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,
“My sarcasm was employed just for questions such as the one you asked.” was how your posting began, whatever was in the middle was lost on me and your final sentence was the one I concentrated on. I apologize for attributing to you and replying to you over a message that similarly insults YOUR motive, posting history and oft-revealed intellectual acuity. I apologize sincerely.
As I said, I am probably hyper-sensitive to such statements based on their POTENTIAL implications. That’s a failing of mine and in fact I found the statement (as I perceived them) to be totally uncharacteristic of your postings. I am too familiar with ‘traitor’ as an epithet applied to one that dissents. Maybe I need to get over that.
I normally agree with your postings at about a 99% frequency. So much so there’s seldom anything to add to, or debate, in them so I reply to you seldom because ‘right, what Mike said.’ is kinda boring for readers. That’s likely a failure of disclosure of my attitudes or points of view on my part.
“By the same token it is also to annoying to be characterized as an “Obamaniac”…” I don’t consider you as such.
“I have now called the White House more than a dozen times to protest various Administration positions and have demanded the dismissal of Geithner and Summers.” Tell me about it 😉 I don’t call (congressperson or the WH) anymore, I was having to buy too many ‘extra’ minutes. I just e-mail now and buy Bailey’s Irish Cream with the money I would spend on extra minutes. Bailey’s, malt powder and a good Vanilla ice cream makes the best malted milk EVER. Forget the milk and just let the ice cream soften before blending for best results. A dash of chocolate syrup guilds the lily but hey, who says no to chocolate?
Under the best circumstances I am a cynic when it comes to politicians and their motives. I expected no retreat on the concept of the Unitary Executive philosophy and little to nothing on the torture front. I have not been proved wrong after a 90 day probationary period for the President. I’m not surprised by this. I’m not so much disappointed that this Administration has not lived up to what I wanted to see done on these and similar issues regarding the ‘soul of the nation’ but I am greatly unhappy that this Administration has lived DOWN to my reflexive expectations. Would I trade Obama for McCaine? H*** NO! A Dennis Kucinich? Yes. Yes I would.
GWLawSchoolMom,
I was thinking about this the other day….when did we find it okay to become purposefully rude?
**********************************
(Cheating from Mespo727272)
Mame, I for one am pleased that you are here as well, I can probably say this for most everyone, it is a pleasure to read well thought out ideals.
I will again thank you for being here.
I was thinking about this the other day….when did we find it okay to become purposefully rude?
I don’t mean everyone all the time, even thought it does seem that more often than not — I mean rudeness posing entertainment.
Does anyone here remember the McLauglin Group? Was that the first political show to feature otherwise normal, reasonable folks turn into screaming maniacs? Is that when it happened? Add to that the Jerry Springer phenomenon and road rage and we begin to act like too many rats crammed into a shoebox.
I’ve been posting to message boards for years, well over a decade and stopped a few years ago because I can’t stand the rudeness, the purposeful unkindness that ultimately weakens our points of view and dilutes our ideas and gives the internet the reputation of being inhabited by Muu-muu wearing, Parliament chain-smoking, escapees from The Cukoo’s Nest to paraphrase Aaron Sorkin.
I’m on travel for the rest of this week, taking a few days to hang with my old surfer friends in Malibu and then next week will be visiting other friends at Tulane. I am sure to fall way behind. I hope when I get back that the discourse is as fresh and stimulating as ever.
I think Professor Turley or John as some call him asked everyone last night to play nice. No personal attacks on any ones posts other than disagreements.
Mike:
I agree that “Richard Blaine” gets all the press, but “Queeg” is the better role for this talented anti-hero. It’s my favorite too. I also like him as drifter Duke Mantee in the “Petrified Forest,” with Bette Davis and Leslie Howard.
LK:
You probably should have stuck with your original ‘instinct’, but by all means, continue on with your in depth ‘research’
– now that you’re back online with a new computer.
FYI, our current menagerie of livestock includes the bull I see outdoors right now, in fact, that we affectionately named ‘Bullie’! :p
I know BS when I see it.
The difference is yours reeks!
LOL
JT & Mespo,
Bogie was and remains my favorite actor. his role though in The Caine Mutiny was I think his greatest performance and the movie itself was thrilling to watch.
Gregory Slater,
Despite those who would cut to the chase in the point you made, I appreciate yours because I think it has the correct flavor of the thought of those involved.
“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.”
lottakatz,
Context when trying to analyze or dispute a comment is everything. Your quote came from the lower part of my admittedly sarcastic post. The thrust of what I was stating was not that no one has the right to either criticize or dislike President Obama, but that this is far too early in his administration to make blanket assessments of the man’s direction. However, in context a part of the problem is that writing here as much as I do, I have to go on the assumption that many have read my other comments and thus know where I’m coming from, or else I being a reasonably careful person about making what I mean clear, would have to write tomes qualifying everything I wrote.
There are perhaps fifty comments that I have made here where I clearly stated that people should protest now and continue to protest everything that either the President, or Congress have done that they disagree with. I have also shown support for JT’s continued lambasting of the Administration’s torture position, as I have done in signing various petitions from the ACLU, etc. also protesting these policies. I see no dichotomy in this position since I have stated it is my belief that the President’s strategy mirrors that of FDR’s in asking proponents of issues to have the people make him do it. That is my point and in that lies my sole disagreement with people who are unhappy with, distrust, or dislike the President. This point has been clearly, in my opinion, made by me in numerous posts.
Given that it is frustrating to me to be characterized as someone who would stifle dissent. By the same token it is also to annoying to be characterized as an “Obamaniac” (I am using shorthand here) who will support the President no matter what his policies. Indeed I have now called the White House more than a dozen times to protest various Administration positions and have demanded the dismissal of Geithner and Summers. I have also written posts describing this, called Congress and written letters, so this is a matter of record and not my just stating something is so.
As to the rest of your comment you might be quite surprised on how much I agree with you. There are also posts from me scolding Patty C. for personal attacks upon Jill and decrying the internecine warfare. There are also expressions of gratitude from me to Jill for being the first to welcome my comments here. That is also context and exists despite the fact that Patty C. and I share a general agreement on most issues of this sort.
That being said, for me to be accused of making “personal attacks” and “calling names” does upset me. Doubly so because I am not guilty as charged. There is also context there. If you see some of the attacks I’ve launched on trolls at this site you will see that I am fully capable of being vitriolic in a “personal” way and that I do not suffer fools gladly. I also as the old umpire said:”Calls em as I sees em.” This has been a feature of my personality since grade school and that I’ve succeeded career wise to any degree comes from my ability to outwork most in my field and certainly not from any bosses pleasure in my critiques of some of their decisions, or unwillingness to obey illegal orders. For better, or worse, given my age and personal wont it is who I am. However, I have too much empathy for others pain and suffering to try to purposely degrade them or hurt their feelings personally. when I have done so on this site, to non-trolls, I have immediately apologized sincerely and without equivocation, openly admitting my error. In this instance I perceive no need to do so, since the “attacks” I’ve been accused of were not of a “personal” nature.
On Point:
Condi is only semi-stupid. She knows the trick is to “get ’em young”.
Just like the Hitler Youth.
This is a woman who not only should be barred from breeding, but she shouldn’t be allowed around other’s children either. Next she’ll be teaching them that W is a modern Jesus, persecuted for trying to protect his oil profits, er, um, the American Way and the Constitution.
Man, those strawberries were sure good. lol Just kidding! And I’ll thank you to leave my insane goat out of this. It wasn’t him because cabbage makes him gassy.
mespo,
Don’t defame goats!
Lottakatz,
Thank you for what you said and the perspective you offered on this situation. I truly appreciate it.
Reminds me of the “goat and cabbages” defense and I think the illustration more fitting for this gang of cloven-footed scoundrels.
(1) You never had any cabbages.
(2) If you did have cabbages, they were rotten and worthless.
(3) Besides, I don’t own a goat.
(4) If I did own a goat, it didn’t eat your cabbages.
(5) If I did own a goat and it did eat your cabbages, it was insane at the time.
The last line of defenses is, however, plausible with this crowd.
That is similar to the old “He needed killing” defense!
Mike A,
I fergit about that ole tort defense. That is exactly what it is.
Good synopsis, Gregory. Prof. Rice has simply regurgitated a different version of the old “dog bite” defense. You may remember how it goes:
1. I don’t own a dog.
2. If I do own a dog, it didn’t bite your kid.
3. If I do own a dog and it did bite your kid, your kid wasn’t injured.
4. If I do own a dog and it did bit your kid and your kid was injured, my dog acted in self-defense because your kid provoked it.
Master Slater:
It would have been unethical or immoral not to torture.
Condi’s Multi-Tiered But Infantile Defense(Parsing Condi):
1. No one who was not in a position of power and responsibility immediately after the horrendous attacks of 9-11, as I was, or who wasn’t present at our secret meetings where we decided on our policies, has any right whatsoever to in any way question the legality or morality of any of the decisions we made or the actions we took – regardless of the morality or legality of those policies.
2. Everything we did was by our own judgement for the good of the country and thus we are exempt from accountability, regardless of the criminality of our actions.
3. After 9-11 (and for the next eight years) all bush administration officials including myself were in such a state of continuous mindless terror and rage that we cannot be held accountable for any of our actions over the entire eight years of the bush regime, again regardless of the illegality or immorality of those actions (the ‘eight-year temporary insanity defense’)
4. In any case, everything we did was completely legal.
5. If what we did was NOT legal, then why didn’t anyone stop us??
6. OK, if it was illegal, I wasn’t responsible because I was only following orders. I only ‘conveyed’ the orders written by others. And that’s my final answer!
Professor Turley,
Thank you for your calls for professionalism and decorum. I have to admit that the trolls do get under my skin, but I have also been upset to see the personal attacks on this site between regular posters. If we can’t get along with people who are truly attempting to air their opinions, the trolls have done their job. By the way, your reference to the Caine Mutiny brought back memories of that fine movie. Kind of a scary one, but great acting.
I am constantly amazed at your ability to remain so affable and maintain your sanity in the midst of this torture/prosecutions debate. I recently saw your appearances on Chris Matthew’s show and the conversation could have easily dissolved (as it usually does with Pat Buchanan’s borderline lunacy and Matthew’s misguided enthusiasm) without the laser-like consistency and logic of your arguments on behalf of our Constitution.
I’m only sad to see that once the undeniable truth of our current situation and the inevitable conclusions that it leads to seemed to dawn upon Mr. Matthews’ brain he attempted to question your motivations and asked questions like “Why do you have this absolute attitude here?” It’s truly sad when a real student of history, as Chris Matthews surely is, has to bring up such a ridiculous notion. Not only that, Chris Matthews has stated many times that his personal idol is Churchill. So…doubly embarrassing, and the extent of his denial is mindblowing.