Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
MSNBC: Condi Rice may have admitted to conspiracy
Share:
by TheCameraObscura | May 1, 2009 at 02:21 pm
1077 views | 68 Recommendations | 19 comments
Videos
Photos
In little-noticed comments Thursday, the former White House counsel for President Richard Nixon John Dean said Thursday that former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice may have unwittingly admitted to a criminal conspiracy when questioned about torture by a group of student videographers at Stanford.
Rice told students at Stanford that she didn’t authorize torture, she merely forwarded the authorization for it. Dean, who became a poster child for whistleblowing after aiding the prosecution of the Watergate affair, told MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann that Rice may have admitted to a criminal conspiracy.
In a video that surfaced, Rice said, “The president instructed us that nothing we would do would be outside of our obligation, legal obligations under the convention against torture… I conveyed the authorization of the administration to the agency. And so by definition, if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Convention Against Torture.”
Her comments raised eyebrows from online observers, who compared Rice’s answer to that of Richard Nixon’s infamous quip: “When the President does it, that means that it’s not illegal.”
Advertisement
NowPublic on Facebook
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Crowd Power
nukegingrich
Mccomb, Mississippi, United States
TheCameraObscura
Los Angeles, California, United States
Most Recommended Stories in World
Recommendations (68)
Karen Hatter
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
Rhonda J Mangus
North Tonawanda, New York, United States
mtippett
Vancouver, Canada
nukegingrich
Mccomb, Mississippi, United States
harringtola
Town-send, Massachusetts, United States
Mary Richard
Toronto, Canada
Barbara McPherson
Nanaimo, Canada
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (19)
at 14:28 on May 1st, 2009
interesting.
at 16:11 on May 1st, 2009
I agree with Michael; interesting.
But, I envision, IF Ms. Rice eventually needs to get 'lawyered up', it will be argued, at the time she made those remarks, she was not under oath, opening the door for some type of revisionist statement.
at 18:15 on May 1st, 2009
The crew in Bosnia was brought to trial. Pinochet was indicted we may yet see this group before justice.
at 19:02 on May 1st, 2009
Roy C. is obviously a reactionary Republican who, in addition, knows nothing about the law. First, there DOES NOT have to be a crime to commit a conspiracy. Any first law student knows that. There has to be intent to break a law only. US pilots' training has nothing to do with the argument and could only strengthen the case itself because as Daily Clarity so rightly points out, that training is to teach them how to resist TORTURE which, at least for now, has been declared illegal for the US government to engage in. Thus there is a law that these slimeballs conspired to break. Bush, Cheney, et al tortured prisoners to get them to say that Saddam was involved in 911 and that's what is going to come out of all of this mess if Obama has the balls to clean up all the garbage left by Bush and the rest of the warmongers. They waterboarded one of those pricks 186 times and he still wouldn't say it.When are morons like Roy C going to wake up and stop helping scumbags like Bush and his ilk destroy what's left of the US and the Constitution?
at 21:44 on May 1st, 2009
TomAikins,
Check the "rules of conduct" here on NP. If you disagree with someone that is fine but keep your personal attacks or assumptions about the persons political viewpoints off the table. To discredit someones views this way leads only to further personal attacks and off topic.Roy has a very valid and honest perception of the reality here. You may not agree with his viewpoint but nevertheless he has one and must be respected. He did not attack anyone just stated his opinion. Besides, he has been a important contributor at NP. His views need to be heard. we need diversity.
Thanks,
tikun(Steve)
at 22:02 on May 1st, 2009
Just to back up what has already been stated here, please refrain from comments of an inflammatory nature towards other members, such as the use of the word 'moron'. Thanks.
at 21:43 on May 2nd, 2009
That's amusing you say that about torturing people to tell them Saddam was complicit in 9/11.... I believe you've heard of the Joint Resolution, the sole official document outlining the justifications for the Iraq war? It never claimed Saddam had any involvement.
It's like people who claim Valerie Plame was outed out of retribution when her liar husband went public with his story. If Dick Cheney was going to use the Nigerian Yellowcake story as a lie to go to war, why the hell would he contact the CIA and try to have them get to the bottom of it? (interestingly enough, because Plame's nepotism caused an unqualified person to go drink tea instead of file a report with an actual answer the CIA could relay to Cheney, he never got his answer)
However I agree that Bush's administration allowed plenty of constitutional rights to be lost, if his critics would press the legitimate points like that and not instead try and sell the ridiculous ones that turn off most reasonable people, maybe we'd get somewhere?
at 22:03 on May 1st, 2009
nyctuber,
Right on as usual.
if you took out all the "morons and pricks" very few comments would be made here. sorry.
at 23:56 on May 1st, 2009
Am I missing something here?
Rhonda, You mean to say that under no circumstance, if someone was trying to kill you would you not do whatever was needed to ascertain information? If someone ( a terrorist), god forbid, had the knowledge to stop a major attack you would not be in favor of doing whatever it took to get this information?
at 00:21 on May 2nd, 2009
tikun, you could be missing something, I'm not sure:) If you mean torturing someone to get information, I do not agree with that line of thinking, and will never agree with it -- under no circumstances.
at 20:58 on May 4th, 2009
Can anyone name when this fantasy scenario has ever actually happened? Outside of Hollywood and the echo chamber of the GOP?
at 18:39 on May 13th, 2009
Tikun, if torture is so effective to save innocent American lives why not use it on American suspects who may be endangering the lives of Americans?
Why not torture Americans? Indefinitely detain Americans?
After all, the US is one of the most violent countries with 17,000 homocides.
at 00:33 on May 2nd, 2009
the "morons and pricks" are. slower
hancook
</a href=http://www.nowpublic.com.>
at 00:36 on May 2nd, 2009
morons and pricks its not so possible
hancook
</a href=www.nowpublic.com> images</a>
at 18:06 on May 4th, 2009
5. Moral/legal responsibility always rests with the actual perpetrators of the crime (s).
6. If the intelligence community must depend on torturing innocent people then the intelligence community, you refer to, should be abolished, as Hitler's Gestapo was.
7. Pelosi says she knew waterboarding was an option, but didnt know it was taking place. If it turns out she knew it was taking place, yes, prosecute her.
8. Again, these detainees have not been convicted of any crimes, thus they are not "islamic terrorists." I support releasing the pictures, absolutely. Torture and wickedness must always be exposed. No coverups.
at 09:09 on May 6th, 2009
It's a non story and this is why:
In a video that surfaced, Rice said, “The president instructed us that nothing we would do would be outside of our obligation, legal obligations under the convention against torture… I conveyed the authorization of the administration to the agency. And so by definition, if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Convention Against Torture.”
But the "get Bush" people only see what they want to see.
at 10:42 on May 6th, 2009
"And so by definition, if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Convention Against Torture."
Condi Rice was absolutely wrong when she said that and it reflects the same "if the president does it, then it's legal" mentality of Nixon.
The Bush administration committed alot of crimes so get ready to hear about it for a loooong time.
at 00:48 on May 8th, 2009
The Bush administration committed alot of crimes so get ready to hear about it for a loooong time.
I get this feeling we're going to HEAR about crimes for a very long time.... by people who can't seem to be bothered to actually bring the guy up on charges, and don't say it's because you can't- the Democrats had the majority in 2006, what about impeachment then when you could have rid us of the "worst president in history"? Is this how we now define "progressive", the group of people that spend a decade trying to get someone who is long gone?
Shouldn't you start taking the Messiah (second coming of JC by some accounts) Obama to task for his already broken campaign promises?
Let me remind you these are the same folks who would claim Bush lied us into a war on fabricated WMD evidence and made up the other reasons after the fact- but feign blindness when shown the Joint Resolution, or Tenet's October 2002 N.I.E, which was requested by Senate Democrats so by law (the intelligence reform act of 1980) was immune to undue influence by the executive branch. The same people who claim Congress voted on that resolution based upon speeches by Bush- have they heard of the constitution? Separation of powers? How about the only evidence that was fabricated and used for anyone's decision on the war, was from Curveball- who was bought and paid for by Bill Clinton's State dept through the INC via the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998?
That's why you can't bring the charges on Bush, in almost every circumstance when you scratch beneath the surface of all these "horrible evils by Bush" you find he was continuing the policy of others or put up to it. In the situations where they clearly broke the law (warrantless wiretaps, executive priviledge by Darth Vader- err, President Dick Cheney!) the issues were far too technical and protracted for critics to promote to their Prius driving tree hugger friends around the water cooler.
But as for this direct statement, you can't prove that at that time she was speaking of she knew what the president was going to do was illegal, in fact her statement clearly implies she was assured she would be relaying no illegal policy actions whatsoever.
at 11:19 on May 7th, 2009
The major crime is hindsight. That is why it will never happen. This is the reason congress can impeach a president. That is the forum in America.