In his
2002 State of the Union address, Bush stated that
America will always stand firm for the non-negotiable demands of human dignity: the rule of law; limits on the power of the state; respect for women; private property; free speech; equal justice; and religious tolerance.
Yes, from what we've witnessed since this address, the statement would be funny if the consequences of its falsity weren't so damned deadly serious.
But there is an element of truth in those words: The Bush administration was for the rule of law before it was against it. The evidence is in the administration's actions on behalf of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
In 2001, there was pending in a federal district court a lawsuit brought by some of the hostages held in Iran, and some of their family members, after the U.S. Embassy was stormed in 1979. Said the presiding judge of the hostages' plight:
These hostages remained in Iranian custody for 444 days and were subjected to physical and mental torture and inhumane conditions of confinement. At the non-jury trial conducted in this case, former hostages testified about the treatment they endured. The hostages were often blindfolded and tied to chairs or other objects for prolonged periods of time. They were at times kept in isolation from one another, and denied the right to communicate with one another or their families. Several hostages recounted physical abuse, including being kicked, beaten, punched, walked blindfolded into obstacles such as trees, and being exposed with minimal clothing to the elements. The hostages were imprisoned in cold, dark locations, including prisons, and were given only minimal clothing, food, water, and medical care.
The hostages were repeatedly interrogated by their Iranian captors. Several hostages told of being threatened with release to chanting mobs or being placed on trial in Iran for being spies. One former hostage testified that during one interrogation he was told that his wife and children were in danger, as one of his interrogators recited exactly where the hostage's disabled son went to school, what bus he rode, and the location of his home. That hostage was told that unless he confessed his son's fingers and toes would be delivered to his wife and mother.
The former hostages also testified about simulated executions, in which they were awakened in the middle of the night, marched outside, forced to lean against a wall while listening to what they believed was a firing squad preparing its weapons and taking aim, only to be called off at the last second.
Iran didn't appear in the lawsuit, the plaintiffs got a default judgment, and the judge set a hearing on their damages.
On the eve of that hearing, the United States filed motions to intervene in the lawsuit, to vacate the default judgment, and to dismiss the plaintiffs' suit. The reason? Adherence to the rule of law, specifically the Algiers Accord, which is the agreement between the United States and Iran that embodied the negotiated terms on the release of the hostages. According to the court, which sided with the government:
The interest asserted by the United States is the "adherence to its commitments under the Algiers Accords," and "meeting its obligation to terminate legal proceedings that have been brought in contravention of an international legal agreement to which the United States is a party." This specific interest has been recognized by the D.C. Circuit as sufficient to justify intervention in actions against Iran in the past.
To underscore the administration's commitment to the rule of law, before it was against the rule of law, note the timing of the government's activity in the case.
The default judgment was entered on August 13, 2001, during the lazy, hazy days of summer when it seemed newsworthy to cover a moose in a suburban swimming pool. Yet, for whatever reason, the hostages' lawsuit didn't pop up on the government's radar until a month later, in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks. The court said the intervention motion was filed "less than 30 days" after the government became aware of its interest in the lawsuit; that likely means it was close to 30 days, which would put the discovery in the week following the attacks.
So, while the nation was reeling in horror over the attacks, the military was planning a strike on Afghanistan, the WTC site was smoldering, and the number of dead was still a matter of speculation, someone managed to notice the hostages' lawsuit and recognized the importance of upholding the Algiers Accord. Now that's honoring the rule of law.
The timing gets better: Part of the government's case was the argument that Iran was not a state sponsor of terrorism. For purposes of the lawsuit, this was a question of interpreting various statutes. The irony is that while this argument was being litigated, Bush's speechwriters were busy at work on this:
Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom ... States like these (Iraq, Iran and North Korea), and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred.
Three months after SOTU 2002, the hostages' lawsuit was dismissed.
So, the next time we want to call Bush a liar, to raise our voices in disgust over his sanction of torture, to exercise our first amendment rights outside a free speech zone, to decry Bush's signing statements, just remember that when it really matters, when American citizens seek recompense from a regime that held them captive and committed descpicable acts against them, team Bush is there to uphold the rule of law. It is, after all, a non-negotiable demand of human dignity.
Case citation: Roeder v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 195 F. Supp. 2d 140 (D.C. 2002).