In one of the most perverse moments yet in the torture debate, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice took time to explain the need for torture to a fourth grader who was a bit curious why his country tortured people. The question of Misha was considerably more reassuring than Rice’s answers.
Rice was given a lecture at the Sixth & I Historic Synagogue when she ran into Misha Lerner who asked her to explain why the Bush administration tortured people. Rice responded:
“Let me just say that President Bush was very clear that he wanted to do everything he could to protect the country. After September 11, we wanted to protect the country. But he was also very clear that we would do nothing, nothing, that was against the law or against our obligations internationally. So the president was only willing to authorize policies that were legal in order to protect the country. . . .I hope you understand that it was a very difficult time. We were all so terrified of another attack on the country. September 11 was the worst day of my life in government, watching 3,000 Americans die. . . . Even under those most difficult circumstances, the president was not prepared to do something illegal, and I hope people understand that we were trying to protect the country.”
This is close to the Nixonian response that Rice gave Stanford students last week..
I find it interesting that Rice is falling back on the exceptional circumstances of the time — a defense expressly rejected under the Convention Against Torture. Article 2 states: “No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.”
There is also the claim for a type of constitutional Mulligan for officials who are terrified after 911. It is pretty disconcerting to hear about officials living in terror of a group of terrorists. I live in Washington and the plane hit the Pentagon literally in my rear view mirror as I passed the Pentagon. A friend died on that flight. Yet, I was not “terrified” to Al Qaeda. I was angry and vengeful, but I would never have approved torture. We expect adults (let alone high-ranking officials) to act soberly and lawfully and humanely. Rice and the rest make it sound like they participated in a form of organized panic — where their little transgressions can be excused.
According to Misha’s mother, the boy originally wanted to ask “If you would work for Obama’s administration, would you push for torture?” His parents made him change the question. With all due respect to the parents (who clearly have raised a bright child), I liked Misha’s original question a bit more.
The failure of the Obama administration to select a special prosecutor is why officials like Rice can hold these impromptu torture for tots classes. Rice should be meeting with defense counsel, not holding forth on why torture is more excusable when your leaders are “terrified.” By the way, Al Qaeda must be loving the moment: what greater success is there for a terrorist than to know that you terrified the President of the United States and his National Security Adviser.
Mike S.,
I agree that your sacrastic post was directed at all of the above and I knew this. I also knew, and you acknowledged, that it applied to mine along with others. In your post above you just again, as you have many times in the past. attacked me personally. I gave you the reasons why I did not agree that Obama was a victim: 1. if he had wanted more time for his DOJ to change postitions there is no way that any defendent would not have given it to him and 2. when you are starting out to change and organization it makes no sense to bring on board, affirmatively, people who engaged in unlawful activity both in the national security and financial fronts. It isn’t necessary for me to trust obama. Trust is earned, not given. Trust of political leaders in the face of contrary evidence is not necessary or even a good idea in a democracy. I can just as easily say that you want to believe in Obama. No matter what he acturally does or doesn’t do, it will have no effect on how you see him. I wasn’t playing for sympathy because of Patty (that is psychoanalysis again). You have called me a bunch of names whenever I criticize obama. That is wrong. I am asking you, not Patty, to stop the personal attacks and the psychoanalysis.
“Let’s talk about something new like judges “hooking up” with prosecutors to send people to death row!”
___________
Salacious headlines/topics do grow less stale, less quickly…
This site is one dynamic enterprise and a lot of fun, while exuding legal discussions par excellence
Mike S:
“Jill I disagree with your interpretations of the Administration’s positions on this issue and I do think that there is nothing that President Obama could do to gain your trust. This is not speculative, nor is it a denigration of you personally (though you choose to make it such) but based on your continued statements during the campaign that you didn’t trust the man. After the election you had continual posts up criticizing him before he had taken office and this barrage continued right after the inauguration. I get it very clearly, you don’t like him and like the Republicans you will never like him. That is your right, but it is also my right to criticize your viewpoint, without injecting personalities or calling you a bad person, which is what I’ve done. You seem to be the one trying to escalate this into a personality contest, when none was implied, nor intended on my part.”
*******************
I consider this a fair summary of Patty C’s criticisms of Jill as well.
Messpo727272,
I think we all agree, that it could move faster. The fact is Obama is not acting as quickly as he should in a lot of peoples books. However, what is that saying the government that governs least governs best.
That Collin County case will be fun once all of the facts come out.
Jill:
Not to sound churlish, but how many times and how many ways can we all say:
1. Torture is bad.
2. Bush was bad to order it.
3. Obama is not moving with enough deliberate speed, in the view of some including JT, to repudiate this practice and prosecute the offenders.
The Republic will likely withstand this test and justice, however slowly, will be satisfied. Let’s talk about something new like judges “hooking up” with prosecutors to send people to death row!
FFLEO,
I enjoy a good debate. I think that Mike S. gave his impression just like you and Jill and well hell everyone else. I understand where Mike is coming from and it takes a while when you work within the system to “change stupid.” It is hard to get rid of career employees.
I have worked within the system and if you do too much work sometimes, you gotta go because you make everyone look bad. There are the rare exceptions and essential government departments that have to work and work hard.
I understand the analogy of the Ship. The direction can be changed but it takes time. I have heard on this list parellel to shore, I had to ask what they means.
He can’t categorically change the policy of the DOJ and DOD, without mass problems. It sounds just like some people want Obama to run in without all of the information and be just like Bush and bomb Iraq, damn the consequences. Obama is not that way, he is too narcissistic for that.
Mike Spindell,
I consider you the closest cyper-friend I know within this blawg, largely because we both experienced the same societal/cultural evolutions during our 60+ years of life and we grew up with very similar value systems.
I think that President Obama is giving ambiguous and mixed signals. I have an altogether different interpretation of Obama’s stance during his news conference than you did. I want to trust and like Obama because he appears to be a decent human being. However, with King-like pardon powers and his penchant for looking forward instead of backward, others and I do not want to allow, even the appearance of, a similar pardon as was granted to Mr. Nixon by Mr. Ford; a real tragedy for the rule of law and justice. That one action was the prelude to what we are experiencing now. No one of import was ever held legally accountable. The world is paying the price with death and destruction now, in part, because of that compassionate, saint-like–although thoroughly ill conceived–pardon. That act notified corrupt political operatives that the Office of the Presidency of the U.S.A. is immune from the rule of law and violations of the U.S. Constitution. Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld et al. learned the lesson well and perpetuated the—President is King and his court jesters are untouchable—corrupt political theory to the fullest.
We, the people, must ensure that such occurrences never reoccur. If Obama does not quickly steer his ocean liner—at least, for now, towards the correct legal waters—he will lose control, his moral compass headings will become askew, and we citizens will be scrambling for the lifeboats to distance ourselves from his not yet sinking, but aimlessly drifting, Ship of State. AG Holder must—not should— appoint an independent prosecutor immediately. The Independent Prosecutor is the metaphoric equivalent of the Navy Seals rescuing our Ship of State from corrupt pirates, namely, GW Bush, D. Cheney et al. and the legal staff of Bybee, Yoo et al. who issued corrupt legal opinions with ‘the end justifies the means’ legalese.
Jill and Mike, please do continue the rigorous debate because all views—pro, con, and impassioned—are essential to help resolve this confusing, divisive, although critical issue facing our Democracy.
FFLEO
“I’d appreciate you laying off the psychoanaylsis and personal attacks.”
Jill,
When I attack you directly…I will attack you directly. My sarcasm was a broad perspective on many previous posts and that is proven by the fact that the comment I quoted initially was not yours. By trying to make my attacks into being personal your are trying to play the sympathy card, in light of your problems with Patty. She speaks for herself and I would you think that you would understand by now that I speak for myself alone. By throwing in this unfounded allegation of a “personal attack,” you aim to avoid my direct answer to your question.
“I disagree with your intepretation of them.”
You have every right to disagree with my interpretation of President Obama’s remarks, but remember I was only responding to your direct question.
“Obama is not a victim. He has kept on people who tortured and who authorized torture in the DOJ and the DOD. In fact he has already immunized some of these people.”
This does nothing to refute my interpretation of his remarks and your comment re:”immunizing” is contextually unresponsive. Also while I’ve certainly expressed my admiration and affection for JT, I reserve the right to disagree with him also. I’ve made no secret of the fact that I am an iconoclast at heart and trust my vision over others. Call me conceited and that may be, but at least I’m honest about it and don’t hide behind citing others views to bolster my own pre-judgments.
Regarding JT though, I’ve made it clear in other posts that JT holds a different position on this then the average TV pundit. JT is an advocate for constitutionality, just like the ACLU, MoveOn, etc. and as such is fulfilling his mission by providing criticism that is non-politically based. The role that he, the ACLU and others fulfill is as gadfly’s stinging whoever is in power to ensure that they meet their constitutional burdens.
I, on the other hand am unashamedly political, which is why I can support JT in his mission, while at the same time understanding the realities faced by our President.
“It may not be your conclusion but it isn’t fair to dismiss it with psychoanaylsis, claims that anyone who doesn’t agree with you is being obtuse or is trying for a self-fulfilling prophecy.”
You open with a plea for sympathy and close with one as well.
First of all I am not, nor never would be a psychoanalyst. I am an institute trained/formerly licensed psychotherapist from an existentialist perspective, which is antithetical to psychoanalysis and I’ve also made that clear in other posts.
Secondly, you give yourself too much credit in feeling that I was specifically pointing out your obtuseness, since I already made it clear in my “sarcastic” comment that I was speaking about a group, not just you.
Thirdly, since you cared to interject yourself into this I will say to you directly that you do seem to me to be obtuse when it comes to this issue and it does seem that you are in search of self fulfilling prophecies in your pursuit of the President. These are statements that are contentless from a psychological/psychotherapeutic perspective, but yes sharply pointed from a political and/or logical perspective. they are disagreements with your positions, rather than accusations of your mental status. As such they are just as fair game as you telling me that:
“I disagree with your intepretation of them.”
Jill I disagree with your interpretations of the Administration’s positions on this issue and I do think that there is nothing that President Obama could do to gain your trust. This is not speculative, nor is it a denigration of you personally (though you choose to make it such) but based on your continued statements during the campaign that you didn’t trust the man. After the election you had continual posts up criticizing him before he had taken office and this barrage continued right after the inauguration. I get it very clearly, you don’t like him and like the Republicans you will never like him. That is your right, but it is also my right to criticize your viewpoint, without injecting personalities or calling you a bad person, which is what I’ve done. You seem to be the one trying to escalate this into a personality contest, when none was implied, nor intended on my part.
Mike S.,
I’d appreciate you laying off the psychoanaylsis and personal attacks. I did hear Obama’s statements last week. I disagree with your intepretation of them. As JT said they were suprising. Obama is not a victim. He has kept on people who tortured and who authorized torture in the DOJ and the DOD. In fact he has already immunized some of these people. I do not agree that leaving people in place who committed/authoirzed torture is good govt. policy. It may take time to retire people at the lowest levels, but it doesn’t take time to fire people like Jim Brennen. It was an affirmative action to keep him as an advisor. It was an affirmative action to keep on Bill Gates. It is an affirmative action to keep on Larry Summers and Tim Geithner. The ruling I spoke about was something, as JT pointed out in other cases, the govt. could have asked for an extension to argue. They did not ask for the extension, therefore I must conclude they agreed with the argument they put forth. In fact this argument matches their actions in a very consistent way. I can’t ignore so many actions that move along the same pathway. My question cannot be dismissed by turnng the ship of state claims. The fact that anyone likes or dislikes Obama is also irrelevant. Did you like bush and cheney. If not, should I ignore your criticism of them out of hand? If you did like them for a while, was that the brief window in which what you had to say about them could be counted and anything after that was invalid? Looking at a series of decisions, or lack of actions and coming to a conclusion that obama and holder do not intent to prosecute is a reasonalbe conclusion. It may not be your conclusion but it isn’t fair to dismiss it with psychoanaylsis, claims that anyone who doesn’t agree with you is being obtuse or is trying for a self-fulfilling prophecy. I would like to keep things in argument, not personal attack form.
Jill,
My sarcasm was employed just for questions such as the one you asked. Did you watch President’s Obama’s press conference last week. Particularly his answer regarding picking up ongoing justice department case that required present action. The President made it quite clear, to me at least, that some of these actions are in the process of review. His metaphor also about the US being an Ocean Liner was apt, you can’t just change the direction of a bureaucracy that quickly, especially when Bush/Cheney left a lot of DOJ “poison pills” in the form of lawyers given civil service status.
When I retired from the City of New york I had more than 300 people working for me in about 12 or 13 offices around the City. Some of them didn’t follow my clear, written directions, finding those and then disciplining or removing them took time and yet I sometimes faced the embarrassment of someone presumably acting on my authority, who wasn’t. My job didn’t compare even minimally in scope to either Mr. Holder’s, or the President’s. I am being purposely sarcastic because the anti-Obama positions represent people being either purposely obtuse, or engaging in self fulfilling prophecy.
Mike S.
All sarcasm aside. How do you put togther the fact that the Holder/Obama DOJ just asked in a court filing last week that bush officials should be given freedom from liablity for torture and your belief that Obama means to prosecute? Why would the Obama DOJ ask for this immunity in court for bush and friends if their intent is to actually hold bush people accountable?
What a sad thing it is that the former Secretary of State can’t even give a lecture at a local Synagogue, without besmirching herself.
“Is refusing to investigate and/or prosecute torture reason enough to impeach either Eric Holder and/or Barack Obama?”
Right you all are, what are we waiting for, 100 days are enough! We have had it. It’s time to call for impeaching them both! We’re not going to take this anymore! This suspense is killing me and I don’t react well to it emotionally. My needs must be met immediately, despite anything else going on, they take precedence. If these guys won’t meet my needs then off with their heads! (Metaphorically I mean, since I’m against capital punishment)
By the way I never liked that guy Obama anyway, never trusted him and so I can read into everything he does a reaffirmation of my distrust. I can even quote people who always felt the same way I do. I know they’re right because they agree with me!
Whew! now that I’ve gotten that off my chest the tension has subsided and I feel so politically pure. Much more important than getting any real change done, don’t you know.
Torture for tots courtesy of Condi Rice. So this is how the United States of America is “moving forward”? It’s as if the current administration is ignoring a gaping hole in the basement, allowing the vermin to come and go as they please. For crying out loud, fix the foundation of this establishment!
Bill Jablonski, that’s a very effective video.
All that human pain and indignity, and the Bush administration still failed to establish a link between Sadam and Al Qaeda.
Bill J.
Good video!
The people from bushco have made plenty of statements in the press. Last week the Obama DOJ argured the followin in the 4th circut:
“In its first filing on detention and torture under the Obama administration, the Department of Justice filed briefs in March urging the Court of Appeals to reject any constitutional or statutory rights for detainees. The Obama Justice Department further argued that even if such rights were recognized, the Court should rule that the previous administration’s officials who ordered and approved torture and abuse of the plaintiffs should be immune from liability for their actions.”
Holder runs the DOJ. It makes no sense to argue that bushco is immune from “liability for their actions” if they claim to believe no one is above the law. Those two actions/statements are mutually contradictory.
Again, it was not because of the largess of Obama that we saw the memos. It was the hard work of the ACLU filing court motion after motion. There is nothing lost by Obama in following the court order to release and then ignoring, once again, the crimes contained in the memos.
Bill, that video lays it out in a very straightforward manner.
http://ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-releases/court-appeals-rules-detainees-are-not-%E2%80%9Cpersons%E2%80%9D-guant%C3%A1namo-torture-suit
A short video on the torture debate (featuring Mr. Turley) that you may want to see:
Obama and The War Criminals
From the second here above, the CNN site:
“President Obama has banned the use of techniques such as waterboarding, which he called torture. His administration released the Justice Department memos in response to a lawsuit from the American Civil Liberties Union, and he called the legal reasoning behind the memos “a mistake.”
I cannot think of a better statement than Obama calling the “legal reasoning behind the memos a mistake.”
Is refusing to investigate and/or prosecute torture reason enough to impeach either Eric Holder and/or Barack Obama?
How many US laws and international treaties that the US signed that REQUIRE allegations of torture be investigated and, if necessary, prosecuted must this administration continue to ignore?
I voted for change – from a previous administration that ignored international law, the Geneva Convention, that tortured people in my name – and I’m not seeing anything change so far.
The previous poster said ” It may take some time but I believe that in my lifetime that they will be prosecuted for war crimes, high crimes and misdemeanors. Yes I do.”
I’m beginning to think that will NOT happen – I hope I’m wrong
BUT given Eric Holder’s past I’m not that sure
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-kovalik/lawyer-for-chiquita-in-co_b_141919.html
Eric Holder would have a troubling conflict of interest in carrying out this work in light of his current work as defense lawyer for Chiquita Brands international in a case in which Colombian plaintiffs seek damages for the murders carried out by the AUC paramilitaries – a designated terrorist organization. Chiquita has already admitted in a criminal case that it paid the AUC around $1.7 million in a 7-year period and that it further provided the AUC with a cache of machine guns as well.
Indeed, Holder himself, using his influence as former deputy attorney general under the Clinton Administration, helped to negotiate Chiquita’s sweeheart deal with the Justice Department in the criminal case against Chiquita. Under this deal, no Chiquita official received any jail time. Indeed, the identity of the key officials involved in the assistance to the paramilitaries were kept under seal and confidential. In the end, Chiquita was fined a mere $25 million which it has been allowed to pay over a 5-year period. This is incredible given the havoc wreaked by Chiquita’s aid to these Colombian death squards.
According to Mario Iguaran, the Attorney General of Colombia, Chiquita’s payments to the AUC paramilitaries led to the murder of 4000 civilians in the banana region of Colombia and furthered the growth of the paramilitaries throughout Colombia and their violent takeover of numerous Colombian regions. Iguaran, in response to the claims of both Chiquita and Eric Holder himself that Chiquita was somehow forced to pay “protection” to the paramilitaries (see, Washington Post and Conde Nast Portfolio), stated unequivocally that “[t]his was not payment of extortion money. It was support for an illegal armed group whose methods included murder.” See, Christian Science Monitor, “Chiquita Case Puts Big Firms on Notice.”
One former paramilitary leader who is in federal custody in the U.S., Salvatore Mancuso, has stated that he has more knowledge about Chiquita’s relationship with the paramilitary death squads in Colombia. Mancuso further claims that Dole and Del Monte also made payments to the paramilitaries, just as Chiquita did. Yet, Dole and Del Monte remain un-indicted. Query whether, as Human Rights Watch recommends, a Justice Department under Holder would be interested in pursuing this and other similar leads. This is a serious matter given the fact that the Justice Department has already come under great scrutiny for turning a blind eye to what appears to be rampant corporate support for terrorist groups in Colombia. See, L.A. Times, “U.S. accused of bending rules on Colombian Terror.”
I say let them state their case in the press and then hang em out, high and dry. I do believe that they believe the lies that they spread. I do not think that they understand that they are not in control of the press any longer. It may take some time but I believe that in my lifetime that they will be prosecuted for war crimes, high crimes and misdemeanors. Yes I do.