There is an interesting exchange that has surfaced between a Stanford student and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who is a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institute at Stanford. The student confronted Rice about whether waterboarding is torture. She responded with a Nixonesque argument that, if the president ordered it, it cannot be a war crime. It sounds a lot like Nixon’s 1977 statement: “When the president does it, that means it is not illegal.” I discussed the Rice comment on this segment of Hardball.
Here is the exchange:
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 exchange is fascinating from a number of perspectives. First, it shows Rice desperately trying to fall into Obama’s ever-increasing group of exempted people “just following orders.” Her role, however, was significant in establishing the torture program. She had an independent responsibility to refuse to participate in a war crime.
Second, most war crimes involve officials who order them under the claim that they are perfectly legal. The Germans, Japanese, Serbians, and now the Bush Administration have made such claims.
Rice can certainly try to convince the world that waterboarding is not torture — an admittedly unlikely prospect. However, she can hardly portray herself as a messenger girl for the president with no independent judgment or responsibilities. The Senate Intelligence and Armed Forces Committees have released reports that show a much greater role by Rice than she has ever admitted.
Article II, Section 3 of the Convention Against Torture expressly states “An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.”
The fact is that Rice could do much better in studying the use of this defense by a professional, here.
Ms. Rice disgraces intelligent women throughout the free world.
‘Fesser Turley,
Are you for sure and for certain that you want to, once again, subject yourself to “Tweety’s” Twitter?
Dr. Rice, despite her long association with Stanford and academia has proven to be nothing more than a sycophantic enabler of an ignoramus (George W. Bush) being manipulated by a greedy war profiteer (Dick Cheney). Rice’s hiding behind “presidential authority” is truly pathetic, and seems to indicate her own education was wasted.
First of all, you consider that she did in fact go to class and did not have a free ride.
Second of all: Sig Heil, Sig Heil Main Furror.
Big Fella,
You raise an interesting point. Everything I heard about Ms. Rice was that she was smart and savvy. She was, however, monumentally ineffective as National Security Adviser and as Secretary of State. Perhaps it shows that being a good student and earning degrees doesn’t necessarily equate with competence
Mike,
Every time I would see a picture of Ms Rice and George Bush, “Yes woman” would reverberate around in my mind. She may well have been a great student, and a great parrot of the company line, but her capabilities, operating in the real world, weighing the facts, reaching her own conclusions, and standing by and fighting for her own principals, seem to have been lost somewhere along the way. She was the shy, intellectual wallflower, seduced and steamrolled by the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld frat boy/football captains/prom kings.
Completing a college education is an admirable accomplishment and deserves respect, but what you do with the rest of your life, after school is out, really demonstrates the measure of the man or woman
Hi Professor Turley,
Well Done!
I just watched you on “Hardball” and it was a far more pleasant viewing experience than last week; when both Chris and Pat were acting like hysterical ninnies who refused to listen or let you speak. Thank-you for being an outstanding voice of reason!
P.S. Chief Justice Turley sounds good to me!
It amazes me that anyone is surprised at her response! She has been front and center in defense of an indefensible administration.
There are two things that have made this country strong, The rule of law and the fact that we honor our treaties! People who bring up other war crimes, in an attempt to sanitize what we’ve done, are never going to get people like me to put aside all that makes us great, flawed though we may be!
Snark alert:
Ms Rice once publicly referred to G W Bush as her husband. Having let free a couple of Freudian monsters of my own over the years (and realizing how they informed my behavior) I had to wonder if her lack of effectiveness at State had roots in other than her level of skill and scholarship.
lottakatz,
Did she ever wear a Blew Dress? Was she friends with Linda Tripp? Did she masquerade with Cigars?
Then the answer might possibly be maybe yes, but I would have to categorically say maybe, unless I knew why I could not give you a definitive answer to the question that was asked, now what was the question that you asked?
JT
Kudos on what appeared to me to be an unqualified success on Hardball. Pat Buchanan was literally flummoxed, stumbling all over himself in a vain attempt to defend the Imperial Presidency. His repeated references to WWII era events, long since reputiated and covered by new treaties, was laughable at best. Your deft use of Buchanan’s and other conservatives’s defamation of the Soviets as being untrustworthy when signing treaties to illustrate how these actions make the US look similarly distrustful was a brilliant stroke.
Frightening.
I was thinking just the other day that if Ford had simply allowed the wheels of justice to go forward, instead of pardoning Nixon, would we be where we are now, in the wake of the Bush administration’s continual efforts to advance an imperial Presidency? While the precedent may not have completely stopped them, perhaps it would have given at least one administration lawyer pause.
I think that is one of the strongest reasons for a full legal investigation now — to establish precedent on the limits of Presidential authority. Otherwise, I fear we will be facing some of these same issues again in 30 years.
I watched the professor discuss this issue on Hardball.
Pat Buchanan was there for the warsters once again.
Let’s face it, the illicit relationship with our greatest enemy has given illegitimate birth to the ideals he is trapped by.
That infestation will never be understood till we know who our worst enemy is:
http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2009/04/what-is-americas-greatest-enemy.html
Hey, I am a westerner, does someone have a video clip link to this Hardball appearance?
Weasel language is the stock in trade for many politicians, but its use by lawyers and scholars, for whom precision of expression is critical, is unforgivable. Prof. Rice’s response to the student’s questions make one wonder about the quality of her scholarship.
The question of whether waterboarding is torture is difficult only for those who wish not to answer. Her response, that the president “instructed us that nothing we would do would be outside of our (legal) obligations,” was an incoherent avoidance. Did she mean that the president assured his staff that no one would be asked to do anything unlawful? Or did she mean that his instructions would be lawful by virtue of his being the source of those instructions? That she immediately attempted to separate herself from the chain of authorization tells us more about her true beliefs than does the rest of her answer.
Thinking she had deftly avoided the Nixonian quicksand, the student’s persistence caused her to sink into it up to her neck. Yes, waterboarding is torture, but not if explicitly ordered by the president, and besides, I was simply the president’s courier to the CIA, as though her role was to take coffee and donuts to
George Tenet and, by the way, hand him this note while you’re at it. Gentlemen, coffee, tea, waterboarding instructions?
What a disgusting display of moral and intellectual equivocation.
Thank you BuenaVistaMall!
Hey, they’re turning on each other. That’s always a good sign.
I did tune in to MSNBC tonight to see you “debate” Pat Buchannan on torture. Never have I seen such a mismatch of argument and, sorry to say, very nice job of hanging PB’s arguments with his own rope at the end. The very reason we need to prosecute for torure crimes is to ensure that we have credibility in the world and to avoid moral ambiguity for future Americans. What we have witnessed is an eroding of the US constitution and our standing in the world.
Brilliant performance JT, or shall we call you ‘Chief’?
From HBO’s ‘You’re Welcome America’…
Brilliant performance, JT! You now join my list of people (along with such distinguished pundits as Christopher Hitchens) that I enjoy watching floss idiots on primetime TV.
FFN,
Jonathan is part Borg–he adapts and he assimilates his opponents!
GOD BLESS Ms. Rice.
Former Dem aka Troll,
I will say, you are a pleasure to have. This only solidifies my views. Because if you are for it, it implicitly has me questioning the person you are commending. I thank you for your thoughts.
“The President wants me to argue that he is as powerful a monarch as Louis XIV, only four years at a time, and is not subject to the processes of any court in the land except the court of impeachment.” — James D. St. Clair, Richard Nixon’s counsel, arguing before the Supreme Court
“Notwithstanding the deference each branch must accord the others, the “judicial Power of the United States” vested in the federal courts by Art. III, 1, of the Constitution can no more be shared with the Executive Branch than the Chief Executive, for example, can share with the Judiciary the veto power, or the Congress share with the Judiciary the power to override a Presidential veto. Any other conclusion would be contrary to the basic concept of separation of powers and the checks and balances that flow from the scheme of a tripartite government. The Federalist, No. 47, p. 313 (S. Mittell ed. [418 U.S. 683, 705] 1938). We therefore reaffirm that it is the province and duty of this Court “to say what the law is” with respect to the claim of privilege presented in this case. Marbury v. Madison, supra, at 177.”
–United States v. Nixon
Right you are Professor Turley, the right to say what the law is resides at One First Street, NE, not 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Oyez, oyez! Thought Dr. Rice might know that, but why would a “know-nothing” know anything.
I swear that I just woke up from a 30+ year coma after reading that quote from Rice. This is evidence that Holder must investigate and prosecute because of this arrogance. I have always wondered what her real relationship was with Bush. Jill was right when she said they are turning on each other. The jackals are circling the carcass now.
“From these facts, by which Montesquieu was guided, it may clearly be inferred that, in saying “There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates,” or, “if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers,” he did not mean that these departments ought to have no PARTIAL AGENCY in, or no CONTROL over, the acts of each other. His meaning, as his own words import, and still more conclusively as illustrated by the example in his eye, can amount to no more than this, that where the WHOLE power of one department is exercised by the same hands which possess the WHOLE power of another department, the fundamental principles of a free constitution are subverted. This would have been the case in the constitution examined by him, if the king, who is the sole executive magistrate, had possessed also the complete legislative power, or the supreme administration of justice; or if the entire legislative body had possessed the supreme judiciary, or the supreme executive authority.
This, however, is not among the vices of that constitution. The magistrate in whom the whole executive power resides cannot of himself make a law, though he can put a negative on every law; nor administer justice in person, though he has the appointment of those who do administer it.”
–Excerpted from The Federalist Papers No. 47
rcampbell:
Nice pick up on Pat Buchanan’s utter ignorance of the law and history. For one thing, the Constitution specifically permits suspension of the writ of Habeas Corpus in wartime*, though Lincoln clearly was wrong in not going to Congress for the authorization. Ex Parte Merryman, 17 F. Cas. 144 (1861). Congress later authorized Lincoln’s actions by passing the Habeas Corpus Act of 1863. The Supreme Court then restored Habeas Corpus in Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866). US v. Nixon (cited supra) settled forever the “President as King” argument advanced by neo-Nixonians like Bush and Condi.
*Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution says, “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”
Messpo727272,
I clearly see that what has been evolving with this administration is that the line of separation of powers has gotten blurred. It appears that administration has everyone in its pockets or at least it hands in there pockets. With the way Bush was able to get top democrats vending his agenda it blurred Article 1 and 2. With the way that the Sct was packed by Regan and George the First it cinched the stolen election for George the Second.
I think what I see for Obama and Holder is maybe yes, they want to go after Bush et al. And if they do it Appeals will run up the flag pole to the Sct. So Obamas hands may be proverbially tied. Yes, I would like right now to have Cheney hung, by ropes where a stand snapped about every 2 to 3 minutes apart, so that he could hear them and when the last stand snapped he would land into a heard of ravenous coyotes. However that may be too good for him.
With Cheney saying what he has said,Rice and Bybee are they really trying to hang ole Geo out or what. This reminds me of low level drug dealers willing to rat out someone so they can get a better deal. They realize they may get time but they don’t want to go down by themselves.
Anon:
“With Cheney saying what he has said,Rice and Bybee are they really trying to hang ole Geo out or what. This reminds me of low level drug dealers willing to rat out someone so they can get a better deal. They realize they may get time but they don’t want to go down by themselves.”
***********
You find a remarkable similarity in the conduct of the guilty from Wall Street to State Street, to Pennsylvania Avenue to the back streets,when they are confronted by law enforcement. First, its denial, then avoidance, then the “I’ve got a story to tell, can I get a deal?” I bet FFLeo will back be up on this.
Messpo727272,
Nah, I have seen it before. When I did court appointments early on. I usually dropped those clients that alls they wanted to do was rat somebody out so they did not have to do any time.
I had much more respect for those that were guilty and wanted to fight it and take there chances or wanted to minimize any exposure to jail/prison in stead of taking some body else down.
One type of case that I did hate dealing with but it was easy money is when a drug deal went bad and “force and usually violence” was used to reacquaint themselves with the lost money. Made sense to me. But they usually got hit with armed or stronged armed robbery. I thought that the laws did not assist when 2 people were equally guilty. Lets see pari delicto?
/or
Anon,
Your comment about Reagan and BushI stacking the Court that makes me think of a theory that Obama may be taking his time to see if they can get another progressive named to the Supreme Court. Have any of the Supremes talked about leaving the court?
Sir just today Souter a GHWB appointee. However Stevens and Gingsberg are older and older than dirt. One of em walked with Moses in the sand and the other was around while it was still quartz.
With the current make up of the court I don’t see how anything good could come out of an action against Bush et al. The irony would be for that to happen and the Spanish to indict them, and they claim Double Jeopardy.
Sent from my windows based phone=
Condoleezza Rice will host the gala opening of the new School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary on May 13. Our puppet Prime Minster, who recently hired Ari Fleischer to help him out with media, seems to really dig the Bushies, and hence Tortuleezza’s $500 a plate nosh at his alma mater U of C. Please keep these monsters in your own country or ship them off to Spain or the Hague. War criminals are not wanted here..
M72: Thanks for the ‘cites’ and you win the bet.
Mike Appleton: Thanks for your comments. I am amazed how extremely well educated lawyer who are corrupt. like Ms. Rice, always resort to the base lies that petty criminals spout in attempts to explain away their crimes. You would think attorneys would know better.
JSJ: Yes, Ford did our country a disservice by pardoning Nixon. I have always opposed the pardon power given a president–the founders got that wrong bu giving the powers of a King to a one-man executive.
Pat Buchanan is a very confused old man and Hardball Tweet is hard to watch with all of his inane interruptions.
Professor Turley is a prince of a fellow.
I am assisting an attorney with facts within 3 oppositions’ briefs but I needed a break.
Proffesor this is how I saw your “smack down” of Pat Bucannan the other day on Hardball:
Coming home from his Little League game, Pat swung open the front door very excited. Unable to attend the game, his father immediately wanted to know what happened. “So, how did you do son?” he asked.
“You’ll never believe it!” Pat said. “I was responsible for the winning run!”
“Really? How’d you do that?”
“I dropped the ball.”
AP Highlight in History:
On May 1, 2003, President George W. Bush landed in a jet on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln off the California coast and, in a speech to the nation, declared major combat in Iraq over.
If I remember the banner stated:”Mission Accomplished”
Now if it had only gone the way Geo the II, wanted it, we would not be having these issues.
David Corn over at MoJo says that a special prosecutor might not be the best way to approach prosecutions. He doesn’t provide much in the way of better suggestions though, and I also am not sure if I trust him or not, not a regular reader of his work.
I can’t easily provide a link as I am getting there through a proxy (livin in China, this is one of the drawbacks).
I am concerned that we game out how this should go down. As soon as investigations of some sort become all but assured, the game will turn to hampering and restricting them in order to affect the outcome, with a lot of disinformation.
I hope Prof. Turley can propose a proper way to go about it. Or at least talk about the options available. IS a special prosecutor the way to go??
I need to catch the Hardball when I have a faster connection at home, but since one of my greatest TV pleasures EVER was watching Frank Zappa call Pat “an asshole” on Crossfire, I’m sure this will be even more satisfying. While I agreed with Frank’s assessment, I’m sure the Prof did the one thing better than insult a bad man, which is to make them look like a fool.
I’d also like to say that I recall reading an interview where they questioned Condi’s mom about her relationship to Bush. She said, “[Condi] just can’t say no to that man.”
I’d especially like to hear Mike S’ take on that statement given his experience in psychology, but I’ll welcome any comments. I’ve heard the exact same thing said in defense of women in abusive relationships they were unwilling/unable to leave.
i refuse to believe that she supposedly has the intelligence to have been granted a doctorate.
Jim,
The operative word is Granted. It is much like the terminology the Bush Administration is using. “The Constitution grants me the Authority to ______” fill in the blank.
Did she earn the degree is more of the question? Well now I am going to correct myself, Did Bybee earn a position on the 9th Circuit?
Can you imagine being one of Professor Rice’s students!!
You would get a very biased view of the Bush Administration and since she can not admit that anything she did was wrong, you would never be able to disagree with her interpretation of history. But, I sure would love to sit in on one of her classes to hear what she has to say!
Ms. Rice seems to be trying to set up a “Who, me? I’m much too stupid to be a war criminal!” defense.
If she had followed her own advice and done some reading she would know that the UN Convention on Torture does not protect her in any way.