"Stand by your maaaaan..."

This is why I always laughed at reports that Rice wanted to be NFL Commissioner. The problem with her dream is that the NFL actually wants someone intelligent in charge.

'Ignorance of the law is no excuse' seems to apply on both levels.

And what Rice offers is an excuse:
"[T]he United States was told, we were told, nothing that violates our obligations under the Convention Against Torture"

No one needs to be told that torture violates the Convention Against Torture. It does not matter what "[T]he United States was told" or what "we were told."

Feigning ignorance of the law (either one) or being told something that isn't true (even if by the OLC) does not add up to plausible deniability.

'I was told that torture is not torture' hardly renders Ms. Rice not culpable for her actions.

No way does she mean “the president�. This rule only applies if the person is of their particular brand of idiocy. That is, their moral blind spot isn’t large enough to cover the actions of “them�. This is both self-delusion and hypocrisy. My contempt knows no bounds.

Not to defend Rice, but what Rice said wasn't really a circular argument. The question was whether waterboarding is torture. Her answer was that it is not, according to some unnamed source. I suspect it was Bybee, which would explain why she swiched from "The United States was told" to "we were told". He used in his memo, I believe, he definition of torture used in the Convention against Torture.

However, she continues, it does have to be approved by the president. What I don't understand about her argument is why the president's approval would make a difference under this convention.

April 30, 2009

Day 15 since Obama renounced his oath of office to uphold the Constitution and the laws of our country.

That Obama does not want to investigate and prosecute those in the Bush Criminal Enterprise for torture or other illegal activities seems to be consistent with Rice's position.

Other than that it does not work, it is illegal, and it is immoral; what is there not to like about torture. It may be politically expedient for Obama to want to 'move forward' but the failure to uphold our laws is also illegal, immoral, and just plain wrong.

The myth of Condi Rice's competence is one of Washington's most enduring at this point. Her analysis is reliably wrong when it is independent, and slavishly faithful, usually to the wrong folks, when it is unoriginal. Her failures as NS Advisor were manifest and myriad, and yet she was promoted upwards to Sec of State, where she was marginally better. And her record in the academy is lamentable. Her only sole-authored book was horrendous. And yet...so many, even on the left, seem to think she is bright, if misguided. She's failed at almost everything she's tried....

You notice how everybody is getting their defense strategies out there?

"I didn't authorize anything. I conveyed the authorization . . . "

Reading the transcript, Rice is particularly galling by repeatedly claiming that anybody who wasn't in a position of power immediately after 911 has no right to question her now.

Rice at Stanford. Yoo in Berkeley. Gotta love the whole scylla/charibdis aspect of the liberal universities on the left coast. Think I'll send my kids to State -- costs less, better teachers.

Stanford is the seat of the Hoover Institution, one of the most conservative think tanks in the country.

My favorite Condi Rice moment is when she said under oath that the PDB entitled "Osama Bin Laden determined to attack the United States" was a historical document.

Another moment which I think is more indirect was the introduction of Hillary to the State Department - it had that "Ding, Dong, the witch is dead" feel to it.

What's striking to me--beyond the circularity of her claim--is that she says that this is legal because the president authorized it. Not the OLC, Yoo, or Bybee. President Bush.
So, did Rice just confirm that Bush himself violated the Convention, rather than having his minions do so?

What struck me in reading that--though I didn't play the vid--is just how scared she sounds that she will go down over this. As Jinchi and others are pointing out her defense is both "anyone would have done it" and also "I didn't do it, I was just a pass through."

Still, the other thing that struck me is that miss "buying new ferragamos while katrina drowns" seems to have actually been, on some level, personally embarrassed and even shocked that people died "jumping from buildings" on her watch. I think in this way she reminds me even more of Kissinger (who never had that realization, btw) in the sense you get that as an academic she never grasped that people could fucking die after you fuck up. That being Bush's advisor and sec. of state actually carried with it some kind of serious duty to perform.

aimai

She better get some snazzy costumes and hit the ice rink, or start practising piano big time because she just ended any chance of her political career reviving itself.

Next week will she tell us, "Well, I'm not a crook."?

I head a Reagan/Limbaugh-nutty friend in high school who insisted, in response to Iran/Contra, that this was the case - that the president was literally above the law (even in the face of my using those exact words).

Nothing I could say would convince him that this was insane, counter to the rule of law, totalitarian, blatantly counter to the founding father's rejection of the president as an elected king, blatantly violative of the balance of power at the center of the US theory of government, NOTHING.

But I lost touch with him before Clinton was elected, so who knows for how long he "realized" that this idea was insane.

Danp: The question was whether waterboarding is torture. Her answer was that it is not, according to some unnamed source.

Right - I agree it's not circular reasoning. She's saying that the US didn't torture because what we did was defined not to be torture by Bush, Yoo and others.

This kind of thing always reminds me of the movie "Mars Attacks", where the martians are mowing people down with ray guns while saying, "we come in peace". Some people think that they can alter the fabric of reality itself just by renaming things.

Her lack of brains warrants her ineligible to wear that snazzy wig atop her empty head.
How sad that a woman of her potential was harvested for W's career. She could have been a department store mannequin in a better life.

I'm not much of a populist, Ijust play one on the internet, but I think we can't stress too highly just how isolated and isolating the White House is, and the upper echelons of power, from ordinary reality. Its not that I think that lots of no-tooth-trailer park "real people" wouldn't have tortured all their enemies if they got the chance. Its that you have to have been very isolated, priviliged, and thought yourself very, very, powerful to authorize others to do this shit without ever really worrying that you might pay a social, let alone political, price. I think that they must have had some conversations along the lines of "what if we got caught" but have mutually assured each other that their social and political position was such that they would never be publicly impeached, let alone tried. Frankly, I think they are shocked and enraged that Obama hasn't fully embraced the Omerta of high office. They not only told us in advance that they expected that he would "learn things" after he got into power that would "teach him" that being a president requires lots of things candidates won't admit to--they believed it. That's why for all my complaining that Obama hasn't ordered them all indicted and shot (joke)I think he's actually done a lot, within the confines of the imperial presidency, to admit that not only were "mistakes made" but "crimes were committed." Its that little toe over the line that has Cheney and Rice et al really freaked.

aimai

For the life of me, I can't figure out why so many Republicans are twisting themselves in logical knots in their attempt to provide cover for George W. Bush.

Democrats started running away from Jimmy Carter before all the ballots were counted in the 1980 election and barely acknowledged his name for two decades. Republicans at all levels are putting themselves on the line to defend Bush. I really don't understand it.

This is the kind of kind of argument that should lead Rice to be laughed out of polite company.

Screw polite company, this is the kind of thing that should lead to Rice being dragged before a congressional hearing or a criminal court.

Everyone interested in this discussion should read the document Rice is referring to: Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm

It's quite clear that under article 1 paragraph 1 (see below) the Bush Administration tortured. Prior (during?) to these acts President Bush, his staff, and his apologists developed circumloquatious and specious arguments to rationalize their desire to perhaps understandable torture. Yet, even as their desire for intense revenge may have been understandable, the American Government is in theory a civilized government and did agree to act upon the rules listed in the Convention Against Torture. The Convention makes it quite clear there should be penalities for violating its rules.

At first glance, the American government would seem to have broke many of these rules. the Convention created a Committee to handle such accusations. If I were in charge, I would turn it over to the Committee and follow their recommendations.

_________________________________

Article 1

1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions

This is the kind of argument that should lead Rice to be laughed out of polite company. That won't happen, of course . . .

However, there are other things that also won't happen -- Rice as president of a major university, or CEO of a megacorporation, or candidate for high office. And a few years back, it was considered a given she'd end up in one of those slots.

Nixon was defending Nixon. Rice was defending Rice.

It sure is nice to hear the Republicans loudly and proudly give us their Nurenberg defense. Yes, they are all just morally unformed, completely unable to form a coherent set of ethics for themselves, so they have to rely on whatever the President tells them to do.

What pathetic creatures. They would offend Gollum.

DanP,
The question was whether waterboarding is torture. Her answer was that it is not, according to some unnamed source.

Again, it doesn't matter what Rice was told. Anybody facing the question 'Does torture violate the Convention Against Torture' pretty much knows the answer. There's no wiggle room.

What she was told was a lie. It provides no legal cover, least of all b/c they are literally asking if torture violates an anti-tortue statute that spells out what it prohibits.

The circularity thing refers to Rice saying 'if the Prznt does it, "by definition," it is legal.' Some of her statement was implicit.

Jay Bybee is a Wormtongue.

Penalcolony: However, there are other things that also won't happen -- Rice as president of a major university, or CEO of a megacorporation, or candidate for high office. And a few years back, it was considered a given she'd end up in one of those slots.

Honestly, what would stop any of these things? If American culture, as a whole, believed in accountability and morality enough to make you right about this, Feith wouldn't have wound up at Georgetown, Kristol wouldn't be at the Times, Gingrich wouldn't be considered a GOP contender, and I'd never see Rove's ugly mug on the teevee all the time.

If there's some agency in this society which will bring real justice to right-wing political criminals, I have yet to see any evidence for it. Nixon died a free (and rich) man. Ollie North and G. Gordon Liddy both had radio careers, neither one broadcast from prison. The worst thing ever to happen to Reagan and Bush was leaving office after two terms of lawlessness.

Rice will be fine, believe me.

I'm fairly certain the current administrations strange position of "looking forward" has a certain positive benefit in that these Bush admin jackasses continue to provide the rope by which they will be hanged. They got away with breaking and flaunting the law for so long, they're still feeling empowered to defend it as if there won't be repercussions. As congressional republicans don't realize the game's over and they lost, neither do these fools. wilburuva is right. Rice is adding to the stack of evidence that will overwhelm them all.

Again, it doesn't matter what Rice was told. Anybody facing the question 'Does torture violate the Convention Against Torture' pretty much knows the answer. There's no wiggle room. - johnsturgeon

In a vacuum, I agree with you. My argument is that when asked whether waterboarding is torture, "I was told it's not" is not the same as making a circular argument. It's a dodge, but not a circular argument.

"To argue, out loud, without humor, that the president is literally above the law is completely absurd, even by the standards of the Bush administration."

I have to disagree with this comment. I would argue that this is precisely in keeping with the standards of the Bush administration.

DanP: It's a dodge, but not a circular argument.

Par for the course in that administration, too. Bush's working definition of the entire concept of "legal" was "Alberto Gonzales told me it was ok".

If you're of the mindset that if even one person with any kind of legal degree will let you off the hook, you're covered, then doing whatever the hell you want is just a matter of finding that one person. It's a pretty trivial exercise to find a corrupt, sellout willing to rationalize things for you.

Of course, the entire enterprise is sleazy as hell, but there you go.

To argue, out loud, without humor, that the president is literally above the law is completely absurd, [...] -- Steve Benen

Rice's "specialty" is Soviet Union, isn't it? I guess that's the source of her belief. Substitute "Party Secretary" (Lenin, Stalin, Brezhnev... Mao in China) for "president" and you have the attitude to a T. There was always some lip service against "the cult of individual" but, in practice, that was the philosophy -- the head of the state/party is above the law.

DH Walker - You are right. There absolutely is a circular quality to the way Bush operated. He picked advisors and appointees who substituted science and honest judgment with mere disingenuous justifications. EPA on CO2, NASA on global warming, CIA on Iraq War justification, etc. In that sense, whatever he wanted, he affirmed his judgment with phony experts, rather than actually seeking expert opinions. Let's hope that era is over for good.

Bush's working definition of the entire concept of "legal" was "Alberto Gonzales told me it was ok".

I think, more simply, it was quod rex vult, lex fit.

I cannot believe that no one has mentioned the most incredible moment of that exchange:

Student: Even in World War II, as we faced Nazi Germany -- probably the greatest threat that America has ever faced -- even then...

Rice: With all due respect, Nazi Germany never attacked the homeland of the United States.

RP's point is well taken--one easy answer that the poor student wasn't given time to make was

"Uh, I'd like to include pearl harbor in my definition of "world War II..."

or

"Yes, we were, but I guess we were led by people who didn't piss their pants when they heard about Pearl Harbor."

aimai

Aimai:

I think RP's point had to do with Iraq and her own administration's actions.

But this doesn't even make any sense. BushCo self-servingly argued for years that the situations were parallel (when they were anything but). But when it's convenient to downplay the role of the actual Germany (as opposed to the fake one in the Middle East) in 20th century American history, she just tosses it? And in the process undercuts her own entire rationale for attacking Iraq to do so?

I'm with RP. The mendacity and duplicity on display are nothing short of mind-boggling.

Mme Mao at the trial of the Gang of Four (for those of you old enough to remember): "I was Mao's dog. I bit who he wanted me to bite."

I'd say Condi parked her brains and morals when she entered the WH. Borders on devotion to fearless leader territory. She pretty much said that she did whatever Bush wanted as Bush could do no wrong. Scarey sad.

troublesome indeed...though hasn't Obama created some executive powers as well that could be considered illegal?

And the fact that these republican 'principles' never saw the light of day during the clinton presidency allows us to clearly call this what it is: sheer hypocritical partisan hackery.

I don't understand why so many people hate Bush,if Clinton does the same dumb things nothing is mentioned.Neither one were perfect.so lets drop it and plan ahead for better things.

oh my, what an ENORMOUS, disgraceful lie. Read the transcript:

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/04/30/condi_rice_defends_torture_as_legal_and_right

What Rice is saying is that because Bush ordered that nothing be done which was impermissible under CAT, all of his other orders fell under that guideline.

You have totally misrepresented that. Shame, shame, shame.

RP - Unless you consider Animal House your source of history most people remember that Germany didn't attack Pearl Harbor. Also, I think those that Japanese sent to camps might think that there was an overreaction by people who 'pissed their pants when they heard about Pearl Harbor'

gotta go with Rice's rememberance of history over yours.

They really actually believe the President can do no wrong because he's the President, the all powerful being from which law springs forth, ergo he cannot violate law for he does what he does in the benevolent interest of the people he protect.

Basically they believe the President is a god and they worship it.

RP - Unless you consider Animal House your source of history most people remember that Germany didn't attack Pearl Harbor. Also, I think those that Japanese sent to camps might think that there was an overreaction by people who 'pissed their pants when they heard about Pearl Harbor'

You're missing the point entirely. She seems to be suggesting that Al Qaeda is a bigger threat than Germany because of 9/11, but whether or not Germany attacked US soil is irrelevant. The notion that al Qaeda is a bigger threat is simply laughable.