Conservative constitutional lawyer
Bruce Fein, in an interview with The Chronicle's editorial page editor
John Diaz, explains why he believes
George W. Bush's foreign policies are making Americans less safe, and why the president and Vice President Dick Cheney should be
impeached.
...it's utterly indispensable that the consitution be preserved and protected, because it is the scientific method for arriving at political truth and wisdom and for keeping the country in balance, avoiding the extremes and hubris that comes with unchecked power.
Listen: 16:22 min
Fein is currently the chairman of the
American Freedom Agenda and formerly was associate deputy attorney general under the Reagan administration. He was the author of an Open Forum piece on July 29 and expresses his views on a recent executive order by the Bush White House in a column by John Diaz on Aug. 5.
moreThis interpretation of our treaty obligations is so transparently implausible that even Robert Turner, who has defended almost all of the Administration's aggressive legal arguments in the conflict against Al Qaeda,
today forcefully dissented from this mangling of the Geneva Conventions. Together with President Reagan's appointed Marine Corps commandant P.X. Kelley, Turner writes:
moreThe Dishonor in a Tortured New 'Interpretation' of the Geneva ConventionsBy P.X. Kelley and Robert F. Turner
Thursday, July 26, 2007; A21
One of us was appointed commandant of the Marine Corps by President Ronald Reagan; the other served as a lawyer in the Reagan White House and has vigorously defended the constitutionality of warrantless National Security Agency wiretaps, presidential signing statements and many other controversial aspects of the war on terrorism. But we cannot in good conscience defend a decision that we believe has compromised our national honor and that may well promote the commission of war crimes by Americans and place at risk the welfare of captured American military forces for generations to come.
The Supreme Court held in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld last summer that all detainees captured in the war on terrorism are protected by Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which prescribes minimum standards of treatment for all persons who are no longer taking an active part in an armed conflict not of an international character. It provides that "in all circumstances" detainees are to be "treated humanely."
<...>
It is firmly established in international law that treaties are to be interpreted in "good faith" in accordance with the ordinary meaning of their words and in light of their purpose. It is clear to us that the language in the executive order cannot even arguably be reconciled with America's clear duty under Common Article 3 to treat all detainees humanely and to avoid any acts of violence against their person.
<...>
The Geneva Conventions provide important protections to our own military forces when we send them into harm's way. Our troops deserve those protections, and we betray their interests when we gratuitously "interpret" key provisions of the conventions in a manner likely to undermine their effectiveness. Policymakers should also keep in mind that violations of Common Article 3 are "war crimes" for which everyone involved -- potentially up to and including the president of the United States -- may be tried in any of the other 193 countries that are parties to the conventions.
more <...>
In response to these outrages, a growing literature of pro-impeachment books, from "The Case for Impeachment" by Dave Lindorff and Barbara Olshansky to "U.S. v. Bush" by Elizabeth Holtzman to "The Impeachment of George W. Bush" by Elizabeth de la Vega, argue not only that Bush's misdeeds are clearly impeachable, but also that a failure to impeach a rogue president bent on amassing unprecedented power will threaten our most cherished traditions. As Lindorff and Olshansky conclude, "If we fail to stand up for the Constitution now, it may be only a piece of paper by the end of President Bush's second term. Then it will be time to be afraid."
<...>
Why? Why was Clinton, who was never as unpopular as Bush, impeached for lying about sex, while Bush faces no sanction for the far more serious offense of lying about war?
The main reason is obvious: The Democrats think it's bad politics. Bush is dying politically and taking the GOP down with him, and impeachment is risky. It could, so the cautious Beltway wisdom has it, provoke a backlash, especially while the war is still going on. Why should the Democrats gamble on hitting the political jackpot when they're likely to walk away from the table big winners anyway?
<...>
The truth is that Bush's high crimes and misdemeanors, far from being too small, are too great. What has saved Bush is the fact that his lies were, literally, a matter of life and death. They were about war. And they were sanctified by 9/11. Bush tapped into a deep American strain of fearful, reflexive bellicosity, which Congress and the media went along with for a long time and which has remained largely unexamined to this day. Congress, the media and most of the American people have yet to turn decisively against Bush because to do so would be to turn against some part of themselves. This doesn't mean we support Bush, simply that at some dim, half-conscious level we're too confused -- not least by our own complicity -- to work up the cold, final anger we'd need to go through impeachment. We haven't done the necessary work to separate ourselves from our abusive spouse. We need therapy -- not to save this disastrous marriage, but to end it.
more:
Leaked Red Cross report sets up Bush team for international war-crimes trialLying to CongressInvading Iraq when he knew Saddam had no WMDIllegal wiretappingU.S. attorney firingsAlberto Gonzales hires defense attorney
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
