Yesterday, Gonzales argued that (paraphrased) one couldn't be certain of the motives of future political leaders (domestic or international, I assume) who might inappropriately bring war crimes charges against Americans. We know from various memos that the JD and legal counsels in Cheney's office were concerned with finding legal strategies to avoid this consequence even while establishing treatment rules which quite possibly do constitute war crimes.
Note though how he tries to direct attention away from everyone at the top (think Nuremburg) such as himself (in red). Of course, this is also another very typical and repeated rhetorical move...instill sympathy for "the troops" in order to make political headway for some quite different motive than suggested.
Note also the final paragraph, a justice proposition which in its violation by the JD and White House legal staff seems almost incomprehensible...how could they NOT fashion policy in such a manner? Perhaps because none of them ever fought in war nor have had any real connection to it other than via big cheques from stock holdings in various military/logistics corporations. It seems a pretty typical oligarchical mindset.
Quote:Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales pressed Congress on Wednesday to refine the definition of war crimes prohibited under the Geneva Conventions, as the Bush administration and lawmakers continued to debate the rules for treatment and trials of terror suspects...
Mr. Gonzales argued that the language of the provision was too vague. And because the federal War Crimes Act passed a decade ago makes it a felony to violate that provision, he said that troops could be prosecuted for interrogation tactics considered too harsh. Congress, he said, could "help by defining our obligations" under the provision, known as Common Article Three...
But senators said Congress should not endorse any treatment it would not want used on American soldiers..
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/03/washington/03detain.html
How serious do you think these folks are about holding onto political power?