Posted on 05/04/2011 7:12:22 AM PDT by Crush
Who could forget leftwing furor over President George W. Bushs prosecution of the War on Terror? From Code Pink to human rights wonks at the UN, Bush was assailed at every turn. There was a push to haul the US president before the International Court on issues like detainee interrogations, the prison at Guantanamo Bay and rendition.
What a difference the Oval Office makes. Last time I looked, Gitmo was still intact. Furthermore, I'm betting if he'd been given a choice, as soon as he saw those Navy SEALs, Osama bin Laden would've screamed, "Rendition, please?"
Now having rightfully dispatched (via the American military) bin Laden (the international assassin and organizer with no country), President Barack Obama is facing criticism from international rights advocates about a unilateral action that in my opinion was perfectly justified.
Predictably Der Spiegel asked, Was bin Ladens killing legal?
Before too long the United Nations will come calling, probably armed with a copy of the human rights report filed by the U.S. that was another unnecessary apology.
Whats curious about the unilateral act that took bin Laden to his final resting place (wherever in the ocean that may be) is a speech made by Harold Hongju Koh, Obamas chosen Legal Adviser at the U.S. Department of State.
In a speech given before the American Society of International Law in March, 2010, Koh waxed eloquently, not about unilateralism but multilaterialism:
But, I would argueand these are the core of my remarks today-- to say that is to understate the most important difference between this administration and the last: and that is with respect to its approach and attitude toward international law. The difference...
(Excerpt) Read more at theusreport.com ...
The difference is, who holds the great power of the US. When the left holds that power, the end justifies the means... when the right holds that power, no means is ever justifiable.
Koh served in the Clinton administration as assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor
Koh:
Eight years ago, as the assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights, and labor, I testified to a United Nations committee in Geneva that the United States is unalterably committed to a world without torture. I continued: Torture is prohibited by law throughout the United States. It is categorically denounced as a matter of policy and as a tool of state authority. In every instance, torture is a criminal offense. No official of the governmentfederal, state, or local, civilian or militaryis authorized to commit or to instruct anyone else to commit torture. Nor may any official condone or tolerate torture in any form. No exceptional circumstances may be invoked as a justification for torture.
That unequivocal statement was not asserted casuallyit had been previously agreed to by dozens of government officials. None of us dreamed that within a decade, our government would openly practice torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, and that many Americans would defend the policy. . . .
As a professor of law, I was therefore sickened by the Justice Departments August 2002 torture opinion, which concluded that U.S. officials can order the torture of suspected terrorists with impunity. I have worked in both Democratic and Republican administrations, including as an attorney in the office of the Justice Department that drafted that opinion. I understand the tremendous pressures that government lawyers labor under. Nevertheless, I considered this opinion to be a disgrace, not only to that office, but to the entire legal profession.. . .
The administration withdrew the memo in 2004, and has since retreated from some of its most extreme legal assertions. However, despite these gestures, it has still not backed down from the claim that torture in the shadows must remain an essential part of our antiterrorism policies. The Bush administration still argues that Congress has no power to regulate interrogation procedures, that past acts of waterboarding were legal, and that lawyers who object to the use of waterboarding are engaged in unpatriotic lawfare. . . .
America is a country founded on human rights. Human rights define who we are as a nation and as a people. A ban against official cruelty is one of our most sacred values. If we condone it, we gain nothing, and lose our identity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.