”By Definition, if it was authorized by the president it did not violate our obligations under the convention against torture.“ Condoleeza Rice, responding to a question about waterboarding, 04/27/09.
”Article I, Section. 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”
”Article II, Section. 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. . . . Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: — “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
”Article II, Section. 3. . . . he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed . . . “
Whenever I hear the words “By Definition . . .” followed by some conclusion, I’m immediately suspicious of the conclusion and the person offering the argument. You see, I know that I’m very unlikely to share the definition in question, so, of course, I almost surely won’t think that the conclusion follows from it. But even if it does, I know very well, and I’ll bet that Condi does too, that no one can prove a conclusion from a premise, unless that premise is true in the first place. If it’s not, or if it’s questionable, then a “by definition” argument is just “begging the question.” And what is the question? I think it’s whether the president has the power to decide what our obligations are under the Geneva Convention, or whether that question was already settled when the United States signed that Treaty, it was approved by the Congress, and it became the Law of the Land.
I think the answer is that the president clearly doesn’t have that power because he/she doesn’t have the authority to make or repeal laws. That power is vested in the legislature by the Constitution of the United States, and the president has taken an oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” The constitution also charges the president to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” So, “by definition” the president had an obligation to take Care that the terms of the treaty were enforced. Instead, the president evidently authorized waterboarding, which the United States has recognized as “torture” in previous prosecutions and convictions of war criminals, and his Secretary of State is telling us ”By Definition, if it was authorized by the president it did not violate our obligations under the convention against torture.“
Well, “by definition” there goes the separation of powers, and with it, the Constitution of the United States – if we let it. Prosecutions anyone?