Barbara Boxer Kicks Butt!
It was beautiful, yesterday, to see a prominent Democrat stand up to the Bush Administration. Senator Barbara Boxer directly challenged Condoleeza Rice several times yesterday, demanding explanations for her misconduct as part of the Bush Administration, and bringing specific examples of lies, hypocrisies, and - dare I say it? - violations of the law.
In the match of Boxer vs. Rice, there was no contest. Condoleeza Rice sat and stewed, but simply could not offer any rational response to Senator Boxer’s pointed questioning. Republican Chairman Senator Richard Lugar was forced to call a recess in order to protect Condoleeza Rice from further embarassment, and to allow Rice time to recover from her unexpected confrontation with the truth.
In the most beautiful confrontation between Senator Boxer and Condoleeza Rice, Senator Boxer began by pointing out that Rice, in cooperation with President Bush, had recently killed a measure that would have strengthened the ban on torture. The language that Condoleeza Rice and President Bush demanded be removed from pending legislation was as follows: “In general, no prisoner shall be subject to torture or cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment that is prohibited by the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.”
Senator Boxer reminded Condoleeza Rice that she and President Bush had sent a letter, just a few weeks ago, to members of a congress conference committee editing the bill, demanding that they remove the language. The letter from Rice and Bush declared that the anti-torture language “provides legal protections to foreign prisoners to which they are not now entitled under applicable law and policy.”
Here we have a concrete, specific example of how the Bush White House itself has consistently supported the use of torture by American soldiers and intelligence agents. Imagine the message this must send to Americans soldiers and agents in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and at Guantanamo Bay. George W. Bush and Condoleeza Rice are now on the record as declaring that protection from torture is something that foreign prisoners “are not now entitled under applicable law and policy.” It’s a clear signal - torture all you want, but just don’t take pictures of it!
Rice could only respond by declaring that “the Geneva Conventions should not be extended to those who don’t live up to the obligations of the Geneva Convention.”
Think about the implications of this statement for just a moment, and you’ll see that the amateurish, legalistic, circular justifications for torture concocted by Condoleeza Rice, Alberto Gonzales, and others in the Bush Administration can only bring about the complete destruction of Geneva Conventions. If the Geneva Conventions should not be extended to those who don’t live up to the obligations of the Geneva Convention, then it clearly follows that the United States should not be protected by the Geneva Conventions. And then, those nations that would refuse to recognize the USA’s protection under the Geneva Conventions would themselves become exempt from protection under the Geneva Conventions, and on, and on, and on, until the whole world would be reduced to lawless chaos.
Let me explain that to those who have trouble following the circular disintegration of logic employed by Condoleeza Rice and the Bush Administration. Rice has declared that:
- if the enemies of the United States have violated the Geneva Conventions,
- then the United States has the right to violate the Geneva Conventions…
- …by subjecting prisoners from that enemy to torture and inhumane treatment
But then:
- if any nation or group that has violated the Geneva Conventions is exempt from protection under the Geneva Conventions,
- and the United States has violated the Geneva Conventions through what Rice admits is torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners,
- then the United States, and all of its soldiers and intelligence agents, is exempt from protection under the Geneva Conventions,
- and would then have no legal standing to protest the torture and inhumane treatment of its American when they are held prisoner by enemies of the USA
The truth is, of course, that Condoleeza Rice’s excuse for torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners by American soldiers and intelligence agents just doesn’t hold water. The body of domestic and international laws that make it illegal for the US government or any of its agents to engage in acts of torture provide absolutely no exceptions. The Geneva Conventions, to which the US has agreed and is bound, have no clause that states that its requirements are void if someone else breaks the rules first.
I applaud Barbara Boxer for exposing the Bush Administration’s clear affection for torture. As Condoleeza Rice’s letter to Congress shows, the plan for the torture of prisoners held by American forces comes right from the top - George W. Bush himself.
Torture is a serious crime. If the United States of America is to be a nation of laws, and not the feifdom of king, there must be no exceptions to the law - not even for the President. If Americans continue to look the other way while the President of the United States breaks the law, there is no guarantee that they will themselves be protected by the rule of law. The Constitution itself becomes mere kindling in the growing flames of American nationalism.
The choice is clear: Either the American people bring Bush to justice, or they allow justice itself to be wholly consumed by Bush’s ambition for unprecidented power.
Incidentally, I am including this article in the categories of “Democrats” and “Election 2008″ because Senator Barbara Boxer’s actions since Election Day 2004 have been a perfect example of what national Democratic leaders should be, but for the most part are not, doing. I’ll take this opportunity to add my voice to the growing group of progressive Americans who are calling upon Barbara Boxer to run for President in 2008.
Never mind, J.Matthew.
To be honest, at this point in time I don’t care what you think torture is or isn’t.
Maybe some other time.
(Won’t Mommy and Daddy be so happy they won’t have to make funeral arrangements!)
Jean: You ain’t off the hook.
Prove it.
Jean: (Damn, I’m having fun with you!)
” just admit that you made a huge mistake,..”
I said, ahem, MUCH earlier:
“I stand corrected, Neil, others. She DID ask questions. I based my observations on an abbreviated transcript, which I thought, in all honesty, was the COMPLETE transcript. It was not.”
AND…
“Uh, J.Matthew, excuse me: I admitted my error.”
?Habla ingles, Jean?
Yeah, you ARE a Liberal…
What I THINK torture is is irrelevant.
The definitions of torture in U.S. Legal Code, in Judicial Precedent and in International Treaties is relevant.
“What I THINK torture is is irrelevant.
Comment by J. Matthew ‗
Pretty much everything you say is irrelevant, but that’s never stopped you (yet) from yappin’
Kevin, you’re a dishonest creep. You should offer everyone here an apology.
I’m glad Barbara Boxer is standing up for truth, and freedom, and justice. It’s amazing how much partisan Republicans like Kevin hate her for that.
Why do the Republicans hate us liberals so much? It’s because they hate our freedom!
sorry. couldn’t resist the obvious opportunity. and it’s true. republicans can’t stand to have people free from reactionary old rules. makes ‘em get a rash. barbara boxer doesn’t let the republicans tell her what to do. she breaks the rules of the republican elitists, and they hate her for it.
keep it up, senator boxer. ya got my vote.
it’s clear that the republicans have no integrity left. all they have left is the ability to intimidate and bullly americans who still stand up for freedom. benny and kevin’s crude attacks on women show that.
“Kevin, you’re a dishonest creep.”
Such a loooovely sentiment, Heather!
And you’re an insignificant nothing. Take your petty insults somewhere else. They don’t hurt me.
Better yet, keep’em coming. Shows more about you than me.
You demand an apology after calling me a creep? Keep demanding.
“benny and kevin’s crude attacks on women show that.”
Uh, crude attacks? And calling me a creep is supposed to give me a warm fuzzy? You need to get a grip before you make wild accusations such as that.
Again, you’re insignificant and will be easily forgotten.
Pity party for Kevin time! The man spews complete nonsense, insults everyone who tries to point it out, then cries and moans because no one loves him and shows him the proper respect due to a Southern Baptist man who lives in Texas. Oh, come on and grow up Kevin. You blew it, man. Just admit it, or start a new web site at pitypartyforpoorrepublicanspersecturedbyuppityliberalwomen.com
Be a man, you!
Kirk Land:
I had a nice post for you, but I decided that defecating and reading my girlfriend’s People magazine about Brad and Jen’s breakup worth be more time-productive.
Have a great day, Kirk!
“would be more time-productive”
here’s some more waffling and dodging by cook, et. al
“I also like how “Benny†conveniently supplied a new procedural question..
All the other items were secondary. Benny’s attempt to play stylistic gotcha by dredging up an Irregular Times post in 2003 making reference to two other nominal references to reasons ignores that those two other reasons (Iraq-Al Qaeda cooperation that didn’t exist, despotism) were both considered dangerous because Iraq was said to have WMDs. Bush administration officials said the alleged Iraq-Al Qaeda cooperation (which didn’t actually exist) was dangerous because Saddam Hussein would give Al Qaeda nukes (which didn’t actually exist), chemical weapons (which he did not have), or biological weapons (which he did not have). Bush administration officials argued that Hussein was a despot to take out (as opposed to the scores of other despots around the world) because he had WMD (which he did not have).”
” Heather’s “: “benny and kevin’s crude attacks on women show that. ”
First to our fair ‘Heather’ (or Jean, or Patricia, it doesn’t matter when they are all the same) Before you make a statement that sounds very much like a lie (and would thereby render your credibility nil, even if it wasn’t already) why don’t you show explicitly where I made any kind of attack on women, crude or otherwise? You think you can get away with anything, no matter how ridiculous or unsupported it is? I’m sure you do.
To Jimbo: I didn’t start a “new procedural question”, you did, in post #5, which I responded to: To refresh your feeble memory,
“Oh, Bullshit, Kevin.
The reason for war was WMD, WMD, and WMD. Anything else is revisionist politics” So instead of the 1-2-3 WMDs you stated above, you contradict yourself from 2003.
Your attempt to cover that up with the paragraph posted above is one of the silliest, lamest attempts to dance around an issue that I have seen you do yet, and that’s going some.
Benny writes:
“why don’t you show explicitly where I made any kind of attack on women, crude or otherwise?”
Benny, you can forget a response to that one. I have, on three separate occasions, been accused of being sexist. On three separate occasions, I have asked for proof of such an allegations. On three separate occasions, the accusers (Patricia, Latasha, Jean) fell mysteriously silent…
Add Heather to that list, I suppose.
Credibility? These ladies couldn’t get it even if Gloria Steinham delivered it personally to them.
When they (and others like them, regardless of sex- how I hate having to throw that disclaimer in there; it’s so PC) are called to task and they KNOW they are either incorrect or well, lying, they change the subject.
“When the law is on your side, argue the law. When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When neither is on your side, change the subject and question the motives of the opposition.”
Don’t know who wrote that, but I’d like to find out and buy’em a beer.
Kevin, you got it wrong. Wrong. Wrong. You lied to us. You’ve got no credibility here. I’m on board: Barbara Boxer for President! We’ve got our candidate - who the hell can the Republicans run - Dick Cheney?!?
[...] that all are corrupt, that all are hopelessly out of touch with reality. You just have to look for those politicians who at the right time are willing to stand up and declare that the Emperor of the moment has no clothes. And then, as long as their authentic behavior [...]