Rice at Stanford Pulls a Nixon: When The President Tortures, It’s Not Illegal

Cenk Uygur has it. Condoleezza Rice plus semantics equals flat-out lying.

First, she says that Bush instructed his subordinates that nothing that they did would be outside of their obligations under the Convention Against Torture.

Second, Rice denied personal responsibility for her actions, starting from July 2002, when she paved the way for a suspected al Qaeda prisoner to be waterboarded:

I didn’t authorize anything. I conveyed the authorization of the administration to the agency, that they had policy authorization, subject to the Justice Department’s clearance. That’s what I did.

She “conveyed” the authorization?

I hate to think that this is what President Obama is condoning when he refuses to bring up the past.

So when George W. Bush “authorized” the torture of foreign suspects, it wasn’t illegal, Rice claims.

You can only admire the sheer grandiosity of the circular logic of these statements only so far, because it’s statements like these that allow some people to get away with all kinds of murder and maiming, from Nazi Germany to Cambodia, from Kissinger to Mugabe. That it comes from African American lips, from someone who knew one of the four little girls who were bombed to pieces at the 16th Street Baptist Church (yes, I am watching Spike’s documentary again this p.m.), is shameful and disgraceful.

This is what Rice said:

The United States was told, we were told, nothing that violates our obligations under the Convention Against Torture, and so by definition, if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Convention Against Torture.

The full interview is here. This black woman has an exaggerated image of herself, not wanting to worry about “what’s out there,” but relying on what’s within her. What’s within her, I believe, is so mangled and tightly controlled that I can well imagine why damaged characters like Bush and Cheney were so happy with her. “What’s out there” was public opinion and outrage–the alternate point of view–that she refused to give one inch, but she certainly felt comfortable clinging to and repeating the bare-faced lies that have been refuted by facts:

We did not torture anyone.

She waggles her finger, refuses to allow the student to counter some of her errors, and makes specious claims about 9/11 and how they kept the country safe. It’s a jingoistic, despicable piece of sophistry. Most of the people they renditioned weren’t even al Qaeda. Most of the people who were involved in 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia, our supposed ally, not Iraq or even Afghanistan. When you’ve got nothing, you appeal to emotions, and this is what Rice was doing. You weren’t there, she told the student, but I was. I’m sure these students were overawed, because it was Condoleeza Rice, but hopefully, not all of them were proud of or convinced by this performance.

If she gets grabbed while vacationing in Europe somewhere, I’ve got news for the captors: Lock the doors and throw away the keys. Because she ain’t none of mine. Mine do not torture, rape, humiliate and murder.

Bookmark and Share

~ by blksista on April 30, 2009.

One Response to “Rice at Stanford Pulls a Nixon: When The President Tortures, It’s Not Illegal”

  1. […] rice at stanford: when the president tortures its not illegal […]


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: