Jump to content
The Education Forum

Jimmy Carter on the Daily Show

Daniel Meyer

Recommended Posts

Former President Jimmy Carter interviewed by John Stewart on "The Daily Show"

Video: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-september-20-2010/jimmy-carter

From about 1:30 to 2:10 some interesting comments.

Carter: "I ran against the establishment. I ran against Washington that was in disgrace.

And where people had despair, they were looking for a fresh face, or fresh faces.

And, it was after Watergate, disaster, and the resignation of a President.

It was after we lost in Vietnam and told lies about it;

It was after the assassination of a President, and his brother, and Martin Luther King Jr.;

It was after Frank Church revealed that the Presidents and the C.I.A. had committed murder over seas.

So people were looking for someone outside, like the Tea Party is now, and I filled that role."

Hm, I wonder what that set of unrelated crimes by some lone nuts is doing in that list of problems with Washington.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

Unless this turns out differently than it seems now, I will be wondering who Jon Stewart takes instructions from....


guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 21 July 2010 17.14 BST

...The deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, was under pressure today after a series of gaffes in the House of Commons forced the government to issue clarifications on Iraq and immigration policy.

Downing Street distanced itself from Clegg's stance on the invasion of Iraq after the Liberal Democrat leader declared it "illegal" at prime minister's questions...


Between Stewart and Colbert, Dueling Rallies


Published: September 17, 2010

...On Thursday night, Mr. Stewart told his television audience that the show had secured the National Mall in Washington for what he called the “Rally to Restore Sanity” on Oct. 30. He later labeled it a “Million Moderate March.”

The purpose, he said, is to present an alternative to what he called a minority of 15 percent or 20 percent of the Americans who have dominated the national political discussion with extreme rhetoric. Mr. Stewart tarred both parties with that charge, citing the attacks on the right accusing President Obama of being everything from a socialist to un-American and on the left accusing former President George W. Bush of being a war criminal....


General who probed Abu Ghraib says Bush officials committed war crimes

Warren P. Strobel | McClatchy Newspapers

Posted on Wednesday, June 18, 2008

WASHINGTON — The Army general who led the investigation into prisoner abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison accused the Bush administration Wednesday of committing "war crimes" and called for those responsible to be held to account.

The remarks by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba, who's now retired, came in a new report that found that U.S. personnel tortured and abused detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, using beatings, electrical shocks, sexual humiliation and other cruel practices.

"After years of disclosures by government investigations, media accounts and reports from human rights organizations, there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes," Taguba wrote. "The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account."

Taguba, whose 2004 investigation documented chilling abuses at Abu Ghraib, is thought to be the most senior official to have accused the administration of war crimes. "The commander in chief and those under him authorized a systematic regime of torture," he wrote.

A White House spokeswoman, Kate Starr, had no comment.

Taguba didn't respond to a request for further comment relayed via a spokesman.

The group Physicians for Human Rights, which compiled the new report, described it as the most in-depth medical and psychological examination of former detainees to date....

...Also this week, a probe by the Senate Armed Services Committee revealed how senior Pentagon officials pushed for harsher interrogation methods over the objections of top military lawyers. Those methods later surfaced in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld didn't specifically approve of the worst abuses, but neither he nor the White House enforced strict limits on how detainees would be treated.

There was no "bright line of abuse which could not be transgressed," former Navy general counsel Alberto Mora told the Senate committee....


The Legality of the Iraq War

By Benjamin B. Ferencz

published: April 2005

....UK military leaders had been calling for clear assurances that the war was legal under international law. They were very mindful that the treaty creating a new International Criminal Court in the Hague had entered into force on July 1, 2002, with full support of the British government. General Sir Mike Jackson, chief of the defense staff, was quoted as saying "I spent a good deal of time recently in the Balkans making sure Milosevic was put behind bars. I have no intention of ending up in the next cell to him in the Hague." On the eve of war, the British Attorney General's abbreviated statement of March 17 was accepted as legal approval of the official US/UK line. Not everyone in the British government could agree that the war that was about to begin was legal.

Prime Minister Blair chose to rely on the summary opinion of his Attorney General rather than the views of the Foreign Office which, ordinarily, would be responsible for opinions affecting foreign relations and international law. On March 18, 2003, the Deputy Legal Adviser to the Foreign Ministry, Elizabeth Wilmshurst, resigned. Her letter of resignation, after more than 30 years of service, stated: "I regret that I cannot agree that it is lawful to use force against Iraq without a second Security Council resolution..." She had, for many years, represented the UK at meetings of the UN preparatory committees for an international criminal court and was recognized as one of the foremost experts on the subject of aggression. Her letter stated..."an unlawful use of force on such a scale amounts to the crime of aggression; nor can I agree with such action in circumstances that are so detrimental to the international order and the rule of law."

Elizabeth Wilmshurst remembered that the Nuremberg trials had condemned aggressive war as "the supreme international crime" That decision had been affirmed by the UN General Assembly and followed in many other cases. She demonstrated Professor Tom Franck's concluding appeal in the 2003 Agora that "lawyers should zealously guard their professional integrity for a time when it can again be used in the service of the common weal."

Benjamin B. Ferencz

A former Nuremberg Prosecutor

J.D. Harvard (1943)


Lawyer evidence at Chilcot inquiry will turn heat on Tony Blair

Panel under pressure to call former PM's political advisers to give evidence after senior lawyers testify that invasion was illegal

Richard Norton-Taylor

guardian.co.uk, Sunday 24 January 2010 21.39 GMT

...Blair will be questioned after the inquiry hears damning evidence about the case he made for war. Wood will tell the inquiry on Tuesday that he believed the war would have been unlawful without a second UN security council resolution.

Wood told the Butler inquiry that was his view, according to Philippe Sands QC, professor of international law at University College London and author of Lawless World, a highly critical account of US and UK policy on Iraq and terrorism. The Butler committee, which was asked to look into the use of intelligence in the run-up to the invasion, did not refer to it in its 2004 report, arguing that the legality of the invasion was not in its terms of reference.

Unlike Wood, Wilmshurst, who will also appear before the inquiry on Tuesday, resigned before the invasion. She was the only official to do so, despite widespread opposition in Whitehall to the war on pragmatic and principled grounds.

Her resignation letter said: "I cannot in conscience go along with advice … which asserts the legitimacy of military action without such a [second] resolution, particularly since an unlawful use of force on such a scale amounts to the crime of aggression." She added: "Nor can I agree with such action in circumstances which are so detrimental to the international order and rule of law."

In a passage of her letter suppressed by the government but subsequently leaked to the Guardian, Wilmshurst said her views accorded with advice consistently given by FO lawyers "and with what the attorney general gave us to understand was his view prior to … 7 March".

In his only written legal opinion, on 7 March 2003, Goldsmith shifted his ground from opposition to war to telling Blair that a case could be made out that an invasion was justified in law. However, he warned there was a risk that the government and British military commanders would be charged with war crimes. "There are a number of ways in which the opponents of military action might seek to bring a legal case … We cannot be certain that they would not succeed," he said.

He insisted that it was for the UN security council to assess whether Iraq was in breach of its obligation not to continue producing weapons of mass destruction.

Goldsmith's legal advice and warnings were not shown to the cabinet.

It is known that Goldsmith met Morgan and Falconer on 13 March. It is understood that no minutes were taken. It is known that Lord Boyce, chief of the defence staff, was demanding "unequivocal" advice that an invasion would be lawful.

After contacting Downing Street, Goldsmith's office told Boyce that an invasion would indeed be "unequivocably" lawful. Goldsmith thus accepted that No 10 could decide Iraq was in breach of its obligations, even though he had told Blair on 7 March that such a decision was up to the UN security council. Though no new evidence emerged that Iraq was still producing WMD, Goldsmith nevertheless told MPs and the cabinet that war was lawful, in a brief parliamentary answer released on 17 March, the eve of the Commons vote.

Goldsmith had also warned Blair on 7 March that "regime change cannot be the objective of military action". The Chilcot inquiry has heard evidence that Blair backed regime change after meeting George Bush in Texas, in April 2002, though in public he and his ministers insisted disarmament was the objective.

"From September [2002] onwards, every statement that comes from the prime minister and any other minister of the government is entirely about disarmament ... disarmament, disarmament, disarmament," Lord Turnbull, cabinet secretary at the time, told the inquiry.

Turnbull referred to a BBC interview Blair gave last month in which he said he would have invaded Iraq even without evidence of WMD and would have found a way to justify the war to parliament and the public...

Edited by Tom Scully
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now
  • Create New...