Thanks to a new report from ABC News, we now know that Condoleezza Rice led White House meetings authorizing torture that were so detailed, "the interrogation sessions were almost choreographed."
How can we express the terrible shock we have felt from the fact that our government is using torture? How can we express what so many of us are thinking -- that it is absolutely appalling to know that our representatives are implementing barbaric instruments of torture as policy? How do we express our moral outrage?
Perhaps more importantly, how do we begin to take steps towards ending this heinous crime? Sign the petition and demand Secretary of State Rice to resign.
Our allies at True Majority, USAction, and Democracy for America have launched a campaign to start calling out our leaders by focusing on Condoleezza Rice. No, she is not the president. But we want to call attention to the fact that the Secretary of State called for torture when she was National Security Adviser.
This is our campaign to get all three presidential nominees to call for Rice's resignation. Accountability must start with her, especially now that she's being mentioned as a potential vice presidential candidate. We want to push all the presidential candidates on this issue. They need to make a public stance: Condi Must Go!
Join us in taking action. Join us in creating a firestorm while the traditional media is missing in action. Join us in spreading the word to mobilize our country. We cannot tolerate officials with a blatant disregard for human rights!
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
This woman is a lowlife and a disgrace to our country. I would hope she resigns on her way to the Hague to be tried as a WAR CRIMINAL. All parties to this mess need to be
locked up and the key thrown away. If no one is above the law then prove it.
Semper Fi
THE DEBATE
THE DEBATE
THIS LINK BELOW WILL EXPLAIN THE SADNESS!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SsMTK7IFkw
Oh yeah...she's gonna go alright...right back to where she came from; the Exxon boardroom, where she'll be handsomely rewarded for the fine job she helped with. Quintupling the price of crude while only halving the value of the US dollar..Hey! Not bad. When Bush was suggesting we invest in the private sector for our social security, I wish I'd known he meant that we should invest it in companys the way he and Cheney did...Why, we'd all be feasting like kings now! Or maybe more like vampires.
Not only is Condi Rice not going anywhere, but this story is going to die a well-deserved death.
Why? Well, because of what ABC News didn't put in the story. You don't see Pelosi, Reid, and most notably, Obama, up on their high horses about this precisely because the Administration kept the Democratic Leadership in the loop about enhanced interrogation (a.k.a., "torture") back in 2002-2004, and the Democrats approved.
It's what ABC left out to protect their friends. It's why this story is Dead On Arrival. If the Democrats could be harmed, the Media won't pursue it.
yea.. hey section9, how bout something called EVIDENCE. Why dont you post a link, or a story in the news whihc supports your claims.
otherwise, you're wasting my time.
BS...if your premise was correct, ABC would have never reported the story to begin with.
Even for this REPUBLICAN, for our President (not to be outdoned) and gloat about not only knowing about it, but approving of the meetings in itself is a stain on our history.
Jan. 20, 2009 the end of the GWBush "error"
Maybe some like the idea of evil terrorists getting tortured. But if that makes them defend officials who promote illegal policies in secret meetings and then stand before them and lie repeatedly and emphatically in their faces, then those terrorist-haters have an even poorer opinion of themselves than they have of the terrorists. Thinking you deserve a government that lies to you about fundamental decisions, whether it's torture or spying or reasons to send your friends to war, shows you up for the pathetic codependent non-thinkers you are. Why do you keep sticking up for a government that treats you and YOUR laws like garbage? You can call yourselves patriots in a Banana Republic of your choosing. Just don't call yourselves patriots in a country that's supposedly democratic and based on law.
I hope McCain chooses her for his VP running mate.
I really do.
I can't think of one thing she has done right.
And then Obama can choose General Odom. That should balance things out nicely. Each side could have a black candidate and an experienced, patriotic elderly military man. Except one side would favor war and torture, and the other wouldn't.
Why can't Condi stop lying?
Wait a second Michle. I have tried to respond but has yet to post. Here goes another shot.
I posted that to refute you.
Article 5
"In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity, and in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention."
>That is pretty clear language about humane treatment.
" They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.
> I guess "earliest date" for BushCo is infinity. Which is not very humane.
What do you think of the UN?
Personally, regardless of the UN, I do not want to lower our morals to that of barbarians.
You may desire a cruel, oppressive, dictatorship but I do not.
I'll be right with ya. I gotta dig out my pitch fork and my torch. YEEHAAWWWW
Condi's eyes are like two pieces of coal, just plain frightening. When she was hired, there were whispers that she was a "lightweight." She has done nothing to enhance our stature around the world and, in fact, is an embarrasement. She needs to go now.
"Slapped, deprived of sleep, and simulated drowning (AKA waterboarding)"?
I don't care if we have to pull out their fingernails off one by one!! We are talking about terrorist! People that should be killed on site! But we keep them alive to get information that saves lives. If we need to make them believe they are drowning when they are not, then so be it!! We could do a lot worse! Others do!
"How can we express the terrible shock we have felt from the fact that our government is using torture? How can we express what so many of us are thinking -- that it is absolutely appalling to know that our representatives are implementing barbaric instruments of torture as policy? How do we express our moral outrage?"
"Moral outrage"? Once again, we don't let them sleep, we make them believe they are drowning. TERRORISTS!!! THEY HAVE NO RIGHTS!!!
Rice should be Vice President!
Unsui, you got it exactly right. Rayanthony, It's like the Salem witch trials, how do you prove you are not a witch? How do you prove you are not a terrorrist before they start torturing you. Somebody does not like you and gee, there is an allegation that you are a terrorist. Now you have no rights, and you are being tortured to confess to crimes you have no knowledge of. You confess, because everybody who is tortured does. The sad reality is by denying terrorists some basic level of human rights, you lose your own rights. America doesn't get this quite yet, but it's how fascist states were formed in europe in the 1930's.... the citizens never voted to become fascists (for the most part), they were simply led to it, step by step.. Greece proved it's the prime weakness of democracies, and that is the reason for the 'balance of powers' enshrined in our constitution (thank god for Jefferson.) The real problem is fear. I can read yours between every line above. Fear and the correlary anger is why Americans let themselves be convinced that invading Iraq was an appropriate action. Had we been in our right minds, it would not have been allowed. FDR was right to identify fear as our greatest enemy. After the train gassing in Spain, comparable to our 9/11 in many ways, the citizens refused to allow the government to rescind their constitutional rights. It's sad that America failed our test.
"We are talking about terrorist"! Really, and you know this, how?
See, this is exactly the problem with condemning people without due process. This is what our founders understood from their experience with tyrannical governments. Never mind the moral implications, which one could go on about for pages, the implications for the rest of society are enough that even idiots like you should be able to appreciate them with a little bit of thought.
Today people we think are terrorists, tomorrow people we think are idiots. You have a stake in this rayanthony.
"Today people we think are terrorists, tomorrow people we think are idiots. You have a stake in this rayanthony."
LOL!
Hmmmm, aren't you a terroist? I think so. A couple of seconds of waterboarding and we'd get the true out of you.
She needs to be in jail. Charges need to be brought for her illegal activities. Enough already. Why are any of these criminals still free? When did America become a nation of, by and for the criminal thug thieves? The Rethuglican Party needs to be held to account, and those who broke the law and defied the Constitution they took an oath to protect and defend need to have their collective clocks cleaned. Seven years of "I can do whatever I want no matter how criminal, because I have the power" is seven years too many.
Condi suffers from delusions of adequacy.
Stay away from Stanford
Article 5
Where, in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.
In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity, and in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.
Thank you MicahD...
That pretty much says it all..
Especially this part...
"In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity, and in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention."
Since there is no trial, the rest does not apply..
And this part...
"They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be."
States that when the US decides that the security issues are addressed, the individual in question will be granted all the full rights and privileges of a protected person....
Thank you again....
At least, we have laid to rest the issue of terrorists being afforded Geneva Convention protections..
NEXT!!!!
Maybe someone can answer a question for me... It would be even better if it could be done in an adult and mature manner, free of childish name-calling..
Why is most everyone here so intent on protecting the so-called "rights" of someone who would just as soon slit your throat as look at you??
You people should really take a LOOK at the L.A.R.K Program..
http://www.iiwp.us/html/lark.html
It would be PERFECT for ya'all..
Michale.....
Just remember, we are not just talking about the rights of the accused here. Due and transparent process of law also gives the state a solution, a closure if you will.
When Bush decided that alleged terrorists would detained at Gitmo without trial, he not only denied them the ability to defend themselves, he denied his country the ability to process and resolve the situation. LIfelong detention is costly and, where there is not even the certainty of criminal activity that comes from due legal process, downright embarrassing and inconvenient.
Where numbers of people are held indefinitely without trial (generally in nasty despotic regimes), the practicality of what to do with them is usually resolved in one of two ways. Either people are quietly released and sworn to secrecy or they die early from neglect or ill-treatment, thus saving the face of the regime.
If human rights are truly universal, then we all deserve them.
Actually I put that up to refute your point. It states that --
"In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity, and in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention"
I submit we are not doing anything close to that
And below we see why BushCo keep saying this is a war without end.
"They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be."
What are your feelings about the UN? Because I believe we have a moral duty to not lower ourselves to the standards of barbarians.
Michale, I have read all of your posts. It appears that you believe that all people who we torture are, in fact, terrorists. Every person rounded up in Afghan countrysides and delivered to us by warlords looking for bouties and sitting in Gitmo are "guilty" and deserve to be beyond the reach of a fair trial. Please explain this German who was never found to be guilty of anything, but was chained to a chair for days, hung from the rafters for 24 hour periods upside down, etc. for FOUR YEARS.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/28/60minutes/main3976928.shtml
Read the article or watch the video and tell me why it was good for this guy not to be able to defend himself in a trial. Please. Thanks! (Verbiage below is first paragraph of article)
At the age of 19, Murat Kurnaz vanished into America's shadow prison system in the war on terror. He was from Germany, traveling in Pakistan, and was picked up three months after 9/11. But there seemed to be ample evidence that Kurnaz was an innocent man with no connection to terrorism. The FBI thought so, U.S. intelligence thought so, and German intelligence agreed. But once he was picked up, Kurnaz found himself in a prison system that required no evidence and answered to no one.
ChrisGoDawgs,
It appears from your post that you believe we torture all who we capture. It must suck being so cynical.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/b466ed681ddfcfd241256739003e6368/12409217ce36c309c12563cd0042a5e0?OpenDocument
"persons guilty of violating the laws of war were not entitled to claim its benefits"
Read it and weep, people....
Terrorists and Terrorism are not afforded Geneva Convention Protections..
Michale.....
Wait a minute.
That applies to Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al.
Good argument Michale. Hadn't thought of that!
Nice try..
But Congress, including your Democrats, gave Bush all the legal authority he needs..
But I am glad to see you concede the point that terrorists do not get Geneva Convention protections...
Michale.....
Whoa!
Congress did NOT give Bush "all the legal authority he needs" to either break laws or treaties.
Not to mention torture.
Double-whoa!
As to "guilty of" anything, show me the TRIALS and CONVICTIONS.
No one, including our Congress, has the right to say torture is OK, under any circumstances. Neither Congress nor the President has the right to deny any person human dignity, no matter how heinous that person is. If they're a criminal, charge and try them. If they're a soldier, the Geneva Convention applies. No President has the right to round people up and imprison them with no recourse for the imprisoned. Since when is the USA the USSR? It amazes me how the very things we used to condemn the Soviets for are the very things that Bush apologists say he has the right to do.
Saddam tortured people, too. What if he said that it was OK because they were terrorists?
Here is how I signed the petition:
The highest ranking individuals responsible for America having become a nation that practices torture sully our nation's honor and deserve to be held accountable in a court of law.
The overdue resignation of Condi "It was just a historical briefing" Rice should be merely the preamble to justice -- the first step toward an emergence into light, a return to the spirit of the Founding Fathers who charged us with a "duty" to cast off "despotism" in the Declaration of Independence, the stature of the Constitution, and above all... the Rule of Law.
There are now 25,547 signers, oop, make it 25,602 and counting.
Please help make it 100,000 -- so the sponsors can deliver the petition to all three Presidential candidates.
one more
signed
I'd rather have her prosecuted but that can come later.
Now what university is it she wants to return to? I say NO WAY
What part of this is shocking? This is the woman who was too incompetent to understand "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the US". She's self-centred, unenlightened, cowardly, and ineffective. Just like torture.
It's torture to have this war criminal represent our great nation.
Posted April 16, 2008 | 02:16 PM (EST)