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.
[…]
In a video that surfaced Thursday, 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.”
Dean said he found Rice’s comments “surprising” and put her in a legal mire of possible conspiracy.
“She tried to say she didn’t authorize anything, then proceeded to say she did pass orders along to the CIA to engage in torture if it was legal by the standard of the Department of Justice,” Dean said. “This really puts her right in the middle of a common plan, as it’s known in international law, or a conspiracy, as it’s known in American law, and this indeed is a crime. If it indeed happened the way we think it did happen.”
1
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
The truly sad part is the neo-cons can’t see what they did as being wrong.
When you stoop to the same level as the terrorists, you are no better.
#1, Playing devil’s advocate – terrorists tend to cut the heads off of those they capture.
However, I agree, with you. Torture is torture whether it is psychological or physical. Both leave lifetime scars. If you have to have a doctor on hand to ensure the victim isn’t about to die of a heart attack, you are obviously using methods that cross a line that shouldn’t be.
Is lightning about to strike?
#1 Fusion
>>When you stoop to the same level as the terrorists, you are no better.
what a load of crap! Not sure why you are siding with a brutal enemy who would just as soon hack you head off as pray to Allah, but you are due for a reality check.
Perhaps after the next attack and you are left incinerated like a backyard barbecue gone horrible wrong you might feel a bit different. No wait, you will be dead.
#3: So, should the lawyers be prosecuted for rendering an opinion that was politically motivated (the Prez wanted to permit torture) that lead to illegal activity?
haha are you serious? this is a bs post if you ask me! lame and taken out of context…. fail
Good clip.
Her body language suggests deep consternation about what may happen next. I advise Condi to get herself a lawyer, lay low and spend time with her piano. I don’t believe prisons have pianos.
well, if this is how you will play the game….Obamessiah is continuing almost all of the policies, just changing the “interpretation” but leaving himself big loopholes.
So make room in the cell for your own guys once we eventually get back in the game…he’ll be just as guilty.
Better headline is ‘Condi owns self-absorbed student’, thought I have to say that guy was much better in questioning than your typical liberal.
good for Condi for not backing down to this snot nosed kid who thinks he knows how the world works. i cant stand naive college student who think the world is this idealistic place of peace and love. GROW UP kid, you sound stupid. Go back to berkley, with your birkenstocks, and hug a tree. What a testimate to the american education system, run by liberal teachers, instilling idiotic beliefs and ideas into the minds of our youth. I always said that the older i get, the more i realize how smart my father was…and the older i get the more conservative i become.
I would say that if the person being ‘tortured’, when having full knowledge of what is going to happen to him, becomes less frightened, perhaps it isn’t torture.
Suppose John Kerry back when he was a DA, he has a criminal in the room, and tells him that unless he confesses, he’s going to push for the death penalty. Is this torture?
I do not why we are so concerned about how we treat people who want to kill every American if they could? We were all for it days and months after 9-11. Now all of a sudden all the bleeding hearts feel sorry for these terrorists. Do you people ever listen to yourselves? Your looked upon as weak in the minds of these terrorists. Has anybody ever realized how these countries punish their own citizens for such things as stealing? These same people would be complaining of why we did nothing if hundreds of solders were killed by something that could have been stopped if more tactics were used. This of course comes from a country who rounded up national Japanese who were put into camps after Pearl Habor. Now I never heard many complain about that. When war happens things get desparate and they always will. Its a fight for survival. Its great to play humanitarian after the fact. But the fact remains we have not been attacked since and that says something for our military.
Torture is a top tier crime — like murder, rape, child abuse and treason.
What the hell happened to the Republicans to make them lose their morality?
I have a question:
If it is ok for the US Government to do this, if it’s all above-board and legal, why isn’t it being done on US soil?
Hard to call. If I want to do something that I’m not sure is legal regarding taxes I get the opinion of a tax attorney then proceed with that advice. It probably boils down to opinion on a given law. Should have it put before the SCotUS for a review.
This is what RICO is for. What has happened to our country. I cannot believe how lawlessness in government, business and law “enforcement” has become legitimate. I cannot believe anyone is in favor of torture. Especially in light of evidence that it doesn’t work as well as other methods. It is pure sadism and it legitimizes sadism around the world because we can no longer, in good faith, repudiate torture by others.
No, I don’t think Rice is personally responsible. I’d love to see all of the techniques used on the prisoners used on each and every one of the torture deniers. Then we’ll see what they think is torture.
Oh, and there’s the tiny item that we invaded a country without any justification. They were no threat to us.
The entire Bush administration deserves a chance to explain their actions. .. I suggest Nuremberg as a fine place to do it.
# 19 Joe T said, “Oh, and there’s the tiny item that we invaded a country without any justification. They were no threat to us.”
Umm, you can ALWAYS justify it. The real point is invading another country that hasn’t attacked yours. Look how Obama continues to bomb civilians in Pakistan. Sounds like he needs to go before a trial also. Unless, you agree with killing innocent civilians in a country that you aren’t at war with…
#17: Interesting fact about tax law. Years ago, I was a programmer at a company that did tax programs. We regularly came across situations where one part of the code 180 degree contradicted another part of the code. It was a coin toss by our on-staff tax lawyers and accountants as which to pick and if we picked wrong, when the IRS or Congress finally fixed it, our customers were screwed. It was no defense for them that we or their tax lawyers picked wrong. Neither was calling the IRS and having someone there tell us. They could be wrong in the end.
Or put another way, a tax lawyer can only tell you what he ‘thinks’ the law says. It is only when the IRS takes you to court and the court rules in your favor that the lawyer was right. Of course, by then, you’ve probably paid more to the lawyer than the cost of it all was.
Same situation here with torture. A lawyer can state the law says whatever he wants it to. Doesn’t mean he is right or will be found right by a court. Doesn’t mean those who followed his advice can use that as a defense.
#22 Correct. That’s why judges exist. Another nightmare example for a business exec; Overtime laws that you must apply exist at the State, Fed, IRS, case law & Admin law level. They contradict each other in MANY cases. You get an employment atty write your payroll policies and hope for the best…
Well, when Obama finds Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri and brings them to trial then I’ll worry about the Bush administration. Next.
To continue with #22, Uncle Dave,
A legal opinion might mitigate a crime, BUT it will not excuse it. As Dave started out, if the lawyer, accountant, engineer, computer programmer, or whomever makes an error, it is still your butt on the line.
To deny that Rice and the others at the top who sanctioned torture are responsible, flies in the face of all legal precedent for the past two centuries of jurisprudence. If she didn’t know torture was illegal, she should have known. The FBI made it quite plain in 2002 that they would not tolerate torture and held that it was illegal. Previous court decisions in America as well internationally and militarily held torture to be illegal.
# 25 Mr. Fusion said, “To deny that Rice and the others at the top who sanctioned torture are responsible, flies in the face of all legal precedent for the past two centuries of jurisprudence.”
Well, then we’ll see if Obama thinks that the law applies to all equally. Won’t we?
Has he decided to put Bush, et al on trial yet?
#26–Paddy-O-Alfie==how does your link explain why legal opinions should not be the basis for prosecution? Maybe I read it too quickly, but I saw a letter from an attorney that did not address legal immunity and was only a political posturing. Connect it up will you please, and don’t send me a bill like Paddy-O-Alfie is fond of masturbating over.
#27–Paddy-O-Alfie==It is only a technicality that you are ignoring as it was established by Kind BushCo, but IN FACT the Presnident should not be commenting on legal issues==its the check and balance meant to keep our government constitutionally sound. But thanks for witlessly demonstrating just exactly why Presnidents who draft legal opinions are not protected just by having pandering sycophant lawyers sign off on them.
# 28 bobbo said, “Maybe I read it too quickly,”
Yes, which is why your post is Non Sequitur.
A bigger, and as of yet unanswered question is, does O’Mama believe the law applies equally to all? And, if he does why hasn’t his admin indicted Bush, et al?
#32 Well, he has already said that he wants to violate the Constitution. So, that should be enough for impeachment when he executes on that.
Great quote. And, true.
>but IN FACT the Presnident should not be commenting on legal issues
So that oath to uphold the constitution means what then?
Frankly, I don’t think the president needed or needs any legal authority to execute everyone at Guantanamo. It’s how wars are fought.