Condoleezza Rice on "torture" / waterboarding.

On May 14 2009 04:20 r.Evo wrote:

"By definition, if it was authorized by the president it did not violate our obligations against torture.."

On May 14 2009 04:34 MeriaDoKk wrote:
:O in that movie Frost/Nixon one line is really similar to this one, don't know if that really happened (that phrase) but it came to my mind while reading this.

On May 14 2009 04:58 JWD wrote:
I watched this video a while ago and, though the questioner probably has a good point, I actually thought Condi handled the situation pretty well (in terms of her demeanor and composure). I get the sense that the student was hoping to film some outrageous reaction, or at least catch her in a gaffe - but Condi has probably fielded these kinds of questions from people much more intimidating than a college freshman.

Something to understand about this video is that it was filmed at a faculty dinner here at Stanford - freshman dorms hold these events once a quarter, and students are asked to invite professors to dinner. Condi accepted one of this student's dorm-mates's invitation to this event (or maybe even this student's invitation), so it kind of sucks that he decided to take it as an opportunity to grill her about torture. Condi has to accept the burden/responsibility for the decisions she made while Secretary of State, but it just occurs to me that it's sort of sad to be invited to a friendly dinner as someone's professor, attend, and then have to deal with attacks on your policy record and, implicitly I think, your character.

On May 14 2009 05:07 Railxp wrote:
it sucks to be her, but i think she deserves to be grilled over a, or even every meal regarding policy issues because college freshmen are going to be the people who will continue to suffer from the backlash and reputation that USA is evil because it tortures detainees. If she had the balls (lawl) to run for public office, to think that you can make the right decisions for tens of thousands of people, she should know that this stuff is part of the job description.

On May 14 2009 05:32 Alizee- wrote:


Your line of thinking scares me, you seem to justify that even if people do things wrong if they're a smooth talking politician and can bullshit their way through questions that its ok. I think the fact of the matter is is that if you helped to perpetrate policy and criminal activity that very few Americans find to be ok then yes you're boned, you shouldn't be let off the hook. Bush and Cheney are gone, so now we just go back to our invisible bubble of security and pretend like everything is ok? You seem to be disillusioned to the fact of what politicians have done in the past 5+ years. Its like inviting Cheney to an event and not asking him the hard hitting questions and instead saying hey that guy was the vice president let's just ask scripted bullshit questions because we don't really give a shit.

On May 14 2009 05:38 Aegraen wrote:


Dumb people are dumb.

Do you know those held at those facilities were ENEMY COMBATANTS. Now, my misinformed Hong Kongan (however, you wish to describe yourself), go read the Geneva Conventions on 1A) Enemy Combatants 2A) Torture/POW Treatment.

Every country, is legally allowed to 'execute' Enemy Combatants. They have zero rights, and zero rights under our Constitution, which is explicitly only for US Citizens. The Constitution is not a world Constitution, it is a US Constitution.

So, I say to you, fine sir; shove it up where the sun doesn't shine.

On May 14 2009 05:38 Aegraen wrote:
Dumb people are dumb.

On May 14 2009 06:04 seppolevne wrote:


"No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion" - Third Geneva Convention, Part 3, Section 1, Article 17-20.

No rights? I think that's what the Geneva convention is.

On May 14 2009 06:04 seppolevne wrote:
"No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion" - Third Geneva Convention, Part 3, Section 1, Article 17-20.

No rights? I think that's what the Geneva convention is.

On May 14 2009 06:08 BloodyC0bbler wrote:



To my knowledge, the geneva convention refers to prisoners of war, not enemy combatants. So as they weren't US citizens they had no rights and as they were combatants and not pow's they had no rights.


Edit: I believe this was how the government justified it.

On May 14 2009 06:08 BloodyC0bbler wrote:
To my knowledge, the geneva convention refers to prisoners of war, not enemy combatants. So as they weren't US citizens they had no rights and as they were combatants and not pow's they had no rights.