It’s an easy step to make when you start with the premise that “if the president does it, it’s not illegal.”

The Bush Administration was always operating from the position that nothing was really illegal but that most things were politically inexpedient. I’m oddly comforted by the thought of all the massacres that could’ve happened but didn’t because the voters would’ve subsequently objected. Of course, I’m haunted by all the massacres that did happen because the Bushies knew we’d let them get away with it.

Civilians were slaughtered by previous American presidents in Dresden, Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Hanoi, Baghdad and Belgrade. Our current president makes decisions that result in civilian deaths every day of the week, this time in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Why the furor over Bush Jr. crimes?

Spencer,

Al-Qaeda isn’t even the most directly relevant comparison. Compare this statement to the crime that led to Saddam Hussein’s hanging. It’s quite instructive.

The furor has something to do with the fact that those creating the furor see a President, pardoned by Jimmy Carter for being a deserter, who assumes a mantle of supreme leader, no different than most any dictator and enablers enforce his decrees by whim. After pathetic tactics in Vietnam, we see the same in Baghdad II, and, of course, Afghanastan.

We see a cretin who deliberately turned his back on terrorism defensives that worked in the previous administrations, then goes blotto on us when 9-11 occurs. and the Americans bought it.

The internet allowed us, for the first time, to, in a small way, make our voices heard without the censoring of corporate media.

GWBush – worst ever.

The major point is that previous admins pretty much recognized war crimes – they may have tried to keep them quiet, but when the truth came out, there were trials and convictions (see, e.g. Lt. Calley). Committing war crimes was not poliicy. Previous administrations never had the gall to brazenly whip up “legal” arguments that war crimes were not only not crimes, but perfectly legitimate.

Difference of degree? Sure. And the biggest step forward into the abyss that the U.S. used to try to avoid.

The quote appears to be out of context, severely. Yoo was advising on what US law and constitution permitted. Not on what International Law permitted.

Caveat:
I am not a lawyer. I am not going to spend the time to read the 70 page reports, or Yoo’s memos. Plus, treaties the US joins become constitutionally authorized.

Nevertheless, distinguishing between domestic and foreign law is sensible. To slam Yoo without answering this issue raises issues of fairness and credibility. On the other hand, if I’ve got this wrong, I need to know, and this blog post doesn’t help me.

But only if the President in question is a Republican. You know they don’t accept anything Pres. Obama does as legal.