I recently saw a frustrated comment on DailyKos that said, paraphrasing, "Where is the American Bar Association? Why aren't they opposing Bush's effort to repudiate the Geneva Convention?" It got my attention because the ABA has not been silent on this issue, far from it.
While I certainly don't speak for the ABA, the ABA does a far better job of speaking for itself than I could anyway.
See you on the other side...
The ABA's position on anti-terrorism efforts is simple:
Due Process Must Be Preserved.
The ABA urges that U.S. citizens and other residents detained as "enemy combatants" be afforded certain procedural rights, including the opportunity for meaningful judicial review of their status and access to counsel. The Association also urges that military tribunals authorized to conduct trials of suspected terrorists be used only in limited circumstances, that the procedures for trials and appeals be governed generally by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and that all defendants have the opportunity to receive the effective representation of civilian defense counsel. The ABA opposes any future electronic surveillance inside the United States for foreign intelligence purposes that does not comply with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The ABA opposes the incommunicado detention of foreign nationals and supports disclosure of the names of the detainees and the nature of the charges involved.
In other words, the ABA is in favor of the rule of law and preservation of Constitutional rights. Unsurprisingly, those principles require that it be opposed to the Bush administration's initiatives.
Today the ABA Journal published a report from a Chicago conference between the ABA and its international counterpart, the IBA. International lawyers expressed deep concern for the rule of law being undermined by the Bush administration. Naturally, the symposium was not even attended by any Bush administration officials involved in such issues. That's a shame, because if they had bothered to attend the conference they would have heard dire warnings like this one:
"The United States has an idealistic idea of its legal principles, and a large part of the world bought into it, and now [the world is] buying out of it," said [president of the International Bar Association and London lawyer Francis] Neate.]
See, there's a good reason why the United States devoted generations of leadership to promoting the rule of law: it's in our best interests. It makes the world a safer, more stable place. Until now.
The Supreme Court of the United States held in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that captured combatants are entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions, including the right to a fair trial. Today, the United States is on notice from the international community. If the Bush administration succeeds in re-defining the meaning of the Geneva Conventions, other nations will see it as a repudiation of its moral authority. There may be severe consequences for the United States' captured military personnel.
In addition, when Republicans embrace torture coercive interrogation and kangaroo courts convictions based on secret evidence and coerced confessions, they give aid and comfort to tyrants around the world:
Symposium keynote speaker Mary Robinson, former president of Ireland who later served as U.N. high commissioner for human rights, said, "The language of war has made it easier for some governments to introduce new repressive laws to extend security policies, suppress political dissent and stifle expression of opinion."
. . .
"The United States has, often inadvertently, given other governments an opening to take their own measures which run counter to the rule of law and undermine efforts to strengthen democratic forms of government," Robinson said. "The language of war has made it easier for some governments to introduce new repressive laws to extend security policies, suppress political dissent and stifle expression of opinion of many who have no link to terrorism and are not associated with political violence."
The language of the fight against terrorism "has also led to Orwellian euphemisms," Robinson said, "so that `coercive interrogation' is used instead of torture or cruel and inhuman treatment. Kidnapping becomes `extraordinary rendition.' "
To his credit, the U.K.'s attorney general, Peter Goldsmith did not shy away from directly criticizing the Bush administration's approach to the treatment of terror suspects, saying that "maintaining a commitment to the rule of law is a key element in winning the war of values and thus in defeating the forces of extremism, of chaos and of terror."
"I cannot agree with those civil libertarians who believe that 9/11 changed nothing and therefore no changes to our traditional ways of safeguarding fundamental values can be allowed," [Goldsmith] said. "But equally I do not share the view of those who assert that 9/11 changed everything and therefore any changes are worth making if they might increase our security, whatever the impact on the fundamental values and liberties on which our societies are based."
Among the principles that should not be compromised, Goldsmith said, are prohibitions against torture and the right to a fair trial. Accordingly, the British government's view is that "the prohibition on torture is simply nonnegotiable," he said, and "we have rejected reducing the burden of proof for terrorism offenses and allowing secret evidence in terrorist trials."
Alluding to the debate in the U.S. government over the possibility of reinterpreting standards under the Geneva Conventions, "I must be careful what I say," Goldsmith told the symposium audience. "I will only say this today: That this is an international standard of very considerable importance, and its content must be the same for all nations."
Goldsmith, who played a key role in the British government's request in 2003 that British detainees be released from the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, reasserted his position that the camp should be closed. "It is a symbol which the long American tradition of justice and liberty deserves to have removed at the earliest moment," he said.
This is what we've come to. The British government has to lecture the U.S. about its own traditions of justice and liberty.