Bush's IHL Violations - Discreet?

When thinking about this week's blogging assignment, I was torn between whether I thought Bush was doing more damage to IHL and norms by not blatantly flouting them or if he was really respecting them in some roundabout way. Granted, the outcome of both of these sides of the debate is still that he is doing a great deal of irrevocable harm regardless.
On the one hand, by not blatantly flouting the IHL or norm violations, he is implicitly acknowledging that the norm does have value and a regulative effect. He is reinforcing the fact that the IHL and norms matter, just that in his opinion, they do no apply to him. Likewise, he is forced to justify his actions as not violative of the norms, which in and of itself reinforces the power of the norm. By paying lip service to the norm, he is implicitly acknowledging that he is aware of the fact that if he were to blatantly violate the norms, he would receive backlash from the international community.
On the other hand, if he were to just come right out and say that he was violating the norm, then the international community may be better armed with options for a reaction. The international community would be able to deal with his violations within the framework of the existing disciplinary measures, but then the question becomes, would they? At that point, the problem may become that they are unable or unwilling to sanction Bush and the U.S. for its actions, due to many other competing factors. If this is the case, wouldn't this arguably do even more damage to the norm? It would open the floodgates for all other IHL and norm violates because they can always point to the hypocrisy of punishing them and not the Bush and U.S. for its violations.
...In the end, however, maybe Bush just doesn't realize they are violations...maybe he truly believes his actions are legal...ignorance may be bliss at times...