Some pretty words from the mavericks, the dissidents, the men of conscience of the Republican Party before they reached a “compromise” on the torture and trials of detainees:
No matter what the political impact is, this is a matter of conscience. – John McCain
The Geneva Convention is just not some concept. – Lindsey Graham
It would be a very serious blow to the credibility of the United States. – John Warner
And today, National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley explained the compromise reached with these men of conscience:
…the President said that his sole standard with respect to Common Article III, so-called Common Article III, was going to be whether the CIA would be able to go forward…I think it is clear from the legislation that there is now — the program will go forward.
So much for conscience, concepts and credibility…
But first, Common Article III:
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) Taking of hostages;
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
And as you read Hadley’s explanation of the “compromise,” you’ll understand why he called it the, “so-called Common Article III.”
And finally, there is a provision that makes clear that the President has authority as provided by the Constitution and by this legislation, given to him by the Congress, he has the authority for the United States to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions, including Common Article III, and to establish standards and administrative regulations for violations that are less than grave breaches of Geneva Conventions.
It’s all over but for the coronation. George W. Bush is the sole authority for interpreting what the Geneva Conventions means. The “decider” indeed.
And what about the much heralded Detainee Treatment Act? The so-called McCain Torture Amendment?
…there is the Detainees Treatment Act; that continues to be a standard, and the President will adopt some regulations to enforce that.
Of course, given the Signing Statement he issued when signing that bill, it was already made irrelevant, but now he has McCain’s approval to make that official. It’s a sad day when the National Security Advisor is quite comfortable in saying the President will rewrite law at his will.
And it seems that Bush is now in charge of interpreting International law as well:
And if you want to know what additional obligations there may be under international law, that is what the President will provide guidance to in his constitutional authority, and backed up now by the congressional delegation, to define U.S. obligations under treaties.
The phrase, “As long as the river flows…” comes to mind.
But proving that this administration is not made up of completely soul-less, barbaric torturers, Hadley assured that:
I’ll give you a couple in terms of prohibited conduct — torture, cruel or inhuman treatment, performing biological experiments, obviously murder, mutilation or maiming, intentionally causing serious bodily injury, rape, sexual assault or abuse, taking hostages.
But what about waterboarding? Is that torture? Is that cruel or inhumane?
As I said, we are not going to get into discussions of particular techniques.
It’s a simple question and Hadley’s non-answer is, in fact, an answer. George Bush doesn’t believe that waterboarding constitutes torture:
The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner’s face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.
And what about trials for detainees? Remember Lindsey Grahams’ stirring words just last week?
I’m all for protecting classified information from being unfairly disclosed, but you cannot have a trial and call it an American trial, have a Geneva Convention trial where the person goes to jail and never saw what the jury saw….And if we do it differently now — different than we’ve done in 200 years — it will come back to haunt us, because other people will start doing this. And imagine an American in a foreign land going to the death chamber never seeing the evidence against them. It would be an outrage against our people, and we can’t legitimize that.
And today, Hadley explains what is now legitimized:
So in terms of the ability of the defendant and his counsel to, as of right, get classified information, they do not have it. And the legislation is very clear on that.
Apparently it will no longer be an outrage against our people. And what about coerced (read that: obtained through torture) testimony?
Mr. Hadley, you said, on coerced testimony, it could come in if it was reliable and probative, but then it would be examined to see if the methods by which it was obtained were consistent with the Detainee Treatment Act. At what point would that examination occur, and who would make the judgment?
MR. HADLEY: That second standard applies, of course, only for statements that had been obtained after enactment of the Detainee Treatment Act, and it is the military judge, of course, that would make that determination.
Q Based on evidence presented by the defendant and his or her attorney?
MR. HADLEY: And additional information in front of the judge that allows the judge to meet the standard. And obviously, the judge could ask for showings from the prosecutor, and obviously, the defendant would have an opportunity to express their view.
What a relief that defendants will still be allowed to express their view. And thus, Graham’s biggest fear is laid to rest:
My biggest fear is that as we try to solve these complicated legal procedures and problems that we’re seen as taking shortcuts and we don’t redefine the law, we redefine America in a way so we can’t win this war.
Late today, John McCain said:
There’s no doubt that the integrity and letter and spirit of the Geneva Conventions have been preserved.
No doubt? Apparently he didn’t attend today’s press briefing where this so-called compromise was explained.
