Posted by Matthew Chayes at 3:05 pm CST
A day after the Bush administration defended the legality of its military tribunals for suspected terrorists before a skeptical Supreme Court, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice took center stage for a broad defense of the Bush administration’s foreign policy in a ballroom overflowing with international lawyers.
And when you get lawyers in a ballroom, watch out for fireworks--or at least what passes for fireworks in this swamp of a town.
The session was billed as “A Conversation with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice,” but it featured a panel of four. The goal was to look at the role of international law in the war on terror, torture and other hot topics.
Rice overshadowed another panelist, former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who looked infirm and barely spoke during the hour-long session Wednesday. She spent most of her time fidgeting and nodding while Rice lectured.
Toward the end of the discussion, PBS correspondent Gwen Ifill, the moderator, interrupted a long stretch of Rice Talk to give O’Connor and the other panelists a chance to speak.
“No, I don’t think I have a contribution,” the new retiree said.
“Okkayyyyyy,” responded the bemused Ifill. The audience laughed nervously.
In contrast, Rice, just blocks from her Foggy Bottom headquarters, couldn’t wait to get her words in edgewise.
After José Alvarez, president-elect of the American Society of International Law, complained that the administration was not treating Al Qaeda detainees in accordance with the Geneva Conventions and suggested that U.S. soldiers had not received proper instructions for handling prisoners, Rice raised her index finger and said, “Uh, may I?”
Ifill, smiling, loved it. “And you may respond, Madame Secretary,” she said.
Rice gave a standard White House defense. “The United States is going to live up to its obligations under the Convention Against Torture,” Rice said. “The president’s been very clear about that.”
Alvarez didn’t pass up another opportunity to take a shot at America’s chief diplomat after she declared how vital government separation of powers is for the Russian Federation.
“I would just like to say I’m delighted to hear the secretary praise a system of checks and balances and reviewable authority because at least some members have been quite concerned about that much closer to home,” Alvarez said with a self-satisfied grin.
The audience laughed and clapped in response to the jab at the Bush administration’s alleged penchant for rolling over Congress and the courts.
The secretary didn’t react. Maybe they taught her that in diplomacy school.
“There’s always an inside joke, isn’t there?” Ifill said.
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
A fine line indeed, Mr. Chayes. A very keen observation of the atmosphere and a good example of letting the quotes tell the story. Well said.
Posted by: Rick Redmond | March 31, 2006 5:23 PM
If we intend to live up to the Conventions on Torture, why did Bush say that the McCain amendment was not binding? It is hard to believe that he did so just to support his controversial unitary concept of executive power. Rice continues to pretend that renditioning has never occurred, and when asked about the ligitimacy of water boarding during her confirmation hearings, she refused to offer a response, saying it was for other branches of government to decide what constitutes torture. So, if we are to believe her own words, she does not know what torture is. But she is sure we do not practice it. After all, the President has always said we didn't. There is the problem: her credibility is the same as his credibility on this issue. They are now both near zero.
Posted by: jim greene | April 2, 2006 11:38 AM
seems like just another chance to attack our president and his administration and also the milatary. kidnappings, beheadings, innocent children and civilians (not to even talk about 9-11) killed, but we are the one's doing the torturing. SOMETHINGS NOT RIGHT..............
Posted by: lee vence | April 2, 2006 1:31 PM