Translation... "He did it..."

OlafTheBent: Translation... "He did it..."

'Zactly. Incidentally, what bunker has Condi been camped out in for the last hundred days? She sure got the f*ck off the national stage as fast as humanly possible.

Go home and retire with whatever dignity you can summon. Better yet, move to a country without an extradition treaty and shut the fark up.

Q: Okay. Is waterboarding torture in your opinion?

RICE: I just 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.

You are a liar. An absolute inveterate liar.

Bored Horde: Go home and retire with whatever dignity you can summon. Better yet, move to a country without an extradition treaty and shut the fark up.

problem is, most of those are just itching to put these bozos before the world court. this is really the best part of the whole fiasco, and why they're pushing so hard to keep investigations from happening in the US: they can't leave for fear of being brought up on charges overseas.

stickmangrit: problem is, most of those are just itching to put these bozos before the world court. this is really the best part of the whole fiasco, and why they're pushing so hard to keep investigations from happening in the US: they can't leave for fear of being brought up on charges overseas.

shhhhhhh

So basically she didn't like being saddled with some of the blame and decided to say, "B-b-b-but Bush..."?

Excellent, it's nice to have it in the public domain. Now that she's stated that Bush authorised torture can you prosecute him?

Arrrrroooooooooooo!

Investigate for war crimes. Do it right, do it fairly, do it with rigor.

But do it.

RoxtarRyan: Arrrrroooooooooooo!

Robo-nixon would have been better then W

Bored Horde: Robo-nixon would have been better then W



"Listen here, missy. Computers may be twice as fast as they were in 1973, but your average voter is as drunk and stupid as ever. The only thing that's different is me; I've become bitter, and let's face it, crazy over the years. And once I'm swept into office, I'll sell our children's organs to zoos for meat, and I'll go into people's houses at night and wreck up the place. Muahahaha!"

This is worse than Watergate though... at least with that it was just the cover up of breaking and entering. This is the cover-up of a war crime.

Nixon and his gang were at most going to spend 1-2 years in prison if they were ever prosecuted and served out their terms. These guys are looking at a minimum of ten years a piece, and an inability to travel anywhere in the world where they would be safe from prosecution.

And it must really suck for them with Obama sitting there in the White House acting non-committal on the subject of prosecution... simply saying, "I have read the classified memos, and I am leaving the decision to prosecute up to the Attorney General." They are existing in a state of legal limbo waiting for the other shoe to drop as the lynch mob outside steadily grows ever larger demanding to see somebody hang.

stickmangrit: Bored Horde: Go home and retire with whatever dignity you can summon. Better yet, move to a country without an extradition treaty and shut the fark up.

problem is, most of those are just itching to put these bozos before the world court. this is really the best part of the whole fiasco, and why they're pushing so hard to keep investigations from happening in the US: they can't leave for fear of being brought up on charges overseas.

well, i'm sure that she could find a nice little bungalo in some third-world shiathole.

of course, thanks to the bush administration, there's still a rough legal framework in place to allow extraordinary rendition... who needs extradition?

Sounds like she was saying "the OLC told us it was legal, so if we authorized it, its because we were told it didn't violate the Convention Against Torture". At least, that's how I read it.

Someone needs to

Wonderful. I love it when people use the Nuremberg Defense without a trace of irony.

KaponoFor3: Sounds like she was saying "the OLC told us it was legal, so if we authorized it, its because we were told it didn't violate the Convention Against Torture". At least, that's how I read it.

You read "the president" as "the OLC"? Do you need glasses?

KaponoFor3: Sounds like she was saying "the OLC told us it was legal, so if we authorized it, its because we were told it didn't violate the Convention Against Torture". At least, that's how I read it.

If she said that, she said it quite poorly. What she more literally says is "We were told it didn't violate the CAT, therefore by definition it didn't violate the CAT."

My accountant might tell me that my Slim Jim purchases are deductible, but that doesn't mean that my deduction is "by definition" consistent with the internal revenue code.

i'm meeting you half way, you stupid hippies!

burndtdan: well, i'm sure that she could find a nice little bungalo in some third-world shiathole.

They would have to choose a third world shiat-hole that did not sign on to the UN Convention Against Torture, and that one doesn't have extradition treaties with a signatory of the UN Convention Against Torture... which limits the list down to...

Angola
Myanmar
and North Korea

cousin-merle: You read "the president" as "the OLC"? Do you need glasses?

No, I already have glasses, have for a long time. Do you? Here's what she said:

RICE: The president instructed us that nothing we would do would be outside of our obligations, legal obligations under the Convention Against Torture. So that's -- And by the way, 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.

Sounds like she is referring to the OLC right there.

kronicfeld: If she said that, she said it quite poorly.

I'm definitely not disagreeing with that. I just think if you read her statements with a bit of context its pretty clear that's what she is referring to.

Code_Archeologist: burndtdan: well, i'm sure that she could find a nice little bungalo in some third-world shiathole.

They would have to choose a third world shiat-hole that did not sign on to the UN Convention Against Torture, and that one doesn't have extradition treaties with a signatory of the UN Convention Against Torture... which limits the list down to...

Angola
Myanmar
and North Korea

Really? I thought there were a few small island nations that were non-extradition havens.

You could also put failed states and anywhere that such edicts would be unenforceable on the list. So they could move to Waziristan. I'm sure the locals would give them a warm welcome.

I'm guessing the Freeper take on this will be "Whatever it takes to keep us safe and hiding in our tool sheds constantly changing our pants to de-shat them."

Or, have the Freepers already disavowed all support of that "secret liberal Dubya?"

Ignorance of the law is not a defense for the common folk. However, as evidenced by Nixon/Ford, it doesn't apply everywhere. You're all about to learn a lesson about how the real world works - powerful, well-connected people are better than you and me and don't have to abide by the same rules.

Is anyone wondering, as I am, about Obama and pre-emptive pardoning?

KaponoFor3: Sounds like she was saying "the OLC told us it was legal, so if we authorized it, its because we were told it didn't violate the Convention Against Torture". At least, that's how I read it.

She has a timing problem with that though. The torture of KSM and AZ occurred before the legal fig leaf from the OLC was written. This means that they are still in legal jeopardy, and it also means that the lawyers in the OLC that wrote those memos are facilitators after the fact, if they were aware that the torture happened before they wrote their memos.

Code_Archeologist: And it must really suck for them with Obama sitting there in the White House acting non-committal on the subject of prosecution... simply saying, "I have read the classified memos, and I am leaving the decision to prosecute up to the Attorney General." They are existing in a state of legal limbo waiting for the other shoe to drop as the lynch mob outside steadily grows ever larger demanding to see somebody hang.

It isn't his decision. It's the DoJ's call. Obama might be trying something new and letting them act at arm's length, you know... like they're supposed to.

Oh, and this is why you don't have an executive that is incestuous with Justice. It's in the executive branch's best interest to have their own in-house impartial arbiter of law in case of... well, this.

Way to go, W.

KaponoFor3: RICE: The president instructed us that nothing we would do would be outside of our obligations, legal obligations under the Convention Against Torture. So that's -- And by the way, 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.

Sounds like she is referring to the OLC right there.

Try reading the first part of the sentence as well. Authorization of the administration comes before Justice Department clearance.

Code_Archeologist: She has a timing problem with that though. The torture of KSM and AZ occurred before the legal fig leaf from the OLC was written. This means that they are still in legal jeopardy, and it also means that the lawyers in the OLC that wrote those memos are facilitators after the fact, if they were aware that the torture happened before they wrote their memos.

Citation please? I was under the assumption it occurred after the memos were received. It would be hard to hold the attorneys liable (civilly or criminally) unless it could be provent that they knew about the waterboarding happening before they wrote their memos -- not only that, it would have to be proven that they intentionally (or at least recklessly) disregarded current law in drafting their opinion.

Not saying it couldn't be done, but it would be tough to prove.

Occam's Chainsaw: Really? I thought there were a few small island nations that were non-extradition havens.

You could also put failed states and anywhere that such edicts would be unenforceable on the list. So they could move to Waziristan. I'm sure the locals would give them a warm welcome.

All of the "non-extradition havens" are really just freedom to the highest bidder. If a nation really wants you those nations will happily ransom you for a few million dollars.

And failed states are even worse, because a lack of legal framework means every bounty hunting yahoo will see you as a jackpot waiting to be caught.

cousin-merle: Try reading the first part of the sentence as well. Authorization of the administration comes before Justice Department clearance.

"I don't care; ask your mother" writ large.

I love it, the Bush's cronies have a bad case of putting the foot in their mouths while Obama just sits back and watch the fireworks.

Nancy was cool with it.

Code_Archeologist: All of the "non-extradition havens" are really just freedom to the highest bidder. If a nation really wants you those nations will happily ransom you for a few million dollars.

And failed states are even worse, because a lack of legal framework means every bounty hunting yahoo will see you as a jackpot waiting to be caught.

Mental note: bribe officials in the Caymans before moving all my assets and personage there.

As to the bounty hunters: this is why God made PMCs. A few squads of BlackwaterXe and/or Triple Canopy + regular resupply = "What third world shiat-hole?"

Erebus1954: Nancy was cool with it.

Yes, because she's the real bad guy here.

For those of you who think it's perfectly OK to water board people, here's a Nice Link (pops) for you. Very good company you are in. Be sure to look around at some of the other pictures.

Do you guys actually think that anyone in the Bush aministration will be tried for war crimes?

"War crimes will be prosecuted, war criminals will be punished and it will be no defense to say, 'I was just following orders.'"
- G.W. Bush

Hear that Condi? You will be punished.

I say we ramp up the pamphlet dropping in terrorist-harboring nations, saying we stepped up our waterboarding efforts and instituted new and far worse interrogation methods we cannot wait to apply to suspected terrorist masterminds.

Scare the hell out of them and set a precedent that whatever you do to our military and civilians (beheadings/dragging bodies through the streets/stringing bodies up on bridges).. we will do back to you 10fold..and then bathe your barely conscious body in pig blood right before you die.. ensuring you don't get to visit Allah.

Back here in the U.S.. we publicly denounce both waterboarding and advanced interrogation/torture techniques, saying we stopped doing those things in favor of stern letters and personal sanctions..or whatever.

Everyone wins.

KaponoFor3: Citation please?

Oops... I may have read the date wrong...
KSM was not captured till after the memorandum on August 2nd. But AZ was captured 5 months before the memorandum was written, and Rice gave official approval for waterboarding in July of 2002 (new window).

I can't see the video. Who's the "we" she keeps referring to? the U.S. as a whole, or some subset of those in power?

This guy was in charge of torture at Gitmo, in Iraq and other places, at the behest and under direct orders of Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney.

I hope he is tried and convicted some day.

Everything old is new again...

KaponoFor3: Sounds like she was saying "the OLC told us it was legal, so if we authorized it, its because we were told it didn't violate the Convention Against Torture". At least, that's how I read it.

That is the company line.

Problem is, it sets a precedent that the executive can get an attorney to write a cover memo defining almost anything as legal, and then claim you were acting pursuant to legal advice.

These people are supposed to have independent judgment, and be responsible for their own acts. In the real world, if I give a client bad advice, he is still culpable for his conduct. He can sue me for malpractice, but getting bad advice doesn't exculpate him for his own bad acts.

Oh you hilarious freepers!

There was no torture!

There was no torture!

There was no torture!

Okay, there was torture, but it was only to keep the country safe!

Okay, there was torture, but it was to keep the country safe,
and anyway, it was all Nancy Pelosi's fault!

Erebus1954: Nancy was cool with it.

Well, that seals it, then. I wasn't aware that Nancy Pelosi had the plenary power to approve the violation of domestic criminal laws and international treaties. You learn something new here every day.

gilgigamesh: These people are supposed to have independent judgment, and be responsible for their own acts. In the real world, if I give a client bad advice, he is still culpable for his conduct. He can sue me for malpractice, but getting bad advice doesn't exculpate him for his own bad acts.

Prosecute the torturers. Prosecute those who authorized torture. It's really very simple.

krelborne: I can't see the video. Who's the "we" she keeps referring to? the U.S. as a whole, or some subset of those in power?

The shadow government run by reverse vampires and the Rand Corporation.