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
934 views | 68 Recommendations | 71 comments
Videos
Condi Rice Pulls a Nixon: If the President Orders Torture, It Must be Legal
sourced by nyctuber
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.”
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
nyctuber
New York, New York, United States
Most Recommended Stories in World
Recommendations (68)
nyctuber
New York, New York, United States
Karen Hatter
All Locations, Everywhere, United States
Tina Kells
Vancouver, Canada
Rhonda J Mangus
North Tonawanda, New York, United States
mtippett
Vancouver, Canada
jazzyzazzy
Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdomnukegingrich
Mccomb, Mississippi, United States
harringtola
Town-send, Massachusetts, United States
Blue Crush
Toronto, Canada
Barbara McPherson
Nanaimo, Canada
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (71)
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 16:11 on May 1st, 2009
Exxon Condolezza heading for the rocks...
at 17:25 on May 1st, 2009
To have a conspiracy, you have to have a crime. If there was no crime, or if there was no criminal intent, meaning that there was no way a reasonable person would think that the lawyers had it wrong on face-slapping, sleep deprivation and water-boarding as torture, given that all US pilots are subjected to this treatment as part of their own training, then there is no conspiracy.
Dean got caught and wants to catch everyone else. He should have given the right advice to Nixon and he would not be in this predicament of being an "ex-lawyer".
It is easier to prove that Obama is not a citizen than to prove that that Rice is part of a criminal conspiracy.
at 21:37 on May 1st, 2009
Well said Roy.
This witch hunt for blood from of the last admin, god help us from the incompetence, is truly a waste of time and energy. While "Rome burns we fiddle our fiddle with conspiracy theories, hatred for Bush, hatred for conservatives, republicans, etc." Revenge is sweet but the consequences sometimes are unintentional and dangerous to us all.
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 18:28 on May 1st, 2009
You have to find 12 Americans who think that sleep deprivation, face-slapping and water-boarding, all things that US pilots experience as part of their training, are, in fact, torture.
You will never find 12 Americans who will think that.
Comparing the killing of communist sympathizers and outright communists under Pinochet with water-boarding and sleep deprivation seems to me to be a stretch.
The Serbian president was responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of men, the killing and raping hundreds of thousands of women, in concentration camps.
I don't see a comparison possible.
In any case, the Serbian president had a trial that went on for several years. Condi Rice compared to Milosevich? A real stretch.
Hell, if a parent slapped his kid in the face, it wouldn't even be a felony, but a misdemeanor.
Now, as soon as one of these Guantanamo jihadist-terrorsts gets loose and kills an American somewhere, the trials and investigations will go in the opposite direction.
at 21:47 on May 1st, 2009
Roy, count me as one American who thinks "...that sleep deprivation, face-slapping and water-boarding, ...are, in fact, torture."
at 21:48 on May 1st, 2009
They wouldn't even be felonies if a parent did them to his adolescent kid, with the possible exception of water-boarding.
at 22:49 on May 1st, 2009
Roy, a read from Matthew Alexander.
at 22:53 on May 1st, 2009
He has a different opinion than the people who think that it is useful. He doesn't say to prosecute Condi Rice for passing on memos about legality, which is a very inquisitional reaction to something you disagree with.
The topic is the justification of lack thereof for prosecuting Condi Rice. Someone should send this reasonable man an email and ask if he thinks she should be prosecuted.
at 22:59 on May 1st, 2009
Roy, I know what the topic is, but I think you re-directed it. Consequently, my response:)
at 23:11 on May 1st, 2009
Do you think that because one person says we don't need to torture that that is the be-all and end-all opinion?
Thanks for directing me to it, as it was worth reading, and I mean that. But these are all judgments, not mathematical propositions with precise gradients on error and the rest.
I spent two years taking the same courses that med students take, and I will tell you that I have seen as much disagreement on whether the best treatment for a cancer is one operation or another and I have seen the most intelligent people say the stupidest things about Vit C.
One man's informed opinion about torture is something to note, but I have seen the other opinions as well. And just as the doctors and the scientists disagree, I think that the question is open, as to efficacy, morality and the rest.
So what if no one gave up Osama binLaden. Is it really true? Or did someone give up bin Laden and then someone informed on that as the attempt to find him was being undertaken, say, someone inside the Pakistani intelligence apparatus?
at 23:30 on May 1st, 2009
Roy, I think it could be said that Alexander is the 'experienced judge'.
at 23:41 on May 1st, 2009
He is ONE experienced judge, not the whole group. That was my point about the medical doctors and scientists. They have enormous disagreements, even feuds, that go on for years with a lot of strife.
And that is over something you can eventually work out in a laboratory. What works in the torture department and what doesn't work needs a thorough looking into.
I mean you are saying that ipso facto that proves your point, the "experienced judge".
The only way you could judge this judge's expertise would for you to be an "experienced judge:" yourself. And neither of us are such judges.
Since you are as student of philosophy, I will say, "What is objective morality? Does it exist? How do we know that this morality is objective? And how do we apply such a morality?"
Formatory logic says that such-and-such is torture, and torture is banned, and we are therefore doing banned acts which are criminal. Formatory logic is not reason, not at all.
at 00:06 on May 2nd, 2009
Roy, one essay on the notion of Objective Morality. Let me state quite simply however, that I believe in Direct Knowledge of the Good. So, for me, nothing more need be said:).
at 00:18 on May 2nd, 2009
Direct knowledge of the good is an excuse to avoid questioning one's own views, in my opinion.
It sounds like that definition of porno where the judge didn't know how to define it but "knew it when he saw it", even if it was great literature.
If there is no objective morality, then you are stuck with the fact that you cannot prove your opinion of this question as anything more than your opinion. You simply cannot be right because there is no basis for being right. All we have are our preferences, subjectively determined.
We are then reduced to a Tower of Babel where everyone gets to be king for the day.
at 00:33 on May 2nd, 2009
Roy, we are really off topic and should take this up at another time. I want to thank 'TheCameraObscura' for permitting this discussion.
at 23:50 on May 1st, 2009
and one opinion also. There are many folks in the business that would add, if necessary,do what you can to ensure getting what ever information that person knows that will help your cause.
at 21:54 on May 1st, 2009
Roy count me in as one who thinks that if we are at war and the enemy has information that will save lives then you do what you need to do to get it. Doesn't sound pretty or certainly "politically correct" but I guess you won't find too many here that have ever experienced a terror attack. The need to get information/intelligence from a combatant is part of the effort.
Anyone want to know what torture IS visit Iran, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and some of the new East European countries. Not the least Russia, China, North Korea.
Someone once said I can't tell you what torture is but you know it when you see it. Has anyone seen it? Has anyone been in the middle of a terror attack. Now that is torture.
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 21:58 on May 1st, 2009
Tom, right on the money. Just take out 'moron' and 'pricks' so you will be within the rules.
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 22:21 on May 1st, 2009
What you intend to do has to be against the law. If water-boarding is not against the law, then there is no conspiracy.
Any scarecrow who has been to the Wizard knows that.
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 07:34 on May 3rd, 2009
Please refrain from making assumptions about other members, this is against the spirit of the Code of Conduct.
Comments like this are also in violation:
"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?"
I understand that opinions here differ but we ask that all members treat one another with respect when debating an issue.
at 21:49 on May 1st, 2009
That is a flame, Mr Aikens, and you will be reported.
I couldn't vote for Reagan or Mondale and I couldn't vote for McCain or Obama. You have no idea what I believe and why I believe it.
at 21:59 on May 1st, 2009
"Bush, Cheney, et al tortured prisoners to get them to say that Saddam was involved in 911"
Where do you find such gems? I have never heard any of this. No one has ever proven that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and that argument was never made by Bush nor has any information been released from Guantanamo that such a statement had been made, freely or under duress, by anyone interned there.
Now, of course, Obama has the problem of finding someplace to put the prisoners. I laugh. He asked for this.
at 16:01 on May 11th, 2009
An excerpt from an article regarding the testimony of a former psychiatrist in the U.S. Army, Major Charles Burney to the Senate Armed Services Committee, which appears in the recently released and declassified committee report on the treatment of prisoners in U.S. custody, where the major describes his testimony to Army investigators in 2006:
A former U.S. Army psychiatrist, Maj. Charles Burney, told Army investigators in 2006 that interrogators at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention facility were under "pressure" to produce evidence of ties between al Qaida and Iraq.
"While we were there a large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between al Qaida and Iraq and we were not successful in establishing a link between al Qaida and Iraq," Burney told staff of the Army Inspector General. "The more frustrated people got in not being able to establish that link . . . there was more and more pressure to resort to measures that might produce more immediate results."