all you want, but the bottom line is -- and the American people have got to understand this -- that this program won't go forward; if there is vague standards applied, like those in Common Article III from the Geneva Convention, it's just not going to go forward. You can't ask a young professional on the front line of protecting this country to violate law.

Now, I know they said they're not going to prosecute them. Think about that: Go ahead and violate it, we won't prosecute you. These people aren't going to do that, Dave. Now, we can justify anything you want and bring up this example or that example, I'm just telling you the bottom line, and that's why this debate is important, and it's a vital debate.

Now, perhaps some in Congress don't think the program is important. That's fine. I don't know if they do or don't. I think it's vital, and I have the obligation to make sure that our professionals who I would ask to go conduct interrogations to find out what might be happening or who might be coming to this country, I got to give them the tools they need. And that is clear law.

Q But sir, this is an important point, and I think it depends --

THE PRESIDENT: The point I just made is the most important point.

Q Okay.

THE PRESIDENT: And that is the program is not going forward. David, you can give a hypothetical about North Korea, or any other country, 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. That's how we define Common Article III, and it sets a good standard for the countries that you just talked about.

Next man.

Q No, but wait a second, I think this is an important point --

THE PRESIDENT: I know you think it's an important point. (Laughter.)

Q Sir, with respect, if other countries interpret the Geneva Conventions as they see fit -- as they see fit -- you're saying that you'd be okay with that?

THE PRESIDENT: I am saying that I would hope that they would adopt the same standards we adopt; and that by clarifying Article III, we make it stronger, we make it clearer, we make it definite.

And I will tell you again, David, you can ask every hypothetical you want, but the American people have got to know the facts. And the bottom line is simple: If Congress passes a law that does not clarify the rules, if they do not do that, the program is not going forward.

Q This will not endanger U.S. troops, in your --

THE PRESIDENT: Next man.

Q This will not endanger U.S. troops --

THE PRESIDENT: David, next man, please. Thank you. It took you a long time to unravel, and it took you a long time to ask your question.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060915-2.html

[babylonsister]

1. Unraveling; methinks dimson has no room to speak!

He also doesn't make a helluva lot of sense imo. KO and guests just clarified for me. It's important and he's very dangerous.

[bigtree]

8. the agents in the field must have refused to follow the orders to torture

especially after they saw how the military's Abu Ghraib dupes were left dangling while the brass skated.

They are likely saying that they won't torture anymore until/unless Congress and the courts tell them to.

Also, as they're saying, this must be related to something already done - some atrocity already committed that he ordered and approved - that he wants retroactive indemnity from.

[annabanana]

2. OhNo!! If I can't make it legal for these guys to torture

prisoners.... the Program of torturing prisoners won't go forward!! OHNO!

[Generator]

6. God in heaven

Did you see him sputtering in rage over it? I feel bile just thinking about it. I keep thinking I can't get more disgusted or stunned, but it happens anew another day!

[Dhalgren]

9. Someone should point out to the feckless mass murderer that

every CIA officer and every member of our armed forces are duty and honor bound to refuse any order they FEEL is illegal or unjust. If the law says that you are not to humiliate a prisoner and you are ordered to perform acts with the intent of humiliating the prisoner, then it is illegal.

The law was not intended to "catch" a soldier or officer in some sort of cultural faux pas. If a soldier does not realize that some otherwise innocent act on his/her part will humiliate a prisoner and does so out of ignorance, that is not the kind of thing Article III is talking about...

[JuniperLea]

3. I find it interesting that for decades

Everyone understood the laws just fine. What a dumbass.

[WinkyDink]

4. Bush MEANS: We want our guys to torture, but NOW that's asking

them to break the law. So the LAWS must be altered, so we CAN ask them to torture without jeopardy.

[Dhalgren]

5. Dictator Bush seems to be the only one who thinks Common

Article III is unclear or ill-defined. I have read the Article several times and I do not see the ambiguity in it, at all - in its phrasing, its intent, or in its reliance upon understood, universally accepted points of law. Someone should ask the lying murderer what he finds so difficult in the law as it is written...

[bigtree]

10. he has no idea what 'outrages on human dignity' are

no concept at all.

[OwnedByFerrets]

7. Its bad enough to read this

but when you watch this fucker say it and think "this is the POTUS"....OMG!!