Legalities
Life, Politics and the Law From ABC News Correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg
Jan Crawford Greenburg is a correspondent for ABC News' bureau in Washington DC. She covers politics, the Supreme Court and provides legal analysis for ABC News. She is a graduate of the University of Chicago's law school and is a member of the New York bar.
RECENT POSTS
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
McClellan: Condi a war criminal?
July 09, 2008 11:28 AM
My colleague Jake Tapper has just posted a rather astonishing excerpt of an interview with former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, in which the former Bush loyalist-turned-critic says top administration officials may be guilty of war crimes for approving the “torture” of top al-Qaeda suspects.
This jaw-dropping admission came after Jake asked McClellan whether he ever said anything from the podium that he knew wasn’t true. McClellan said no, but then added that he’s come to believe he was wrong when he said, “we do not torture” and “we adhere to our international treaties” on detainee treatment.
"Whether or not it was illegal is a matter for other people to address, but I could not say honestly today that this administration does not believe in torture, does not engage in torture. Now, people within the White House continue to believe...that it’s not tantamount to torture. I just hold a different view today on that subject."
McClellan said he was relying on the limited information the administration gave him.
“Now, looking back on that, I hold a very different view, when I know today that we’re engaged in waterboarding and some other harsh interrogation methods,” McClellan said. “I would have never made those comments from the podium had I known exactly what was happening in some of those settings.”
Curiously, McClellan was, in fact, in the White House when the media began reporting that the CIA had used waterboarding as a technique. The New York Times first mentioned waterboarding in 2004, and in 2005, ABC’s Brian Ross was the first to report that the CIA had used it--and other harsh techniques--against al-Qaeda suspects. What’s new since McClellan left the White House in 2006 is official confirmation that waterboarding was used on three suspects, as well as some of the details—including our reports that high-level officials specifically approved those details in meetings in the White House Situation Room.
We reported that one of those officials who repeatedly and specifically approved harsh interrogations was Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, who’s been mentioned in a few places as a possible VP pick for John McCain. That always struck me as a long-shot bordering on preposterous—not only is she one of Bush’s closest advisers, but she approved policies McCain opposed, including the use of waterboarding. Even if she were interested in the job, which she has said she’s not, Rice as Veep could backfire big time on McCain.
McClellan’s comments to Jake make clear what Rice would face on the stump. You’d have a presidential candidate who opposes waterboarding and has called it “torture” and a Veep-candidate who approved it in the Bush Administration—and, in doing so, may have committed “torture” herself, if we’re following McClellan’s argument here.
Now, McClellan did say he wasn’t offering up a legal opinion, but it’s clear he thinks the administration’s legal analysis was wrong (and continues to be, since the White House maintains waterboarding is legal).
There’s a big debate over that—but it’s probably not a debate McCain would like to have with his own VP. For a comprehensive look at the candidates' search for Veeps, click here.
July 9, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (12)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
A simple measure of torture to me is, would I consider it torture if it was being don't to me or my loved ones. Being drown or chained, hanging from my cell bars, I would feel tortured, wouldn't you? I bet Bush or Cheney or Rice would too.
Posted by: JR | Jul 9, 2008 12:04:04 PM
The United States considered water boarding to be both torture and a war crime when our own troops were subject to it. When did the law change?
Posted by: A new day | Jul 9, 2008 12:04:37 PM
As great former POW, where is McSame in the debate on torture? He has runaway from his positions on every single honorable thing. McFlip-McFlop.
Posted by: BKMC | Jul 9, 2008 12:41:40 PM
Saddam used to torture people's children in front of them to get them to give in. In other countries they cut off people's arms when they disagree. Waterboarding must be extremely uncomfortable and very frightening to al-Quaeda suspects. but the present government has been able to protect our country for the last seven years. We should be thankful for that. I think Condi would make a great vice-presidential candidate for McCain. She is so intelligent, a great diplomat and very experienced in foreign policy.
Posted by: pinion65 | Jul 9, 2008 12:49:59 PM
As great former POW, where is McSame in the debate on torture? He has runaway from his positions on every single honorable thing. McFlip-McFlop.
Posted by: BKMC | Jul 9, 2008 12:41:40 PM
McCain is a flip flopper. He was against torture before he was for it. So the McCain of today would torture himself if he were a POW/enemy combatant at this day and time.
Posted by: brigitte | Jul 9, 2008 1:11:28 PM
They voilated international law, and can be held accountable for war crimes by the international court at the Hague. Just because they can force congress (through blackmail from illegal wiretapps perhaps?) to escape any and all accountability, it still doesn't save them from violations of international law.
Posted by: pity | Jul 9, 2008 1:34:17 PM
now i can understand why other countries hate us and lost respect for us bush has destroyed our name we as the usa are suppose to set good examples to the other countries not acting like saddam and other sick dictators its an absolute SHAME AND CRIME what bush and his administration has done to us PUT THEM IN PRISON WHERE THEY BELONG
Posted by: ANGIE | Jul 9, 2008 1:34:20 PM
The only War Criminals are the sick Liberal Hypocrites who are doing everything they can to help terrorism both here and around the world. We are torturing the wrong people - the real enemies are here.
Posted by: Neo Politicus | Jul 9, 2008 1:42:42 PM
"We are torturing the wrong people - the real enemies are here.
- neo politicus
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
- Voltaire
You are choosing a dark road, my friend.
Posted by: neo | Jul 9, 2008 2:32:05 PM
Those who commit and/or condone torture are no better than those they pretend to be protecting us against.
The west won WWII, but I have yet to read any history of that war that claims that the US or any of its allies tortured anyone to gain information.
We in the US claim to set a high moral standard, but by stooping to torture under the pretense of saving lives, we have abandoned any claim we may have had of moral superiority. Torture is nothing more than terrorism inflicted on an individual rather than a group. As a result, we have become no better than the enemy we are fighting.
Posted by: Bob | Jul 9, 2008 3:42:28 PM
Citing the hapless and untalented McClellan recalls the torture we who heard his briefings had to experience. The man was then and remains clueless. That Bush would choose such a dweeb to represent him tells volumes.
Posted by: Robert P | Jul 10, 2008 10:28:15 PM
The people who were being tortured" were top al-Qaeda suspects. These people want to do more than just torture us in the U.S. Now, this entry is not all clear about why the officials approved of the torture, but I say if they approved of it for the purpose of getting information that the al-Qaeda suspects knew that could potentially assist us in the war and get it over with faster WITHOUT WITHDRAWING, it's worth it. Like I said before, the people who were being tortured were top al-Qaeda suspects. If you fell into their hands, they would not exercise any restraint in torturing or even killing.
Posted by: Chris | Jul 21, 2008 11:58:50 AM
Post a comment