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.
As a conservative might I remind everyone that if the RNC were to read these posts they would think you all to be mad as hatters arguing over how long this will take or if one person has been insulted or not.
The ultimate goal is justice, how long it takes is not up to anyone on this blog/blawg.
I thought you were all on the same side ultimately. Internecine warfare is counter productive, “a house divided…….”
“I consider this a fair summary of Patty C’s criticisms of Jill as well”
Mespo/Patty,
I think it is also. Where Patty and I part company is that I prefer not to call names, but given this recent exchange with Jill, I am more understanding of Patty’s wrath given her longer time here and thus having lived through history I only have heard anecdotally. I must admit though that the broken record is beginning to wear on me, as is the constant resorting to other people, like Glenn Greenwald, that I also read. Your summary below also strikes a chord:
“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.”
Now interestingly FFLEO and Buddha, sometimes now AY also
are impatient with President Obama. I don’t find that annoying because they cite their own ideas and feelings rather than providing punditry as sources. As we know Buddha can get hyperbolic, but in that state he says much I agree with, even though we may disagree on when the hammer comes down.
FFLEO and I, as he puts it, share much closeness due to our age and life experiences. Yet he remains a conservative and I remain radical. We come from different venues, but we are both old souls (even if we don’t believe in them)and despite politics our values are close. He’s pissed with the President and at times has said he feels betrayed by him.
He’s again giving his thoughts and feelings and not simply citing authority. I respect him all the more for it.
We are all an intelligent group here and while in certain instances case law has to be cited to clarify positions, the beauty of this site is that we’re all opinionated and can articulate our opinions. When in making a point I feel I have to keep explaining that I’m against torture, over and again, because of the plethora of posts that keep making the same point endlessly it gets old to deal with.
Most people know that I am a proud Jew with a deep connection to my people’s history. Guess what, I don’t go to see Holocaust movies anymore, not because I don’t want to be reminded, but because I know all there is to know and carry it inside me. I don’t need to keep being convinced as well that water boarding is torture and that all torture is evil, I know that in my gut and the latest story about it is not going to change my feelings.
CCD,
I do not think the people should just be patient and attentive. While that is happening the fact that we are not upholding our own laws is being used as a recruitment tool for people who fight against our troops. We are also losing what little credibility we have left to the rest of the world. We are also making a strong statement at home that we will not hold the wealthy, powerful and connected accountable. These three things seem quite dangerous to me.
Mike S.,
I just did. Saying that I don’t like obama and thus my argument is not valid is a form of personal attack, not a counter argument. You just said you were honest but I am not–that’s personally quite insulting and certainly is a personal attack. You have said many times that you are annoyed by my criticism of Obama–that is a personal attack. There is something very creepy about having to “like” obama. I believe you are not remembering the times I did speak up in agreement with obama’s postitions on this blog such as his reversal on stem cell use and his original position on not going after the medical use of marijuana (a position he has changed, so I no longer agree with him on it). You have continued to use personal attacks instead of arguments. You are lumping me with “Republicans” which is absurb. First of all there are many Republicans who like obama’s financial/pro capital postition quite well. Secondly, the “Republicans” you are refering to are the ones who don’t like obama becuase they think he is a socialist. I don’t like obama because of his stand on civi liberties, his warmongering, and his treatment of detainees. I am not asking you to apologize. I am asking you to make a clean argument or ignore my posts. Either way, you need to stop making statments such as you are honest and I am not and to stop attacking me for not liking “dear leader”. They’re both uncalled for and the one is creepy. This is a democracy. I’m not required to “like” my president as a condition of posting on this blog.
“The statement that I never liked and don’t like Obama is a personal attack.”
Jill,
That is not a personal attack it is a statement of fact based on your numerous writings. That you try to characterize it as an attack is absurd given the literally hundreds of posts you’ve written to that effect.
“It is not a response to an argument.”
It is an argument in itself in that my point is that you would find fault in every thing he does. Incidentally, I loathe Bush/Cheney to the extent that I would find fault in everything they do. It would be reasonable to criticize me for that because it is a subject that I treat subjectively. The difference is I’m honest about my pre-judgment and you aren’t. Citing trolls using this line is specious, because if that was the only critique they’d use, given the way that people here feel about Bush/Cheney, they would at least have a valid point. As do I.
“In your post above you just again, as you have many times in the past. attacked me personally.”
“You have called me a bunch of names whenever I criticize obama.”
This is a flat out lie. Quote me one instance where I personally attacked you, or that I called you names. What you’ve described above is not a personal attack. A personal attack would be if I called you a bad person, or implied that you did bad things. My disagreements with you have not been personal, up until now, where you have attacked me personally. Nevertheless, I don’t have to, nor will I attack you personally, but I will disagree with you openly and I reserve the right to characterize your statements for what they are. In these last two posts it seems to me that you are conflating disagreement, with personal attacks and I’m not buying it. As you know in the past if I have been proven wrong, or have inadvertently hurt someone’s feelings I’ve made sincere apologies. In this instance no apology is needed because I haven’t attacked you personally, nor called you names.
CCD,
I am in the Amen corner on that. You can say, Roger that. It can also be said, thats a big 10-4 big buddy.
Agreed FF LEO:
The Independent Council Law expired in 1999? JT has expressed numerous times that a Independent Council should be named to investigate torture.
Per Ms. De La Vega the flow of information ends once a Grand Jury is convened, why would we want that?
Per the Beast: “Give them the microphone. Let them talk.”
Yes indeed, give them all the rope they need!
While we the people remain patient and attentive.
Mespo727272 not Messpo727272.
The Spelling is duly noted. I apologize for any inconvenience that this sir has caused you. If you have lost sleep, sir again I apologize. If it has caused you other angst that I am not aware of please consider that I did not do this intentionally.
Mike S. and mespo, with one ‘S’ 727272
– thanks… 😉
Remember this classic?
Now, don’t make it ‘mean’ anything, but I always see the ‘ugly
old woman’ last, no matter how often I see this drawing.
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~cfs/305_html/Gestalt/Woman.html
And how about this scenario?
Say we release all Guantanamo prisoners into the United States
– today. They’re free because it’s the ‘right’ thing to do.
Tomorrow, now armed with rights galore, they get lawyered-up, civilly, and then proceed to sue the United States by joining together in a giant bllion-dollar Class Action lawsuit seeking punitive damages, as well.
Assuming we can, EVER again, readily absorb series of steep multi-million dollar sized settlements, at what point do we become the tiniest bit concerned about how these particular plaintiffs may be planning to use all that fresh new capital
-minus any input from us?
‘Nobody’s business’, you might say.
Really…?
And would any proponents of the ‘Get ‘er Done’ approach to dealing with these detainees, be willing to swallow it when Obama is forced to say, in his own lame defense, “Look, I tried to tell you guys this was not a good idea, but you wouldn’t hear it.
I’m really sorry about the recent round of terrorist bombings in all of your neighborhoods, but you should probably be more careful about what you wish for, you know?”
While an unlikely combined set of future events, allow me to reiterate, yet again, that this is a colossal mess for this new president and our country to deal with, especially now, and on more than one level and still without any easy and quick solutions in the rear view, unfortunately.
I for one, remain comfortable having Obama and Holder sitting in their positions rather than somebody else whom I could name, but will pass.
p.s. Jill, you’ve called yourself ‘trailer-trash’. I didn’t invent that moniker – you did. And, honestly, I do think you lack a certain amount of sophistication.
Reading your posts, for me, is no different than listening to the likes of Rush Limbaugh or BillO’. I can’t stand their ‘trash’, either.
Frankly, it gets on my nerves.
CCD & Bill J.
Thanks for the link. Former federal prosecutor and U.S. attorney’s chief Elizabeth De La Vega calls a Special (Independent) Prosecutor an “illusion”.
Professor Turley should rebut this mischaracterization and explain why the law is more important than willy-nilly public opinion.
I think it’s this simple.
The Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights are the core of the legal system. If they are not upheld strictly and applied to ALL citizens, then they are worthless as a basis for legal decisions for or against anyone.
In none of these documents does it guarantee a political party the right to exist. The GOP and the DNC would be well served to remember that they are just an organization subject to law. Law like RICO. If both parties were disbanded, I’d shed nary a tear.
Partisanship is pure obfuscation in this instance. The question at bar is not political. It’s criminal. However, letting a criminal go free for political reasons is pure politics, pure bullshit and won’t stand in this instance. The scope of the crimes is just too large let slide. Only partisan hacks are playing this game and anyone paying attention knows that mostly R and some D need to go to prison over the torture issue. You boys in Washington don’t like that? Tough. Should have thought about that before you followed Herr Cheney.
Since the threat of the crimes Cheney and Bush committed strike at the core of our legal system, letting them have a pass is not an option unless you want to void the rest of the legal system. If the President can violate the Constitution and Federal law, why should a citizen pay taxes or obey any laws that they find inconvenient? They shouldn’t is the only correct answer.
Either Holder has the spine to do what is REQUIRED by LAW to restore the Rule of Law or he ushers in the quasi-revolutionary anarchy that is certain to follow. And I don’t mean those moronic teabaggers either. I mean ordinary citizens just simply ceasing to cooperate with government. Then it will escalate as the jackboots become more aggressive. Someone at a demonstration will get hurt by some state agent overstepping the bounds. Possibly even killed. This may even happen to citizens in their own homes if the “government” decides they aren’t towing the fascist line well enough and are too critical of the special treatment corporations get. Take my private property under guise of public use and then sell it to someone like Wal-Mart for private development? You’d get a blown up, poisoned, burned cinder if you tried that with me. Put my brown skinned kid in jail for 6 mos. because he smoked a joint, but the white kids who beat the immigrant to death gets a walk? I don’t think so. I’d make sure you never found him. Every neighborhood will cease to cooperate and become by default distrustful of the police. THAT is already happening. Wait until you start sending them out to evict the millions you just screwed over by letting the banks keep their fraudulent and criminal lending practices in place, Congress. That’s gas on the fire, but aren’t you glad you got to pay back those lobbyists and graft merchants favors at the expense of million’s of families security and well-being? But then again, it was all about you getting money to get re-elected wasn’t it? Bribery is bribery and anyone watching KNOWS that’s what just happened. Compounded injustices. It will happen more than once. It’s going on right now. But it won’t go on unchallenged forever. And at that point, when it’s clear the Pres and VP and others in government have placed themselves above the law, it will simply be open season on politicians of any stripe.
Enjoy the bed you are making, Holder. That or you could do your damn job and appoint a special prosecutor and to Hell with the consequences to people like Pelosi just as much as to Hell with the consequences for the Neocon GOP in general. When criminals rule openly and without consequence, the government ceases to be legitimate and should be openly resisted. That’s the game you’re playing, sport, whether you realize it or not, AG Holder. Your decision to prosecute means this is a country of laws, but failure to do so means the laws of this country aren’t worth squat because the government has ceased to be a government by and for the people.
So what’s it going to be, Eric? Protect the criminals or protect the law? You can’t do both. And if you decide to protect the criminals, be ready for what happens when people realize the law is lawless and no longer valid. A decision in favor of letting these war criminals go is simply a decision in favor of fascism and authoritarianism. No man is my king, no corporation is my master.
I, for one, will not obey. I will openly resist such a system as it is contrary to the principles upon which this country was founded, the very principles found in the the Declaration and the Bill of Rights that many members of my family died protecting.
However, AG Holder, should you choose the do the right thing and restore the Rule of Law and the Constitution, I’ll back you in any way you need. I’ll also do my best to make sure the most historically important man of color in this administration ISN’T Obama, but rather the man who had the guts to save the country from the enemies within and protect the Constitution.
You want to make a mark on history? Then be the black man who rose from America’s shameful past to become her defending knight in her time of need. Prove the invalidity of divisiveness and slavery by showing that character is indeed the defining essence of a man and not the color of his skin. Show that not only can triumph come from adversity, but that excellence and wisdom can rise as well.
This isn’t about partisan politics. It’s about crimes that have their elements intertwined with the very taproot of American jurisprudence. Save the Tree of Liberty, Mr. Holder, or be ready to accept your part in the blame when she burns to the ground. Do your job of protecting the Constitution and do it well? You just may just end up being mentioned with the likes of Jefferson if future history books. Tow the line and let them go with a wink and a nudge? Do the names Mussolini or Nero ring a bell?
Make your choice. Do it soon.
Former federal prosecutor and U.S. attorney’s chief Elizabeth De La Vega explains to Olbermann why Attorney General Eric Holder should not immediately appoint a special prosecutor to investigate those members of the Bush administration responsible for torture.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/vp/30356123#30356123
Bill Jablonski, thank you for the link.
AY:
“We started out by sending W to upset everything. It is a strategical decision that so far is working well.”
**************************
Ah, worthy of a Wild, Wild, West” episode, me thinks.
Jill:
“I truly cannot agree with that statement. What part of “jill is trash” is an argument?”
*********
Missed that line. No argument there I agree.
The best interrogation method is to put them all in a room with microphones and let them talk among themselves.
I think we are seeing that unfold in the media.
If a case were to be brought forward it would be best to let them make statements that presently they would not have to answer for, but later of course, they would.
Give them the microphone. Let them talk. It will not be to their benefit.
Jill,
Ma’am, please continue with your protestations against Mr. Obama, as your First Amendment rights allow, and simply realize that good people of all stripes might condemn or appear to condemn you or your viewpoint. You, others, and I must accept that sometimes—and most often—any perceived or real attacks are unintentional.
I have been misjudged, misconstrued, misquoted, and many more mis-whatever’s in my life while being kicked from pillar to post and then back again—that is just part of the drill. You have many well-versed, scholarly lawyers in your worldwide court of opinion, including Professor Turley and Mr. Greenwald et al. so state your case with direct rebuttals and refutations while continuing reasoned debate.
I’m going to add one last thing. The statement that I never liked and don’t like Obama is a personal attack. It is not a response to an argument. I have been dismayed that people now believe this is a relevant way to dismiss a point of disagreement. I never liked bush and cheney either and I don’t remember too many regulars who did. The only people who said our points of contention with dick and george were invalid, based on the “you don’t like them defense” were trolls. What has changed now? It was a personal attack then and it’s a personal attack now.
Messpo727272,
Do you mean that Northern Aggression? we still Remember and are still waiting for the right time to settle the score. We started out by sending W to upset everything. It is a strategical decision that so far is working well.
Oh, I hear the nurse it must be medicine time again. lol.
mespo,
I truly cannot agree with that statement. What part of “jill is trash” is an argument?
AY:
“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.”
**************
I think we only disagree on the timetable, but duty delayed is not like justice delayed. We give those charged with great duties great discretion on how and when to fulfill their duties and 100 days or so doesn’t seem like so awfully long a time to act when the President had almost as much on his plate as Abraham Lincoln did in March 1861.