Condi Rice: 'We didn't torture anybody'

The president is always right is the way it works in a monarchy. Our country is a democracy.

I thought since all of you incompetents were out of office, you would get back to the truth, but I see, you have your stories and you are sticking to them !! That's fine !! I think you better get yourselves some good lawyers, you're going to need them !! I know, it wasn't really torture you were meting out, it was tea !! Good, old Republicans, get in a pinch and lie your way out !! What an agenda !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

It's the John Demjanjuk two step defense:
1. It wasn't me. (CIA destroys DVD's of those conducting the torture and finds other ways to shroud identities.)

2. Just following orders. (Like Eichmann on trial, giving the details of the Wannsee Conference: he was just implementing the Wannsee Protocol.)

Add to that the "advice of counsel" twist:

3. Not only were we "just following orders"; we have a legal opinion from US Justice Department that everything we did was OK so long as subject did not die or suffer the loss of an "organ". (Does "organ" include eye, hand, partial amputation of leg??)

It's the Nazi defense all over again. The tip off, as so often the case, is the destruction of evidence.

Condi Rice sucked as a Secretary of State and now is sinking even lower as an apologist for torturers.

Don't think for a moment that they stopped at "waterboarding".

Remember the final paragraph of the Torture Judge's memo sums up that that must be death or organ loss to constitute "torture". Bybee's bottom line.

The DVD's were destroyed not to save space in the CIA archive.

They would document the (sometimes unsuccessful) heroic measures needed to "revive" the subjects of the "simulated drownings".

Plus a whole lot more.

President could find himself ultimately seen as condoning all this.

That wouldn't sit well with the base.

Not at all.

"By defintion,'' Rice explains, "if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations.''

So, Condi just washed her hands. In other words, they were 'just following orders'. We've heard that one before too.

Sounds like the same defense the Nazi's used. Just following orders. Just implementating the program. Besides being one of the worst Secretary of States with the least amount of accomplishments, Rice is a two faced liar and she knows it.

She proves once again she didn't know what was going on, or she's lying. Probably both.

Sorry Hillary.......you can't hold a candle to Condi

Mark, if some kooky, head-chopping terrorist kidnapped your daughter and his partner was arrested after the kidnapping, would you allow the CIA to waterboard the kooky, head-chopping terrorist if it was the only way to get information on the whereabouts of your daughter?
I love all the sanctimonious loony lefters who are all aghast that three head-chopping terrorists were waterboarded, prevented from sleeping and not given hot tea and cookies every day. At the Obama Press Love-In, highlighted by Zany Jeff Zeleny's most silly question, Obama said he would seek other means than enhanced interogations to get the neede d info to prevent an attack on thousands of Americans. Problem is, Barack, is that other methods were used on KSM before he was waterboarded. If all our Navy Seals are waterboarded as part of their training, then I don't think KSM, who did chop off Daniel Pearl's head and was the 9/11 mastermind, was too tortured by the waterboarding.
But I ask you Lefty Loons and Mark Silva, if it came down to preventing a nuclear attack on a U.S. city or torturing some head-chopping Islamic kook, which would you choose? Since the Left and Silva love polls right now, more than 70 percent of Americans are OK with enhanced interrogations if it meant saving American lives.

Sounds an awful lot to me like a combination of "I AM the state ("L'Etat, c'est moi")" and "I am not a crook."
.
Maybe she could throw in something like: "I AM big! It's the PICTURES that got small!"

There are still Stalinist, Japanese Nationalists and Nazi's who will insist that they did the right thing. That they were the victims, that they just followed orders, that their cause was a righteous cause. Many of them ar locked up and medicated. Let's see where the Bush crew winds up.

Welcome to life outside the bubble.

John D is right. t is perfectly legitimate to order torture to protect the children of your country. That's why I ordered that John McCn and his fellow terror bombers be tortured. I was only trying to protect the small children of Hanoi from being killed by the American carpet bombing of our civilian areas. I'm proud to stand with John D and praise all the torturers of the world for their work protecting the worlds chldren from those who would harm them, like John McCain and his American terror bombing comrades. If you knew that a bunch of men were going to fly over your city and drop bombs on it wouldn't you beat the tar out of any you captured to try to protect your children from being blown up?

Thank you again John D, for being smart enough to defend torture. It's good to have friends and allies like you. Please be sure to sharte your views with Senator Mccain. I'm sure you can convince him that what we did to him was unquestionably a highly moral, perfectly ethical act.

The point to note from this student video is that Presidential authorizations are only empowered by the constitution and the law and it isn't the case that a president's written order or verbal command or whatever always stands up as a legal, constitutional presidential authorization.

It isn't the case that the word of the president alone becomes law because the president in a constitutional republic has limited powers and not the unlimited powers of a dictator or a monarch.

I am not a lawyer so I cannot say for sure whether US or international law outlaws waterboarding or not (though I trust it IS outlawed) but if it is illegal then the president couldn't just overrule the law by saying - "it's OK, I'm the president saying you can do it, so that makes it legal".

To summarize I would say it sounds like Condi was fed some flimsy legal arguments in 2002 to justify the "enhanced interrogation" techniques thought to be expedient at the time but which many people would see as torture.

However Condi did not simply lap up those flimsy legal arguments. She was fed them but they did not sit well in her stomach so she spat them out soon enough when it was polite to do so.

Meanwhile, conveying the president's wishes to the CIA in 2002, Condi was acting as little more than a messenger, so don't shoot the messenger.

Condi also mentions that the authorization was subject to the Justice Department's clearance so if they cleared it, and they are the lawyers responsible then it is their fault for not giving better legal advice.

The Justice Department should have said "no way is waterboarding legal" and their failure to do so has brought us to this point.

It needs to be understood that the National Security Advisor job Condi was doing in 2002 has no executive command responsibilities.

Condi could not tell the CIA what to do because only the President gives the orders and only the Director of Central Intelligence, a.k.a. "the Director of the CIA", (then George Tenet), directed the CIA how to interrogate people.

When Condi became Secretary of State in 2005 she was in a more powerful position which she put to good use to put a stop to torture.

All Condi's public statements were unequivocally anti-torture and every time she spoke out against torture she stripped away more of the political cover those like Cheney inside the administration who were backing torture had.

In due course, the Bush-Cheney-CIA torturers were exposed for all to see how low they had stooped and the “enhanced interrogation” policy collapsed - thanks to Condi's public leadership against torture.

But it wasn't just that Condi argued publicly against torture - she also made moves inside the administration to get it stopped as soon as she had the power to do so.

As can been heard in this recent TV interview by Philip Zelikow for MSNBC - part 1, part 2 when Condi became Secretary of State and actually had some administrative authority in the administration (NSA is just an advisor) she put him (Zelikow) on the job of turning the Bush administration policy away from enhanced interrogation because she had grave concerns about the whole thing.

In other words, Condi used the power she had, which was limited, to do the right thing and that is EXACTLY what you need from a president.

Bush and Condi are different people altogether. Condi would not have picked Cheney as her VP and if somehow she had been lumped with a VP Cheney she would not have delegated to Cheney supervision of the CIA. That is my firm belief.

I don't know who Condi would pick as VP but that chap Zelikow is a long-time friend and colleague of Condi's and she has plenty of other highly talented people to pick from. She wouldn't pick a Cheney so we can trust her as President.

I don't think Condi would pick Sarah Palin for VP either.

Peter Dow,
Group owner
Rice for President Yahoo Group"Condoleezza Rice for President in 2012. Join this group of supporters from everywhere on the world wide web."

"If it was authorized by the President..."

Not a good legal precedent, Dr. Rice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejvyDn1TPr8

You're changing the subject, John D. Condi didn't say torture is okay; she lied and said they didn't do it. But you're still wrong, John D. 70% is a bogus number.

Of course, she is correct: waterboarding is NOT a near-drowning technique- the subject is never in danger of drowning.

Water boarding is NOT torture- there is no physical harm to the subject.

This kid was a typical righteous but poorly informed Obot, with sweeping generalizations and "knows" an awful lot of stuff that isn't true.

Condi did the right thing in the now defunct War on Terror, and has nothing to hide. She doesn't take any crap about it from some college kid, either... maybe he wasn't aware she was drawn from academia, and is familiar with his type.

God Bless Condi Rice-

http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/

RRR,

Idiot. The subject doesn't know if they're about to drown or not -- that's what makes it torture! Go back to sleep.

Torture Judge's memo:

Torture only exists if pain is created equal to death or organ failure.

Well, most organ failure results in death pretty promptly.

And we've no reports of the peculiar quality of that sort of pain, do we?

The dead tell no tales, do they, Professor Doom, Judge Bybee?

Those who organs have failed as a result of the "interrogation" will not be around long enough to report on the peculiarities of that type of pain, will they?

The DVD's have been destroyed, the corpses as well.

Like the Holocaust deniers, apologists like Condi will just keep saying: nothing happened.

As torturers and world dominators, the Bushites were wimps compared to the real thing.

Carpet bomb Iraq, try to carve up its oil fields--a pale imitation of the takeover of Romania and oil fields further east and invasion of Russia.

Electrodes, beatings, dog bites , dislocated shoulders, hypothermia, 29 days of sleep deprivation: pales in comparison to the twin experiments, phenol injections to the heart, CO and Cyclone B.

You had your share of refrigerated corpses to dispose of: subjects of overzealous "wallslamming" or "simulated" drowning.

But, Condi, you're no Ribbentrop.

You, Cheney and the whole Chancellery--no match for the real thing.

Because they were true believers, and most of you were only in it for the money.

The Halliburton dividends. Etc.
The amazing thing is the paltry sum that could buy most of you.

So, since you were motivated by good old American greed, you may escape accountability for your acts.

May escape. Not will escape.

If it was torture for anyother means than to save American lives, then why for crying out loud, was a physician always present?

I just pray that Obama is incapable of destroying Americas ability to defend itself before we have to!!

Obeying the law. A good thing, I always thought, since we are a country of laws and without adherence to our laws we fail generally. Selectively adhering to laws will result in our eventual failure. Yet, we have both sides screaming, "fowl" and playing "got ya" politics. Let's examine the record. We have cities of refuge in direct disobedience to law. We have judges writing law when they have no power to do so given them by the constitution. Judges render opinions between two parties. It is the duty of legislators to modify, make, repeal, laws. We have abortion and partial birth abortion causing significantly more pain than water boarding and can by definition be considered torture.
We have folks who screamed when the latest Pres. Bush was initially on the campaign trail and spoke at Bob Jones University. But, our current president attended one of the most rabid hate filled churches I am aware of and hardly a peep occurred.
We have the UN, Bill Clinton and Al Gore, et. al. speaking the same stuff about weapons of mass destruction that Bush did BEFORE he did yet Bush is the liar.

We had a recent president that was too loyal and caused us great loss of life. We have news media that fire the hate in the bellies of our enemies. We have Republicans who spent like drunken sailors and now cast dispersions on those who current spend like drunken sailors (any reason why folks don't trust them either?). We just finished with a president who had folks around him that had no clue what would happen when a down trodden people got a moment of relief from their evil dictator. Any peace corps volunteer could have told them what was going to happen. Really irritating pomposity.

Now, we have thought police lurking and gun/amo controllers in the bushes. See any conflicts looming for an administration that wants to bring all folks together? Let me see... how many nominees had tax problems? Let's see, which person eventually confirmed owed more back taxes then many people earn and claimed that the tax system was too difficult to understand?

I am not enamored with the lies of this president nor lack of forthrightness and openness of the last. For those quick to claim, " he says lying president yet has no facts." Ok.. I read his web page (don't like to believe the parties talking points) and Obama said that there would be no litmus test for Supreme court judge. Then, I listened to a stump speech to Planned Parenthood where he told them that the Supreme Court judge he chose would be pro choice.

I have had it with citizens and gov't officials who obey only the laws they choose and impose on others THEIR ideals on how life should be lived. I am a proud independent in search of honest men and women and an educated citizenry who is not afraid to take on the PC loonies.

Lastly.. anyone for gun/ammo control that has read any statistics on the level of crime in states with concealed gun laws vs states where citizens aren't allowed to have guns?

Ooops.. I might have crossed over into the watch list....

Christian Szell: Is it safe?... Is it safe?
Babe: You're talking to me?
Christian Szell: Is it safe?
Babe: Is what safe?
Christian Szell: Is it safe?
Babe: I don't know what you mean. I can't tell you something's safe or not, unless I know specifically what you're talking about.
Christian Szell: Is it safe?
Babe: Tell me what the "it" refers to.
Christian Szell: Is it safe?
Babe: Yes, it's safe, it's very safe, it's so safe you wouldn't believe it.
Christian Szell: Is it safe?
Babe: No. It's not safe, it's... very dangerous, be careful.

Rice is to be guest of honour at the opening of the School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary, May 13. School Director, Jack Mintz says Rice "is a good example of what a school of public policy can achieve." Please sign petition asking U of C to rescind the invitation: http://www.petitionsite.com/1/illegal-war-is-not-good-policy

The reason why none of us respect Republicans these days is because Republicans have lost the ability to persuade us with good Critical Thinking skills.

Here's a perfect example of a post that is just chock full of logical fallacies:

"Mark, if some kooky, head-chopping terrorist kidnapped your daughter and his partner was arrested after the kidnapping, would you allow the CIA to waterboard the kooky, head-chopping terrorist if it was the only way to get information on the whereabouts of your daughter? I love all the sanctimonious loony lefters who are all aghast that three head-chopping terrorists were waterboarded, prevented from sleeping and not given hot tea and cookies every day."

Logical Fallacies:
1. Loaded Question
2. Scare Tactics
3. Slippery Slope
4. Straw Man
5. Personal Attack
6. False alternatives
7. Weak Analogy

Did I miss any?

How far from the rest of America is this political party that it now finds itself defending torture and Dick Cheney? And, at that, they can't even make a logical argument for their position, but must instead resort to hysteria.

Sort of like the dishonorable position George W. Bush took by declaring, "We don't torture" when he did.

The GOP has lost its soul.

That was a great performance by Laurence Olivier in MARATHON MAN.

And, according to the Torture Judge, Babe wasn't tortured because only a freshly cut nerve in a tooth was involved.

Not death. Not organ failure.

Thanks for that brilliant example of the dishonest pettifoging sophistry of the Judge Bybee/Professor Doom Tjorture Memo.