On Oct. 4, officials from the CIA, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed the continued operation of an overseas “black site” that continued to utilize “harsh interrogation tactics” (read: torture) against suspected terrorists.

The existence of this “black site” was first brought to the public’s attention in late 2005 by the Washington Post and was eventually acknowledged by President Bush in September 2006. Bush later said all 14 of the “high-level terrorism suspects” had been removed and taken to Guantanamo.

In reaction to the news that the black site was still operation, Bush held a hastily assembled press conference in which he assured the public that “this government does not torture people.” Bush’s statement comes as Congress continues to request from the Justice Department two classified memos from 2005 that purportedly authorize “extreme interrogation tactics.”

Yet, despite Bush’s empathetic claim that we do not torture people, it is difficult to believe an administration that has lied so frequently and been caught so repeatedly.

The repeated reassurances that Saddam had piles and piles of WMDs were only piles and piles of lies. The Iraq Survey Group found Saddam had destroyed his stockpiles of weapons in 1991.

The “mission accomplished” speech in 2003 in which Bush stated that “major combat operations in Iraq have ended” was an equally bold-faced lie. In 2007, during a televised speech, Bush outlined a “new way forward” in Iraq. The key component of the “new way forward” was the troop surge that is still going on as we speak. It seems to me that the addition of 20,000 troops to a battlefield is a major combat operation. These are just two examples of the administration’s lies, but they are indicative of the way in which this administration operates: with a cavalier disregard for the rule of law.

So, in looking back on the history of the administration, I find it difficult to place my trust in Bush. If this were not reason enough, Bush’s continued persistence in the creation of a unitary executive does little to strengthen my faith in the integrity of the administration. The unitary executive theory gives the executive branch the ability to interpret the Constitution as it sees fit and allows for executive branch to disregard and bypass legislation enacted by Congress.

An example of Bush’s attempt to enact a unitary executive can be seen in his signing of a 2005 anti-torture bill. Bush signed the bill and then added a signing statement, which is his presidential prerogative, in which he says that the executive branch will “implement these provisions” in whatever manner the president sees fit. What that boils down to is the president has written himself a loophole by which he is free to choose whether he wishes to adhere to the anti-terrorism legislation.

This kind of legal undercutting is surreptitiously weakening the rule of law and undermining the integrity of our judicial and legislative branches of government, not to mention our own civil liberties. The Supreme Court has attempted to rein in at least some the administration’s carte blanche ambitions and ruled against Bush, stating that the administration cannot refuse enemy combatants the right of due process, a right protected under both U.S. and international law.

And while critics may say that the rights of enemy combatants are of little or no concern to the average U.S. citizen, I am reminded of a poem by Pastor Martin Neim”ller called “First they came.”:

First they came for the Jews

and I did not speak out

because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the Communists

and I did not speak out

because I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists

and I did not speak out

because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me

and there was no one left

to speak out for me.

The Bush administration has shown no signs of relenting in its push toward a unitary executive, and while those being unfairly imprisoned and targeted now may be seen as “the enemy,” such an unrestrained expansion of power threatens the liberties and freedoms of us all.

The true merit of a nation is seen in how it treats its prisoners, not its elites. We have no reason for believing the Bush administration’s denials of the claims of torture being brought against them. While Bush may say this country does not support torture, he has written himself a loophole in the very bill that outlaws torture, thereby creating the illusion of protection.

Both the U.S. Constitution and the internationally ratified Geneva Conventions see due process and habeas corpus as integral parts of the judicial process, and the Bush administration’s continued efforts to remove or restrict these rights should be seen for the tyrannical act it is. Bush claims to be protecting our freedoms by fighting the “terrorist” in Iraq, while in actuality he is systematically dismantling the rule of law that protects those very freedoms.

– Quincy Miller is a senior in English from Altoona.