Condoleezza Rice was recently speaking at Stanford when students asked her an excellent question on waterboarding and torture. They have her answer on tape and it isn't pretty. Condi Rice absolutely pulls a Nixon.
Here are the relevant quotes:
"The president instructed us that nothing we would do would be outside of our obligations, legal obligations under the Convention Against Torture."
Nothing we would do? Nothing? As I ask in the video above, what would happen if the president authorized you to murder someone, would it still not be illegal?
Next up, Condoleezza Rice denies any personal responsibility:
"I didn't authorize anything. I conveyed the authorization of the administration to the agency, that they had policy authorization, subject to the Justice Department's clearance. That's what I did."
Oh I see, she just conveyed the authorization. And how is that different than giving the authorization?
By the way, lest we forget she "conveyed" the authorization for waterboarding, which has been considered torture and illegal under any and all treaties and laws of the United States. That is exactly why this is a legal hot potato that no one wants to get stuck holding at the end of the day. Here she pushes the blame on to two different entities - President Bush and the Justice Department.
Now, the final coup de grace - once the president authorized it, it became legal:
"The United States was told, we were told, nothing that violates our obligations under the Convention Against Torture, and so by definition, if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Convention Against Torture." (emphasis added)
That is as close as you can get to Richard Nixon's infamous comment, "When the president does it, that means it is not illegal."
This is why I say these people don't understand the whole concept behind America. In our system of government, the president is not supposed to be above the law. He is not a king; his word is not the law. The president can violate the law and when he does, he is supposed to be held accountable. That is supposed to be one of the pillars of our democracy.
Look at what she said: "[B]y definition, if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Convention Against Torture." Does that mean the president can authorize any kind of torture under the Convention Against Torture?
If someone doesn't do something about this dangerous idea it will do more damage than the torture itself. Yes, the torture damaged our reputation across the world, helped terrorists recruit fighters against us, endangered our soldiers and sullied the name of America. But if this precedent - that the president can authorize anything and make it legal "by definition" - is allowed to stand, then our whole form of government is in jeopardy.
A violation of the law is, of course, a big deal, especially on something this grave and important. This is not a jaywalking ticket. There were 34 suspected or confirmed homicides of detainees, some clearly due to torture. It does not get any more serious than this. But what is even worse is if you set the precedent that violations of the law like this will not have any consequences. That is bigger than the crime itself.
The precedent does more damage than the law breaking because it sets the new boundaries and rules for our government. It confirms what Rice and Nixon argue for: When the president does it, that means it is not illegal.
Allowing that idea to stand unchallenged does far more damage to the republic than any one crime committed by any one person (or the prosecution thereof), even if that person is the president.
UPDATE -- The Stanford student who taped this, Reyna Garcia, will join us for an interview on our show tonight at 7:20PM ET. One small upside for those of us who think that the people who "conveyed" the authorization for torture should be held responsible is that hopefully they'll be showered by questions like these wherever they go for the rest of their lives. The infamy has begun for them.
Waterboarding doco welcomes Condoleezza Rice back to Stanford ...
STANFORD STUDENTS SAY "NO!" TO TORTURE - FIRE JOHN YOO!
'Renditions save lives': Condoleezza Rice's full statement - Times ...
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 statement from Nixon was so shocking in its day, even diehard Republicans at the time were astounded.
Condoleezza Rice is a highly intelligent and very well-educated person. The fact that she would mirror almost exactly the same words as Nixon knowing full well the weight of them concerns me greatly. Do a majority of republicans now agree with this statement? Is the Bush and Cheney disregard for the rule of law now the standard administration model for republican party? What happens the next time the republicans gain the White House? Unfortunately I think I already know the answer to all of these questions...
She did not pull a Nixon. She was not the President of the United States. She was acting on instructions from her bosses. For me, i don't find that waterboarding was illegal or torture. I firmly believe that these enhanced security techniques helped the USA fight other possible crimes where thousands of US lives were saved.
And just what planet did she and the rest of Bush's inner circle come from? The new one beyond Pluto obviously since they must not have heard that torture is illegal accorging to the Geneva Convention. If matters not what the President says, it is STILL ILLEGAL amd when are those people going to admit that they knew all along that it was?
"ALICE IN WONDERLAND" DEFENSE TO CRIME.
Alice in Wonderland was convinced that we can make words mean anything we want to. We can in Wonderland. That is why anybody can see through this farce. The question is how could the Bush Administration resort to such a foolish way of think. Cheney also was selective in description of his job. He could decide that if it was convenient he was part of the Executive Branch, but if not part of the Legislative Branch, or maybe he had his own special Department. True pathology, but so far they have gotten away with it except for almost destroying the Republican Party. The reason that they got off track so much is that it appears that none of them are lawyers and the ones they had were complete hacks. I am going to try this "Alice in Wonderland" defense if I even get pulled over for speeding. I am going to tell the police officer that my speedometer said I was only going 20 miles per hour so I cannot be guilty of speeding.
I posted a fact check here - http://digitalinternationalist.blogspot.com/ . It's ironic that she cites the Convention Against Torture, because the Convention's own reporting body, the Committee Against Torture, called for Gitmo to be closed and waterboarding to stop.
anyone who opposes Obama the God is no good,and wrong.
I get the impression that she didn't just become defensive, but that she knew, back when it happened, that it was illegal and she's been feeling guilty ever since. They aren't surprised by the turn of events, they've been preparing for this since they broke their oaths and acted as though they were above the law. There will be a ridiculous number of hurdles put in the way of any prosecution and there will never be any true justice in this matter. In the end it all boils down to the comment "we were scared" which apparently means they lost the ability to read the laws of this land...
My impression was that Condi seemed overly defensive. She knows she did wrong and is trying ti deflect questions with inflammatory statements like " you don't know what it was like watching Americans jump to their deaths" Let's not forget-she personally ignored warnings about Sept. 11th, Deep down, she must feel like a failure.
The only word I could think of for Condi Rice is "COOKED". Yes, you're really cooked Condi. Enjoy your out-of-jail time now. It won't last.
C’mon Condi! No one is questioning your patriotism! Hindsight is 20/20….
That's called a dictatorship. Plain and simple.
Oh she is going to have SO much fun teaching at Stanford again.
NOT!
If "When the President Does It, That Means It is Not Illegal", then I have a question:
Why was Clinton impeached?.
Or does the "When the President Does It, That Means It is Not Illegal" only apply to Republicans?
Dr Rice's answers to your questions will insure that she becomes president of Fetid Springs Community College.
Sounds like someone has been speaking with her attorneys. Under the advice of counsel the president made me do it therefore . . . I have no principles or conscious whereby. . . I think I just said too much henceforth . . . I don't want to got to jail! Help!
Condi certainly has looked around and taken notice of the fact that she is both Black and female. This gives her twice the chance of Rumsfield, Bush, Cheney or any of the authorizing attorneys to become the Bush administration scapegoat. If her signature is on any document (as the report indicates that it is), then that cooks her goose even faster.
Oh boy!
CONSCIENCE. The word is c-o-n-s-c-i-e-n-c-e; you should be "conscious" of that. Basic, basic stuff.
Typos happen. And yes, I am more than aware of the difference. The difference between conscious and conscience in my post is the cup green tea that I didn't have (a lack of oxygen and blood flowing to the brain). Not an absence of spelling skills (or intelligence).
But thanx for pointing that out. I guess.
BTW, I try to make a point to focus on the content of what people are saying, not their spelling skills. I have more posts on here than I would care to count that include typos and misspeaks. I have also encountered a few. Its embarrassing, but altogether human. I manage to focus on what matters. Hopefully you get my point.
They should be held accountable. Why should Bush and Rice walk while our military are punished for following their orders? They are more, not less, at fault because they initiated the torture program.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with