On Face the Nation this morning, Sen. John McCain became the latest figure to publicly state that the Bush Administration violated the Geneva Conventions and the U.N. Convention Against Torture. It is not clear how many international and domestic figures will have to publicly acknowledge these crimes before Attorney General Eric Holder will appoint a special prosecutor. I discussed the torture issue last night on this segment of MSNBC Countdown.
During the show, McCain stated “[Torture memo author Jay Bybee] falls into the same category as everybody else, as far as giving very bad advice and misinterpreting fundamentally what the United States is all about, much less things like the Geneva Conventions. Under President Reagan, we signed [the Convention] Against Torture. We were in violation of that.”
Article 7 of the Convention Against Torture states:
Article 7
1. The State Party in territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found, shall in the cases contemplated in article 5, if it does not extradite him, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.
2. These authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of any ordinary offence of a serious nature under the law of that State. In the cases referred to in article 5, paragraph 2, the standards of evidence required for prosecution and conviction shall in no way be less stringent than those which apply in the cases referred to in article 5, paragraph 1.
There is now Republican and Democratic leaders acknowledging the obvious: we violated these treaties and international law. What they are not being asked is how we reconcile our ongoing violation of these laws by not investigating and prosecuting such crimes. Once again, it is important to note that it is not the lawyers but the leaders who are the principle targets of such investigations: Bush, Cheney, Tenet, Gonzales and others. The lawyers may also be investigated but there is a clear effort to focus on the attorneys to avoid dealing with the obvious responsible parties at the top of the chain of command.
I really liked “V for Vendetta”, mespo. A rare political sci-fi film that has engaged me. For politically inspired comedy, of course, Chaplin’s “The Great Dictator” comes to mind.
JT:
Nice addition to the blog having those videos directly on the page. Must the best never rest?
The memory of the Bush AWOL story still amuses me. Poor Scott McClellan, standing there in the briefing room and waving a piece of paper in his hand, trying every possible way to get around the question about where GWB was during the period he was alleged to have ‘disappeared’ from the ANG unit to help with a family friend’s campaign.
Each reporter in the room, it seemed, asked the same version of the question, “Was the president present on the base during these dates?”
And all McClellan could do was wave that paper and say, “This is the pay stub! Here are the pay stubs.”
Reporters: “Yes, but was he physically present at the base? Why won’t you just say yes or no?”
McClellan: “You see what I’m holding here? This is a pay stub.”
And on the game went …
Mike Appleton – Excellent analysis of the McCain interview. The last point especially.
‘Gee Whiz, John McCain is confident no administration will repeat this. Well, I guess it’s all cleared up then.’
And Jill – My biggest annoyance with the the current administration’s goofy explanation about wanting to move forward is exactly that the president would have to do absolutely nothing on this matter. To appoint a special prosecutor would detract in no way from his duties. Nobody is asking him to take on the case and put on his lawyer hat. There is an entire department of justice that is charged with doing exactly this kind of work.
Despite having to swat away a few of the flies, good thread.
And sent them to die for a lie. But we speak of such trivial matters.
AY,
I understand that Bush’s records were missing and why was that? And what does your last sentence mean in the Bush scenario? Was there a court order that stated he was not AWOL?
Jill,
You are right about our Friend, Dick Cheney. He was the king of the defermments. And yet he was the military’s friend….except he sent them into wars without body armor, without armored humvees and killed some of them through his private contractor electricians.
I want rafflaw to realize and understand that Geo. II being AWOL was never conclusively proved. The documents disappeared much like the record of conviction for Drunk Driving in on of them thar New England states.
And remember a Court speaks through it orders.
Dick was “in” with the military rafflaw. He did manage at least 5 deferals, or was it 6?
No one alleged wrongdoing? I guess not if you have your fingers in your ears and you’re uvulating like crazy. On second thought, maybe he’s right. Afterall Cheney just flat out said he ordered waterboarding, so he went far beyond alleging, right into admitting he committed a war crime.
Former Dem,
I forgot that rule that every person who has an opinion on a subject must have been in the military or one of their relatives must have been in the military. Where did you find that rule? In your Dick and Jane books? How far can you look back in your family tree in order to be able to comment on political matters? Mike A. asked you a pertinent question about Dick Cheney. Even George W. was very briefly in the Air National Guard until he went AWOL.
Would or do you think McCain wants us to think that he really is that stupid?
What part of the black circle do you “see the” white dot?
It sounds like he is asking what black circle because alls he sees is the dot.
They do not seem to get that there are a lot of dots in that circle and each one tied together represents a conspiracy on there part.
The attorney should be as liable under these circumstances as if it were a drug case. Because if it was a drug case and they gave bad advice that it was legal to move and distribute drugs then the attorney would be guilty of either an accessory before the fact, during and even after the fact. Is that not why we have RICO?
The penalty is the same as the original crime. Isn’t that why we would not let Kurt Waldheim in this country? Complicity with the Nazis during the 2nd war to end all wars?
Would or do you think McCain wants us to think that he really is that stupid?
What part of the black circle do you white dot?
it sounds like he is asking what black circle because alls he sees is the dot.
They do not seem to get that there are a lot of dots in that circle and each one tied together represents a conspiracy on there part.
The attorney should be as liable under these circumstances as if it were a drug case. Because if it was a drug case and they gave bad advice that it was legal to move and distribute drugs then the attorney would be guilty of either an accessory before the fact, during and after the fact. Is that not why we have RICO?
The penalty is the same as the original crime. Isn’t that why we would not let Kurt Waldheim in this country? Complicity with the Nazis during the 2nd war to end all wars?
Ol’ We Gotta Travel On McCain (“We got to move on”)
Two more McCain quotes from the FTN transcript:
_________________
McCain: {Quote: Finally, you were around when President Ford pardoned President Nixon. There were allegations of criminal activity on the part of the President of the United States. Most people in retrospect believe that the Ford pardon was right because we moved on. We got to move on.
SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: I don’t know because no one has alleged “wrongdoing.” They have alleged
that this advice was wrong and that somehow that these people who gave this advice should be subject
to criminal prosecution. End Quote}
________________
‘Gotta Travel On’ Billy Grammer 1958 #4 Pop Charts
“Poppa writes to Johnny
But Johnny can’t come home…
High sheriff and police riding after me
Riding after me, yes, coming after me
High sheriff and police coming after me
And I feel like I gotta travel on”
Mike A.
I think I heard that stuff and it a rehash from the Original Whiner, Drug Addicted Republican is that not what DAR stands for anyway at least now days? Rush Limbaugh.
Thank you, Jill. Keep hope alive.
Former Dem, I don’t know where your bitterness comes from, but it makes for some fairly pointless comments. What in the world does military service have to do with the ability to analyze and reflect on current issues? Have you ever asked the same question of Dick Cheney or the members of his family? By the way, I’ll be happy to show you my honorable discharge certificate if you show me yours.
Has a single member of the Turley family ever served their country? It appears not.
It appears the Turley clan is an old style WHINE and dine bunch.
Even if you are in a minority of one the truth is still the truth.
What is, is? Whether you think it is or you think its not, it still is.
Do not limit yourself to think that something is not possible with out first looking at the possibilities.
Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.
For those who believe no proof is necessary, for those who don’t no proof is possible.
Mike A.,
That was both emotionally and intellectually powerful.
I watched Sen. McCain’s interview on Face the Nation yesterday. His views are representative of many of those who oppose any further investigation and prosecution of any wrongdoing. But if one examines his arguments, they are either based upon false premises, or are purely political. Consider the following:
1. Sen. McCain objects to prosecuting attorneys for giving bad legal advice. No one has proposed prosecuting attorneys for giving bad legal advice. I’ll say it once again. Malpractice is not a crime. Most people (other than those who refuse to accept the applicability of relevant statutory and treaty law) acknowledge that the legal memoranda misstated the law. The issue for a prosecutor would be whether the attorneys knowingly misstated the law to provide false justification for a course of action which the administration intended to pursue. On the civil side, that sort of misrepresentation would constitute a fraud on the court, exposing a lawyer to sanctions by the court and possible referral to bar disciplinary authorities. In the context of the war in Iraq and the treatment of detainees, the attorneys’ memoranda might be evidence of participation in a conspiracy to violate laws relating to torture and the conduct of illegal wars.
2. Sen. McCain expresses concern that an investigation could be used to “settle old political scores.” That is true, but the prosecution of prominent political figures is always met with the accusation that the criminal charges are political payback. Should we permit this irrational fear to immunize the politically powerful against prosecution for wrongdoing? Shall we accept the Bush administration’s argument that violations of U.S. and international law were simply the acts of a “few bad apples”? Is it acceptable in a system which prides itself on the ideal that no one is above the law that we throw a few enlisted soldiers to the wolves and pat ourselves on the back for our adherence to principle?
3. Sen. McCain is unhappy because the upcoming release of additional photographs will only “fan the flames.” Of course it will. This is essentially the argument of what I call the Noonanists (in honor of Peggy Noonan), those who believe that it would be better for the nation if certain truths remained hidden from view. This argument proceeds from the idea that the people should not have to bear the pain of confronting what their own leaders are capable of perpetrating in their name. It treats citizens as children, unable to deal with facts which may conflict with deeply held beliefs about what the country represents. But all of us recall instances from our own childhoods in which our parents sought to protect us from the truth, and all of us figured it out anyway. Secrets are destructive things. They eat away at the character of a society in the same way that they eat away at an individual. I for one have seldom come to understand painful truths about myself unless they were pounded into my skull with the proverbial two by four.
4. Sen. McCain insists that the atrocities will never be repeated by any future government and that we should therefore forsake retribution for the sake of moving forward in unity. The premise of that statement is speculative, the conclusion false. Retribution is the exaction of vengeance and is not the goal of investigation and prosecution. They must be undertaken because history will not be denied its proper recognition. Medgar Evans was shot to death in his carport in 1963. Byron De La Beckwith, the alleged assailant, was twice tried in 1964, both trials producing hung juries. He was finally convicted of murder in 1994 because people realized that we could not “move on” as a society otherwise. Edgar Ray Kellen was suspected of involvement in the Mississippi murders of civil rights workers in 1964. When the state of Mississippi refused to pursue any charges, the federal government brought civil rights charges against Kellen, again resulting in a mistrial. Forty-one years later Kellen was convicted of three counts of manslaughter, despite the wishes of many that the secrets remain buried with the bodies of three young men.
Secrets and lies are the currency of those who wish to live their lives in denial. Whether we wish to face the truth in this instance is irrelevant; the truth will emerge regardless of our efforts to bury it, or ignore it or politicize it. The great test facing us as a nation is whether we have the maturity to accept the burdens imposed by our own ideals.
Mike Spindell,
Are you on Linkdn?