Rice Channels Nixon: Since The President Authorized Torture, That Makes It Legal

[ProSense]

Rice Channels Nixon: Since The President Authorized Torture, That Makes It Legal

Recently, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice spoke with some students at Stanford University, where she is a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institute. When a student asked whether Rice had authorized torture, she refused to take responsibility, saying only that she "conveyed the authorization of the administration." She added that, "by definition," once the president authorized "enhanced interrogations," they were automatically legal:

Q: Is waterboarding torture?

RICE: The president instructed us that nothing we would do would be outside of our obligations, legal obligations under the Convention Against Torture. So that's -- And by the way, 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.

Q: Okay. Is waterboarding torture in your opinion?

RICE: I just said, 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.

The Young Turks' Cenk Uygur, who obtained the video, said Rice "absolutely pulls a Nixon" in her answer. Watch it (Rice's answers come at 0:57):

<...>

Rice is attempting to hide her central role in approving torture, as the Senate Armed Services Committee report released last week highlighted. She gave verbal authorization to then-director of the CIA George Tenet to waterboard Abu Zubaydah in July 2002 -- one month before the Office of Legal Counsel gave the legal justification for such torture.

Rice's opinion that a presidential authorization -- "by definition" -- grants something legality is deeply disturbing. In fact, the United States -- and its president -- are bound by U.S. statute and international treaties that ban the use of cruel, humiliating, degrading treatment, the infliction of suffering, and the attempt to extract coerced confessions.

Memo to Rice: Bush may have been "the Decider," but he didn't have the authority to make an illegal act magically legal.

[joeybee12]

1. She makes me sick.

:puke:

[AndyA]

2. That reasoning worked so well for Nixon, might as well recycle it, right?

REPUBLICANS = FAILURE.

They lie, cheat, steal. They torture, waste money, and discriminate.

Stick a fork in the GOP. They're done.

[avaistheone1]

3. That's correct. I have proof.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejvyDn1TPr8


Condi Rice makes me sick too. :puke:

She should be in prison right next to her boyfriend "The Decider".

[ProSense]

4. This statement by Rice is going to make prosecuting easier.

I hope she, Cheney and others keep talking.

[avaistheone1]

8. Me too. And may they get there just desserts.

[JohnnyLib2]

5. Deja vu, Nixon years.

That didn't end well...

[ProSense]

6. More Condi craziness:

Rice: Nazis were less of a threat to the U.S. than al Qaeda; SCOTUS wouldn’t let us try detainees.

[Uzybone]

10. This is beyond belief that a one time US Sec of State said this

Q: Even in World War II facing Nazi Germany, probably the greatest threat that America has ever faced –

RICE: Uh, with all due respect, Nazi Germany never attacked the homeland of the United States.

Q: No, but they bombed our allies –

RICE: No, just a second, just a second. Three-thousand Americans died in the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.

Q: 500,000 died in World War II –

RICE: Fighting a war in Europe.

Q: — and yet we did not torture the prisoners of war.

RICE: We didn’t torture anybody here either.


Plus didn't Nazi Uboats attack ships in New York waters at some point?

[Egnever]

15. Oh WTF these guys are getting obscene.

[Egnever]

7. Sigh these guys are stone cold crazy.

bunch of little children all saying it wasnt me it wasnt me! The party of personal responsibility my ass!

[Brother Buzz]

9. I think Rice was channeling Yoo

A brief primer designed to help you understand the workings of our new, streamlined American system of government

Jon Carroll
Monday, January 2, 2006

Perhaps you have been unable to follow the intricacies of the logic used by John Yoo, the UC Berkeley law professor who has emerged as the president's foremost apologist for all the stuff he has to apologize for. I have therefore prepared a brief, informal summary of the relevant arguments.

Why does the president have the power to unilaterally authorize wiretaps of American citizens?

Because he is the president.

Does the president always have that power?

No. Only when he is fighting the war on terror does he have that power.

When will the war on terror be over?

The fight against terror is eternal. Terror is not a nation; it is a tactic. As long as the president is fighting a tactic, he can use any means he deems appropriate.

Why does the president have that power?

It's in the Constitution.

Where in the Constitution?

It can be inferred from the Constitution. When the president is protecting America, he may by definition make any inference from the Constitution that he chooses. He is keeping America safe.

Who decides what measures are necessary to keep America safe?

The president.

Who has oversight over the actions of the president?

The president oversees his own actions. If at any time he determines that he is a danger to America, he has the right to wiretap himself, name himself an enemy combatant and spirit himself away to a secret prison in Egypt.

But isn't there a secret court, the FISA court, that has the power to authorize wiretapping warrants? Wasn't that court set up for just such situations when national security is at stake?

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court might disagree with the president. It might thwart his plans. It is a danger to the democracy that we hold so dear. We must never let the courts stand in the way of America's safety.

So there are no guarantees that the president will act in the best interests of the country?

The president was elected by the people. They chose him; therefore he represents the will of the people. The people would never act against their own interests; therefore, the president can never act against the best interests of the people. It's a doctrine I like to call "the triumph of the will".

But surely the Congress was also elected by the people, and therefore also represents the will of the people. Is that not true?

Congress? Please.

It's sounding more and more as if your version of the presidency resembles an absolute monarchy. Does it?

Of course not. We Americans hate kings. Kings must wear crowns and visit trade fairs and expositions. The president only wears a cowboy hat and visits military bases, and then only if he wants to.

Can the president authorize torture?

No. The president can only authorize appropriate means.

Could those appropriate means include torture?

It's not torture if the president says it's not torture. It's merely appropriate. Remember, America is under constant attack from terrorism. The president must use any means necessary to protect America.

Won't the American people object?

Not if they're scared enough.

What if the Supreme Court rules against the president?

The president has respect for the Supreme Court. We are a nation of laws, not of men. In the unlikely event that the court would rule against the president, he has the right to deny that he was ever doing what he was accused of doing, and to keep further actions secret. He also has the right to rename any practices the court finds repugnant. "Wiretapping" could be called "protective listening". There's nothing the matter with protective listening.

Recently, a White House spokesman defended the wiretaps this way: "This is not about monitoring phone calls designed to arrange Little League practice or what to bring to a potluck dinner. These are designed to monitor calls from very bad people to very bad people who have a history of blowing up commuter trains, weddings and churches." If these very bad people have blown up churches, why not just arrest them?

That information is classified.

Have many weddings been blown up by terrorists?

No, they haven't, which is proof that the system works. The president does reserve the right to blow up gay terrorist weddings -- but only if he determines that the safety of the nation is at stake. The president is also keeping his eye on churches, many of which have become fonts of sedition. I do not believe that the president has any problem with commuter trains, although that could always change.

So this policy will be in place right up until the next election?

Election? Let's just say that we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. It may not be wise to have an election in a time of national peril.

[hileeopnyn8d]

11. Holy crap!

That wasn't an actual interview, was it?

[Brother Buzz]

16. No, it's just Jon Carroll's summary of John Yoo's twisted logic fallacies

Political satire is a strong weapon, don't leave home without it. Sometimes political satire bleeds into and complements the social criticism realm; Carroll does on a regular basis.

[NYC_SKP]

12. Then by Rice's standards, hummers in the Whitehouse with Interns are legal, too.

:shrug:

[ProSense]

13. Did Rice Just Implicate Bush?

If the President Does It, It Isn’t Torture: Did Rice Just Implicate Bush?

Yup!

[ProSense]

14. "she is implicitly suggesting that the responsibility for torture...rest with the President himself"

Rice: Bush Ordered It, And Therefore It Isn't Torture

<...>

In this excerpt, she seems to suggest that (1) President Bush directly ordered enhanced interrogation practices, (2) that she did not authorize these practices, but merely conveyed the authorization to others, and finally, (3) that because the President authorized them, these practices did not violate the Convention Against Torture. Rice did not, however, explain why they did not violate the Anti-Torture Statute or the War Crimes Act, both passed by Congress.

<...>

Moreover, by trying to excuse herself on the ground that she was only following Bush's authorization, she is implicitly suggesting that the responsibility for torture (which, she insists, could not occur "by definition"), must rest with the President himself.

<...>

[Number23]

17. lol Condi is not playing

She's probably thinking, "George, if you think I'm going to take the fall for your @ss, you are dumber than I ever thought you were. Think of that the next time you're in bed with your wife instead of meee!"