posted
I'm watching the Rice hearing, and Christopher Dodd from Connecticut got tough with Condoleeza Rice about the torture issue, and she folded with indignity and without conscience. Instead coming out with a position, she showed her moral ambiguity.
quote:SEN. DODD: (Off mike) -- asking about some very specific techniques that were used, whether or not you consider them to be torture or not.
MS. RICE: Senator, the determination of whether interrogation techniques are consistent with our international obligations and American law are made by the Justice Department. I don't want to comment on any specific interrogation techniques. I don't think that would be appropriate, and I think it would not be very good for American security.
SEN. DODD: Well, let's leave it, if that's your answer, there. It's a disappointing answer, I must say. The face of U.S. foreign policy is in the person of the secretary of State, and it's important at moments like this to be able to express yourself aside from the legalities of things, how you as a human being react to these kinds of activities. And with the world watching, when a simple question is raised about techniques that I think most people would conclude in this country are torture, it's important at a moment like that that you can speak clearly and directly without getting involved in the legalisms questions. I understand these involve some legal determinations, but as a human being how you feel about this, about to assume the position and be responsible for pursuing the human rights issues that this nation has been deeply committed to for decades, is a very important moment.
MS. RICE: Senator, I maintain the commitment and will maintain the commitment of the United States to norms of international behavior and to the legal norms that we have helped to --
SEN. DODD: Let me ask you this, then. What would happen if someone did this to an American? What would happen if we saw on television that a captured American was being subjected to these kind of activities? How would you react to it?
MS. RICE: Senator, the United States of America -- American personnel are not engaged in terrorism against innocents.
SEN. DODD: I wasn't asking you what they have been charged with. I'm asking whether or not, if you saw an American be treated like this, how would you react?
MS. RICE: We expect Americans to be -- because we are parties to the Geneva Conventions, we expect Americans to be treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.
SEN. DODD: Of course we do. And do you consider these kinds of activities to violate the Geneva Conventions?
MS. RICE: We believe that there are certain categories of people, the al Qaeda, for instance, who were not covered by Geneva, that in fact it would have been a stretch to cover them under Geneva, would have weakened Geneva to cover them. But the president said that they had to be treated, as military necessity allowed, consistent with the application of Geneva.
SEN. DODD: Do me a favor. At the end of all of these hearings, I'd like you to spend about 15 minutes with John McCain and talk to him about this stuff. I think you'll get some good advice when it comes to the subject matter, someone who has been through this, about what the dangers are when we have sort of waffling answers about these questions and then Americans can be apprehended and what happens to them.
Let me move on, because I don't want to take up the committee's time on this particular point, but I'm troubled by your answer.
posted
Is there any answer-except the one you want-that wouldn't result in her having answered with ambiguout, indignity, and cowardice?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Given that the administration's stance on this one is basically one of indignity and cowardice, I'm not really sure what she could have said that would have been consistent with the administration's line. That said, I suppose consistency is itself a virtue.
posted
What's particularly interesting is that many of the people we've circumvented the Geneva conventions on are not and were never suspected of terrorism by us, so her objection is fallacious from the start.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is there any answer-except the one you want-that wouldn't result in her having answered with ambiguity, indignity, and cowardice?
I want her to tell the truth. She is making decisions, and she be honest about the character them. If I don't agree with her, then I don't agree with her, but she has to answer the question.
She was asked a character question, and an answer to a question of character cannot rely upon being consistent with international norms. It's the equivalent to saying, "I think it's good because that's what we do."
Printer-friendly view of this topic
