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.
JT:
“Ok, Mespo, but if I find my strawberries missing, there will be hell to pay.”
*****
And if see you with any ball bearings in your hands, I’m off to Empirical Legal Studies.
Well sir,
If you could respond to the ones that continue to do so personally it would be a nice gesture. I for one am appreciate of this site and intend to utilize the referencing as much as possible. For whatever reason it seems like a classroom setting with those that have more experience educating people like me. I can always learn and for what I do not know or have a feeling for I peek at what others are thinking.
Everyone brings to this “List Serve” experience. Some of that experience being brought is actual, practical, classroom, literaly or figuratively.
One thing I learn in college by a pretty sharp professor, was this: “Once you fail to be able to communicate with the people that you are talking to, your education is lost.” We all have something to share with the other person and it could be patience.
But then again there are two types of people in this world and they both bring you happiness, those when they come and those when they go. I see myself as the latter.
.
c
JT:
“Wow, I go to the woods for a weekend and look what happens!”
***********
Wondrous things happen when you venture out into the woods, Thoreau went out to the woods one summer and look what happened. Everyone’s fine I think. Just a little sap rising. BTW I am not giving up movie privileges, nor “Springtime for Hitler and Germany,” no matter what you say. It’s provides more than any bucolic weekend can render; it’s inspirational!
Ok, Mespo, but if I find my strawberries missing, there will be hell to pay. As Lt. Keith said in the Caine Mutiny “Situation quiet; the Captain’s been put away for the night.”
Wow, I go to the woods for a weekend and look what happens! This crew is in need of an all-hands shakedown with both leave and movies canceled.
Seriously, I am enormously proud of the community that has formed around this blog. I have never seen the equal to the insights and passion of our regulars. Civility, however, remains one of the few hardcore rules and long-standing concerns on this blog. Name calling in any form is simply not acceptable and not welcomed here. I think everyone has tried hard to stop with the personal attacks. There remains some obvious sensitivity over the past attacks and it has only worsened on this thread. Since I am the freshest from a retreat in the woods, I will claim the spiritual (and rapidly vanishing) elevation to call an end to this thread. Let’s exchange ideas and views without the poisonous habit of questioning the motivations or qualifications of the poster.
I happen to have tremendous respect for everyone who has written on this thread. Let’s not have a second tragedy of the commons by killing our common resource with personal animus and attacks. We are going to continue to have a passionate debate over Obama’s moral and legal responsibility on the torture investigation. That is a subject that transcends our (and even Obama’s) personal inclinations. It is worth fighting over — just not on a personal level.
Thanks everyone,
Jonathan
Best,
Jonathan
lottakatz,
You can ask me leave but you can no longer expect the courtesy of my forbearance in this matter.
**************************************************
If you want some more interesting read, go last Saturday where everyone but 2 ot 3 were asked to not post by the person you reference here. It may not be apparent but when I am told not to do something its more of an open invitation to do it.
I have been scolded for entering a debate where the person you are referring to was casitgated by me for doing what it is you comapln about that person about.
Oops! Mike, I think you stepped in it just about here:
Mike Spindell: “I am being purposely sarcastic because the anti-Obama positions represent people being either purposely obtuse, or engaging in self fulfilling prophecy”
Really? When are those of us with ‘anti-Obama positions’ going to have it said that surely we hate America also. This is old-think and old rhetoric, this is the same dismissive attitude I endured from Bush supporters for 8 years under Bush. My proclivity to criticize an Administration’s position does not end with the changing of the guard. A bad position is a bad position regardless of it’s author. I’m going to assume you didn’t mean that in the manner those of us familiar with the Bush era rhetoric could predictably take it.
Obama has a number of policies that require criticism. While many of us like him, voted for him and have high hopes for the country under his Administration, that he gives every objective appearance of being set on the wrong path in a number of areas requires criticism. It’s our duty to be pi***d about it.
Jill, I’m thinking this jab of Mike’s was what pissed you off because I’m not sure if anything else he said in that posting could be taken personally. Maybe I’m wrong but I assume that listening to the Bush Apparatchiks rhetoric has programmed us all to be hyper-sensitive to the neo-con resonance. Feel free to tell me to STFU. You too Mike. Like it will do either of you any good 😉
The ugly part of this posting:
Regarding the agreement expressed in this thread that Patty C’s opinion of Jill is correct and Patty C’s statement in this thread:
“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”
Sophistication in what area’s one may ask Patty, she at least maintains some measure of common courtesy regarding name calling and personal attacks which you do not. I went back on this site several months, to September 0f ’08 to see if I could ferret out the beginning of this feud and I didn’t find it. It isn’t a feud, You picked a fight, or attempted to by being outrageously rude and vicious by both talking about Jill with others and making gross personal attacks without provocation. Truly vicious attacks. November seems to be the month that you got off and running and it wasn’t a response to something posted or an invitation to debate, they were vituperative, personal attacks and nothing more.
There was in November one of the most funny, inventive multi-party humor threads I have ever read- The Happy Goat. Funny, literate and silly in the capital ‘S’, Pythonesque style. Even in that gem of a thread you could not resist making a couple of snarky and distracting comments to or about Jill. One was subtle (the other was not) but they were there. You are acting like a troll and the man that runs the blog has asked you twice to stop. What is it about “stop” that is not understandable? I am sick of the snark from you and I suggest everyone on this blog go back to November and read the archive- it is revelatory. This started in November and you Patty started it.
I’ve been here a couple of months if that. I’m not credentialed, vested on or invested in this blog beyond enjoying a lively debate even if I’m only reading one and not participating. I’ve seen more than enough in the past 6-8 weeks though to see (right off the bat) a bullying posture from you Patty, regarding Jill. I don’t know Jill and Jill is of little importance to me regarding this issue beyond that she is the current target of yours. I am amazed that a bully is given such leeway on a blog as universally sophisticated as this one. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Patty, I have held my tongue in the past against my better judgment. I came early to the knowledge that you never give a bully a second chance; back them up and off immediately. You are a bully and I’m going to call you, and those that agree with your unfair, unprovoked and viciously stated personal assessment about Jill (or anyone else) on it every time.
Really, take the time to go back and read the November archive. Revelatory.
You can ask me leave but you can no longer expect the courtesy of my forbearance in this matter.
Mike S:
“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.”
****************
Had you never posted on this topic, but given your previous postings on a wide range of other topics, I would still have no doubt you are against any form of torture. It’s as obvious to me as a bowling ball in a ping pong shipment.
AY:
Good I thought I was griping for no good reason–as I am wont to do sometimes.
Jill:
“Saying that I don’t like obama and thus my argument is not valid is a form of personal attack, not a counter argument.”
**********
Sorry Jill but pointing up the bias or prejudice of the speaker is valid criticism and not personal attack. If I complain that the tort system is out of control and then tell you I work for Peanut Corporation of America, it is clearly relevant but I have not attacked you personally. I merely pointed out your bias. Everyone has biases, and it’s not a sign of weakness nor personal flaws.
Mespo727272,
It was pointed out to me in another email. I thought it was rather comical. I considered the source and thought I’d fun ya.
So, Former Dem is back at it again. A Troll, is it a He, She, it or is it more appropriately to name them androgynous?
AY:
“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.”
************
I don’t remember ever complaining about it, and given my residence in a glass house I bet I never would.
Jill,
I did not nor did anyone else ask you not to state your point of view. I will miss you, I like anothers point of view, even though I may disagree with the same.
Not a big fan of abuse guys. Good luck and best wishes to many.
FFLEO:
I think you are right.
Bron98 stated:
“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.”
__________________
While I prefer direct debate with no hurt or wounded pride exuding from the prose, consider the discussion as a brain-storming session. Since our–yours and my–conservative Republican congresspersons are currently missing, or have misplaced, their collective brains, they must resort to mouth-storming sessions, as we have seen in recent news.
I have never been a Democrat, nor will I ever; however, I think that this sort of “in fighting” is part ‘n parcel of their liberal, political genes.
Onward with good, contentious, reasoned debate without further mention of personalities, is my plea.
Mike Spindell,
Two LL’s I hope? I have worked in the Government for the Attorney Generals Office. I realize that the wheels of Justice turn slow. I think I understand what Obama is doing and is being very careful and deliberate in his actions. He would like to “Hang em All” but must get through congress what are the essentials to get this country back on track. Too much Corporate welfare for too long. It is time Corp which are a legal fiction of the government are responsible to its creator, so to speak.
Once the Special Prosecutor is called, the investigative side will cease and all information is then presented to the Grand Jury for indictment or not. If this side of the administrations task was the sole issue for them to deal with, well heck, it would still run slow. Things will happen and Obama has 2 years and 11 months before he has to worry about the next 4 years.
Jill:
Your asking when does our country live closer to the “ideals” set forth in the constitution, I don’t know? However when a former federal prosecutor and U.S. attorney asks publicly did you like the results of the V. Plame investigation and prosecution? Because naming a SP right now will end the flow of information to the public as it did then.
I’m learning to be patient. Let people elected and appointed to high office tell their story to the media. Let’s allow military current and former, along with current and former government employees to share their version of events.
“We are also losing what little credibility we have left to the rest of the world.” Perhaps in the near term you are accurate, but with out a statue of limitations this will get investigated.
Jill we/I dearly need the rat bastards responsible for governing outside the laws of our country’s constitution investigated and prosecuted.
“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.”
FFLEO,
Back at you old guy.
“I’m not required to “like” my president as a condition of posting on”
“Saying that I don’t like obama and thus my argument is not valid is a form of personal attack,”
Jill,
Your second statement is absurd and that is not a personal attack, it is a description of my thoughts on your logic. I’ve never said you were a bad person, never called you names, but I see clearly that you really don’t understand the concept I am stating. By your logic you have continually been attacking me because I am a supporter of the President you don’t trust and who you think is doing bad things. By your logic, which to me is faulty, every time you attack the man I support you are then attacking me. Don’t you see how specious that is an an argument of personal attack?
I guess you don’t, so I do believe there is no way to reach you, or reach out to you. From the tone of your posts there seems to be a self-righteous anger behind it and yes that does recall to me my experiences in the 60’s. To me people who came from that place had a “holier than thou” attitude politically and were startlingly ineffectual in getting their political agenda working. This is, by the way a characterization of you and so yes you can consider it a personal attack. I don’t like people lying about me, or who use self righteousness as a defense to cover their simmering angry natures. You have exhibited this tendency on this thread today and yes it does annoy me.