Remember all the criticism leveled at Clinton because of his lawyerly circumlocutions and overly-technical answers during the Lewinsky depositions? I sure hope the GOP does, because there’s a Pentagon memo from March 2003 that uses just such tortured logic and hyperlegalistic techniques to find a way around the laws prohibiting torture of prisoners. This puts us in the mind of the Daily Show’s Rob Corddry, who said of the Abu Graib pictures

There’s no question what took place in that prison was horrible. But the Arab world has to realize that the US shouldn’t be judged on the actions of a . . . well, we shouldn’t be judged on actions. It’s our principles that matter, our inspiring, abstract notions. Remember: Just because torturing prisoners is something we did, doesn’t mean it’s something we would do. Quoted here

The hits just keep on coming, though. Billmon did a little research into the primary author of this memo, an apparently devout and conservative Christian woman, and contrasts her personal statements of faith and such with the language of the memo. The difference, needless to say, is quite shocking. As a sample, here’s his final pairing:

Walker: “Making moral decisions in the workplace where it is easy to go along and get along takes courage. It takes moral strength and courage to say, ‘I’m not going to do this because I don’t think it’s the right thing to do.’ ” The report: Officials could escape torture convictions by arguing that they were following superior orders, since such orders “may be inferred to be lawful” and are “disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate.” Billmon, supra

Billmon’s not alone, of course; Josh Marshall’s post on the subject points to a Wall Street Journal article (paid registration required) that begins “Bush administration lawyers contended last year that the president wasn’t bound by laws prohibiting torture and that government agents who might torture prisoners at his direction couldn’t be prosecuted by the Justice Department.” Think about that for a minute. Actually, the memo itself includes the real money shot here:

To protect subordinates should they be charged with torture, the memo advised that Mr. Bush issue a “presidential directive or other writing” that could serve as evidence, since authority to set aside the laws is “inherent in the president.”WSJ

Yes, that’s right. This memo asserts that the president’s powers extend to setting aside laws. Their copy of the Constitution must have some additional articles or something, because I don’t recall that being part of the deal. Josh has this to say:

So the right to set aside law is “inherent in the president”. That claim alone should stop everyone in their tracks and prompt a serious consideration of the safety of the American republic under this president. It is the very definition of a constitutional monarchy, let alone a constitutional republic, that the law is superior to the executive, not the other way around. This is the essence of what the rule of law means — a government of laws, not men, and all that. [Emph. added.]

The suggestions that (a) we need to find a way to make torture legal and (b) that the president may do as he pleases are patently counter to everything I know and love about this country. That a government employee working on behalf of you and I, the citizens of this great experiment in government, set about trying to justify these positions absolutely sickens me.

This is who we’re dealing with. This is who wants to run the country for another four years, this time with no worries about re-election. If they’re pushing the Constitution this far now, consider what they might do as lame ducks.