I think this is pretty much the purest distillation of what the GOP’s primary defense will be against claims that members of the Bush administration are guilty of war crimes for authorizing torture.

Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was recently speaking at Stanford University when a student asked her a question on waterboarding and torture. Here’s her response:

The president instructed us that nothing we would do would be outside of our legal obligations under the Convention Against Torture…

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.

Hear that everyone? Because the President authorized torture means that whatever the United States did pursuant to that authorization wasn’t illegal.

Sound familiar?

“When the President does it, that means it is not illegal.” — Richard Nixon
I’ve long believed that the widespread torture of detainees in our custody would hurt the soul of our nation not as a result of the actual breaking of the law itself, but rather the inevitable feverish attempts by the right to justify anything the President did as categorically legal and beyond reproach.

If this is going to be the case, why don’t we just get rid of the whole bothersome mess of electing a President and just install a hereditary monarch that can only be deposed in cases of manifest insanity or high treason?

At least then we’d be above-board with the values we’d be claiming to adhere to.

Unless we publicly unearth all of the horrific details of this dark period of our history, I am certain that our children and grandchildren are going to look back upon the first decade of the 21st century with profound shame.

Update: Here’s Steve Benen:

I was especially impressed by Rice’s use of the phrase “by definition,” since it was literally the exact same phrase Nixon used to explain why presidents are incapable of committing crimes…

As for the substance of Rice’s argument, it’s fascinating to me how oblivious she is to its circular quality. Bush authorized torture. Is that legal? Yes, because Bush authorized torture.

The rule of law isn’t supposed to work this way. To argue, out loud, without humor, that the president is literally above the law is completely absurd, even by the standards of the Bush administration.

This is the kind of kind of argument that should lead Rice to be laughed out of polite company. That won’t happen, of course, but that doesn’t make her ideas any less foolish.

Update: Here’s the video:


  1. FitterDon says:

    Gee, isn't that the same defense that they used at Nuremberg. They might want to look at their history books and see how well that worked for them.
    There are people who went to prison for some of the stuff that went on at Abu Graib. Can't wait for Condi to join them.

    • Metavirus says:

      don't you understand? america is the shining city on the hill! we are pure, and good, and holy. whatever we do, no matter how evil, is anointed by the blessed soil of our sacred land and made pure.

      Yea though I walk through the valley of torture, I will fear no evil: for King Bush art with me; Thy striking rod and Thy beating staff, they comfort me, for I know that the deeds of evil men were thwarted by Thy endless and wanton cruelty. In the name of the Stress Position, the Waterboard and the Sleep Deprivation, Amen.

      /snark

  2. Gherald says:

    My comment here, I don't think it's Nixonian. Wrong, yes, but she's not asserting that Bush was above the law.

    • Metavirus says:

      Here's my comment from your site in response to your concern over my parsing (or perhaps lack thereof):

      her words are certainly subject to interpretation, and your reading is the most favorable light possible. dig beneath the surface though, and you'll find a deep current running through the bush apologists exactly as i suggest: i.e., because the bush administration did some hard long thinking about stuff, and painted an imaginary line in the sand (i.e. on this side: bad torture stuff, on the other side: perfectly legal non-torture good stuff), whatever he told us to do was legal and proper. that's not that far from saying: "When the President does it, that means it is not illegal."

      perhaps the nouveau-Nixon formulation is "When the President says it's legal, that means it cannot be illegal."

      Further refined, perhaps: "When the President thinks long and hard about stuff (with lawyers!), the result must, by definition, be legal."

  3. btb says:

    Condi Rice is coming to the University of Calgary May 13 to open the new School of Public Policy there. There is also a rapidly building protest against her being honoured by U of C. Please sign petition which can be found on the website.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>