Rice incoherent in her defense of Bush Administration’s interrogation techniquesApril 30, 2009 # 6:19 pm # Armed Conflict, Human Rights, Intelligence, International Law # 5 Comments
This video is being circulated widely on the web. It seems to be to be an incoherent discussion of the legality of interrogation techniques. Watch the video. From a transcript (link corrected):
I read a recent report, recently, that said that you did a memo, you were the one who authorized torture to the — I’m sorry, not torture, waterboarding. Is waterboarding torture?
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.
Okay. Is waterboarding torture?
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 Conventions Against Torture.
I don’t know what that means. Is she saying that waterboarding does not violate the Torture Convention because Bush said we we do nothing that violates the Torture Convention?