Comments on: Rice incoherent in her defense of Bush Administration’s interrogation techniques http://anthonyclarkarend.com/humanrights/rice-incoherent-in-her-defense-of-bush-administrations-interrogation-techniques/ Commentary and analysis at the intersection of international law and politics Tue, 29 Nov 2011 18:32:42 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8 hourly 1 By: Anthony Clark Arend http://anthonyclarkarend.com/humanrights/rice-incoherent-in-her-defense-of-bush-administrations-interrogation-techniques/comment-page-1/#comment-213 Anthony Clark Arend Sun, 03 May 2009 01:53:37 +0000 http://anthonyclarkarend.com/?p=586#comment-213 I have corrected the link to the transcript. I have corrected the link to the transcript.

]]> By: Anthony Clark Arend http://anthonyclarkarend.com/humanrights/rice-incoherent-in-her-defense-of-bush-administrations-interrogation-techniques/comment-page-1/#comment-212 Anthony Clark Arend Sun, 03 May 2009 01:47:24 +0000 http://anthonyclarkarend.com/?p=586#comment-212 Many thanks, Max! Many thanks, Max!

]]> By: Max Lybbert http://anthonyclarkarend.com/humanrights/rice-incoherent-in-her-defense-of-bush-administrations-interrogation-techniques/comment-page-1/#comment-209 Max Lybbert Fri, 01 May 2009 22:15:29 +0000 http://anthonyclarkarend.com/?p=586#comment-209 The link currently posted for the transcript does not go anywhere. There is a partial transcript at http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/04/30/condi_rice_defends_torture_as_legal_and_right , which includes the statement "in terms of the enhanced interrogation and so forth, anything that was legal and was going to make this country safer, the president wanted to do. Nothing that was illegal. And nothing that was going to make the country less safe." The phrasing's not great, but concern for what was legal and what was illegal makes it hard to believe that the standard was that Presidential authorization could make all interrogation techniques legal. The link currently posted for the transcript does not go anywhere. There is a partial transcript at http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/04/30/condi_rice_defends_torture_as_legal_and_right , which includes the statement “in terms of the enhanced interrogation and so forth, anything that was legal and was going to make this country safer, the president wanted to do. Nothing that was illegal. And nothing that was going to make the country less safe.”

The phrasing’s not great, but concern for what was legal and what was illegal makes it hard to believe that the standard was that Presidential authorization could make all interrogation techniques legal.

]]> By: Max Lybbert http://anthonyclarkarend.com/humanrights/rice-incoherent-in-her-defense-of-bush-administrations-interrogation-techniques/comment-page-1/#comment-208 Max Lybbert Fri, 01 May 2009 22:05:16 +0000 http://anthonyclarkarend.com/?p=586#comment-208 I think she's trying to say "The president told us we would do nothing that would be outside of our obligations under the Convention Against Torture. ... I conveyed that authorization to the agency, subject to the Justice Department's clearance." In other words, she's claiming she said "Bush has authorized everything that the Justice Department believes doesn't violate our obligations under the Convention Against Torture." The original phrasing ("the president instructed us that nothing we would do would be outside of our obligations, legal obligations, under the Convention Against torture") does sound a lot like Nixon's "when the President does it it's not illegal." But if that's what she meant, why add "subject to the Justice Department's clearance"? "When the President does it, it's not illegal, subject to the DOJ's clearance" just doesn't have the same ring. I think she’s trying to say “The president told us we would do nothing that would be outside of our obligations under the Convention Against Torture. … I conveyed that authorization to the agency, subject to the Justice Department’s clearance.”

In other words, she’s claiming she said “Bush has authorized everything that the Justice Department believes doesn’t violate our obligations under the Convention Against Torture.”

The original phrasing (”the president instructed us that nothing we would do would be outside of our obligations, legal obligations, under the Convention Against torture”) does sound a lot like Nixon’s “when the President does it it’s not illegal.” But if that’s what she meant, why add “subject to the Justice Department’s clearance”? “When the President does it, it’s not illegal, subject to the DOJ’s clearance” just doesn’t have the same ring.

]]> By: Nick Turner http://anthonyclarkarend.com/humanrights/rice-incoherent-in-her-defense-of-bush-administrations-interrogation-techniques/comment-page-1/#comment-205 Nick Turner Fri, 01 May 2009 02:13:43 +0000 http://anthonyclarkarend.com/?p=586#comment-205 That's exactly what she's saying. That’s exactly what she’s saying.

]]>