Town Square

Post a New Topic

Condi Rice to student "No, no dear, you're wrong. Alright. You're wrong. We did not torture anyone."

Original post made by Dr. Ferragamo, Stanford, on May 1, 2009

Condi thought she'd just hang at the dorms at Stanford and then the students got all mean and asked her about torture 'n' stuff and OMG, it's all just so unnecessary.

Must see to believe YouTube video here... Web Link

Full transcript here... Web Link

An excerpt:

"Student: Even in World War II, as we faced Nazi Germany -- probably the greatest threat that America has ever faced -- even then...

Condi: With all due respect, Nazi Germany never attacked the homeland of the United States.

Student: No, but they bombed our allies...

Condi: No. Just a second. Three thousand Americans died in the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.

Student: 500,000 died in World War II, and yet we did not torture the prisoners of war.

Condi: And we didn't torture anybody here either. Alright?

Student: We tortured them in Guantanamo Bay.

Condi: No, no dear, you're wrong. Alright. You're wrong. We did not torture anyone. And Guantanamo Bay, by the way, was considered a model "medium security prison" by representatives of the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe who went there to see it. Did you know that?

Student: Were they present for the interrogations?

Condi: No."

Comments (53)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on May 1, 2009 at 7:25 pm

I am on a flight this evening, for me me flying is torture, my husband is 6.5, Delta kept us on the plane for hours with no water or food for hours,


A United Airlines flight from Munich to Washington made a two-hour stop at Logan International Airport this afternoon so a female passenger who had complained of flu-like symptoms could be removed and taken to a hospital for treatment.

Flight 903, a Boeing 777 with 245 passengers and 14 crewmembers aboard, landed at 1:46 p.m. and resumed its journey at 3:45 p.m. after the passenger had been taken by ambulance to Massachusetts General Hospital.

A hospital spokeswoman said the woman had been treated and released from the hospital by late afternoon.

Rahsaan Johnson, a United Airlines spokesman, said the woman had reported symptoms that were "indicative of the flu or severe cold." He said the flight crew radioed for advice to a United medical team and were advised to get her immediate medical treatment. Local television stations broadcast footage of a woman wearing a blue mask being led off the plane by emergency personnel


 +   Like this comment
Posted by ten18
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 1, 2009 at 8:00 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on May 2, 2009 at 3:48 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

When you start playing politics with word definitions, 1984 is not far away. Sharon understands, I think.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on May 2, 2009 at 6:51 am



The American Musicological Society denounces the use of music in torture.
So high-minded to worry about Guantánamo inmates.
How about the tortuous plight of younger musicologists?Web Link

The core of the March 2008 statement reads,

"We, as scholars and musicians who devote our lives to sustaining musical cultures throughout the world, protest the contamination of our cultures by the misappropriation of music as a weapon of psychological torture."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by sarlat
a resident of Crescent Park
on May 2, 2009 at 7:13 am

it's already obvious that the Bush/Cheney administration deliberately solicited false confessions in order to cover up for their own crimes, satisfy their sadism, and keep their gravy train of the "war on terror" on the rails. False confessions, elicited by torture and self-validating, met all those selfish needs and stifled all opposition, not only in the prisoners, but in the general public.

Without the false confessions and the hatred they fostered in the gullible public, the two false-flag wars would not have been possible, nor would the war profiteering (both materially and psychologically).

They are potentially all false confessions, in the same sense that witch-trial and Gestapo-headquarters confessions are false, and we are no nearer to discovering who was responsible for 9/11 and why, than we were on the evening of that terrible day. And that too was intentional and motivated by self-aggrandizement, greed and sadism, I believe.Oh, and the war profiteering.

If potentially all the "evidence" collated in the worldwide torture prisons is based on false confessions "gained" by torture and for the personal satisfaction of the torturer and his/her bosses...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Dr. Ferragamo
a resident of Stanford
on May 2, 2009 at 8:04 am

Let's fact-check Rice's claims:

(1) She perpetuates the Abu Ghraib myth ("Abu Ghraib was not policy"), even as the Senate Armed Services Committee report demolishes it. The words she uses are essentially identical to those she uttered to me at a group meeting in the White House in May 2004. But the efforts to delink the abuses in Iraq from the formation of policy in Washington—a process in which Rice played a focal role—have gone flat. The Senate report makes clear that the abuses at Abu Ghraib flowed directly from policy choices made in the National Security Council that Condi ran.

(2) In Condiworld, the threat of Al Qaeda was greater than the threat faced by the United States in World War II, as demonstrated by the 9/11 attacks. This suggestion demonstrates an astonishing failure of reasoned judgment. U.S. fatalities in World War II totaled 405,400. The student's point was that in the face of what might legitimately be termed an existential threat (World War II), the American government did not turn to torture. That's correct, and Rice doesn't seem able to come to grips with it.

(3) Rice insists that no one was tortured at Guantánamo. She cites an OSCE report that called it a "model medium security prison." But, as the report's author stressed, this was a characterization of the physical facility. How about the treatment of the prisoners? On that score, the OSCE had a different conclusion: it was "mental torture." The Red Cross did complete two studies of detainees at Guantánamo, and Condi's characterization of them is false. The first report concluded that the treatment of prisoners, particularly isolation treatment, was "tantamount to torture." The second examined the use of the Bush Program and concluded it was "torture," no qualifications. Rice was furnished copies of these reports. Did she take the time to read them?

(4) Rice claims that the Bush Administration's efforts to try the Guantánamo prisoners were blocked by the Supreme Court. In fact, the years of delay in bringing charges resulted from the Bush Administration's own policies. The Supreme Court concluded that the jury-rigged military commissions system the Bush Administration put in place without Congressional authority violated Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions—the view that the overwhelming majority of legal authorities in the United States advanced. Had the Bush Administration followed the recommendation of career military lawyers and proceeded to military commissions based on the U.S. court-martial system, no Supreme Court review would have been necessary. So the cause of the delay rests squarely with the Bush Administration, not with the Supreme Court.

(5) Rice insists that waterboarding is not torture. Why? Rice pulls a Nixon. It was not torture because the president authorized it. In Condiworld, apparently, "when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal." What lawyer was advising Rice through this process? That's a pressing question–the Senate Intelligence Committee suggests that legal counsel at the National Security Council was guiding her at every step–and evidently giving her some very peculiar ideas about the law.

(6) Whereas the Senate Intelligence Committee's summary shows Rice giving authorization for waterboarding, Rice has a different recollection. "I didn't authorize anything. I conveyed the authorization of the administration to the agency." This is dicing things very finely. But I think I know how Judge Garzón will understand this: Rice just confessed to a focal role in a joint criminal enterprise. Nixon White House counsel John Dean, who has a lot of first-hand experience with the legal issues in play, had the same take: Rice just admitted to her role in a conspiracy to torture, a felony under 18 U.S.C. sec 2340A.

Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Daniel Alves
a resident of Barron Park
on May 2, 2009 at 9:19 am

These people don't understand the whole concept behind America. In our system of government, the president is not supposed to be above the law. He is not a king; his word is not the law. The president can violate the law and when he does, he is supposed to be held accountable. That is supposed to be one of the pillars of our democracy.

Look at what she said: "[B]y definition, if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Convention Against Torture." Does that mean the president can authorize any kind of torture under the Convention Against Torture?

If someone doesn't do something about this dangerous idea it will do more damage than the torture itself. Yes, the torture damaged our reputation across the world, helped terrorists recruit fighters against us, endangered our soldiers and sullied the name of America. But if this precedent - that the president can authorize anything and make it legal "by definition" - is allowed to stand, then our whole form of government is in jeopardy.

A violation of the law is, of course, a big deal, especially on something this grave and important. This is not a jaywalking ticket. There were 34 suspected or confirmed homicides of detainees, some clearly due to torture. It does not get any more serious than this. But what is even worse is if you set the precedent that violations of the law like this will not have any consequences. That is bigger than the crime itself.

The precedent does more damage than the law breaking because it sets the new boundaries and rules for our government. It confirms what Rice and Nixon argue for: When the president does it, that means it is not illegal.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by The Cohen brother
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on May 2, 2009 at 9:27 am

An agreement (i.e. conspiracy) to inflict physical and mental pain on prisoners, as reported by ABC News in April 2008, came out of meetings held some six years ago with George W. Bush's approval. Various methods of brutality were decided by Condoleezza Rice, national security adviser, who presided, Vice-President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Attorney General John Ashcroft, and Secretary of State Colin Powell.

Lawyers had drawn up pseudo-legal principles for circumventing the laws against torture by redefining it. For one thing, it would be called "enhanced interrogation." An August 2002 memo from the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel authorized the use of 10 methods against Abu Zubaida, an Al-Qaeda man captured in Pakistan five months earlier. The memo was signed by Jay S. Bybee, then an assistant attorney general, now a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco. Waterboarding, or near drowning, a method from the Spanish inquisition (which Attorney General Holder has called torture), was imposed on Zubaida 83 times that month. Ex-intelligence officers told The Washington Post he provided little useful information.

As members of the executive branch, the cabinet and legal officers knew or should have known that torture or inhumane treatment of prisoners, regardless of its label, was prohibited by three U.S. Code sections (Title 18, Secs. 2340A, 2441, 2441) and three treaties, one of which dated back more than half a century.

The 1949 Geneva Conventions prohibit any inhumane treatment, physical or mental, of military or civilian war detainees. Torture or "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment" is banned also by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, approved by the U.S. in 1992. And the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, a U.S. treaty since 1994, requires penalties for violations, forbids sending a person abroad to be tortured, and says: "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency may be invoked as a justification for torture."

Yet Bush, Cheney et al. have invoked the wars that they started as justification for what amounts to torture, claiming that it was the only way to get valuable information in the "war against terrorism."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gerald
a resident of Downtown North
on May 2, 2009 at 9:47 am

"I didn't authorize anything. I conveyed the authorization of the administration to the agency..." In other words Dr. Rice says she was just following orders. Fortunately, that reasoning has never been an excuse for war crimes. Condi has shown a pattern of such self-delusional, evasive thinking all along. It is why she said we must fear "mushroom clouds" from Saddam, then insisted to members of Congress that her integrity must not be challenged. It is why she could approve war crimes and then say she was passing along administration approval. Like so many whom Bush gathered around him, she has no moral center and possesses a psychotic fondness for authoritarianism .


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Dr. Ferragamo
a resident of Stanford
on May 2, 2009 at 10:08 am


Impressive video of a journalist who attempts to withstand 15 seconds of waterboarding by a trained US soldier... Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by sarlat
a resident of Crescent Park
on May 2, 2009 at 10:16 am

Remember the memos in the case of September 11th, to prevent the attack which Dr. Rice so nonchalantly dismissed and ignored? When you National Security Adviser is so incompetent, the society takes a hit. Throwing the values that make us human beings overboard out of shear fear of a terrorist attack is insanity, not to mention the epitome of cowardice.

The likelihood that the use of tactics like torture destroys the fabric of the democracy that uses them is of probability near one. Meaning it always happens.

Let's put it this way: The chance of winning the California Lotto is 8 times less likely than being struck by lightning. The probability of being the victim of a terrorist attack is 781 times less likely than winning the lottery. That's a 'normal' terrorist attack. The probability that anyone will detonate a nuclear weapon in a terrorist attack is what? That's why the wingnuts want to torture for, knowing that torture corrupts a society as quickly as it has in the last 8 years? Benjamin Franklin had words describing the deservedness of liberty and security.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Dr. Ferragamo
a resident of Stanford
on May 2, 2009 at 10:33 am


Here's your chance to support efforts to impeach Jay Bybee!

While serving in GWB's Office of Legal Council, Bybee signed off on notorious Bush-era torture memos. And now he's serving as a judge on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Sign the petition here... Web Link

Bybee's Wikipedia page... Web Link

More information about Bybee... Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by The Cohen brother
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on May 2, 2009 at 11:32 am

Not a single significant plot was foiled" as a result of Zubaida's brutal treatment - and that, quite to the contrary, his false confessions "triggered a series of alerts and sent hundreds of CIA and FBI investigators scurrying in pursuit of phantoms."
Zubaida was the first detainee to be tortured at the direct instruction of the White House. Then he was President George W. Bush's Exhibit A in defense of the "enhanced interrogation" procedures that constituted torture. And he continues to be held up as a justification for torture by its most ardent defenders.
But as author Ron Suskind reported almost three years ago - and as The Washington Post now confirms -almost all the key assertions the Bush administration made about Zubaida were wrong.
Zubaida wasn't a major al Qaeda figure. He wasn't holding back critical information. His torture didn't produce valuable intelligence - and it certainly didn't save lives.
All the calculations the Bush White House claims to have made in its decision to abandon long-held moral and legal strictures against abusive interrogation turn out to have been profoundly flawed, not just on a moral basis but on a coldly practical one as well.
Indeed, the Post article raises the even further disquieting possibility that intentional cruelty was part of the White House's motive.

The most charitable interpretation at this point of the decision to torture is that it was a well-intentioned overreaction of people under enormous stress whose only interest was in protecting the people of the United States. But there's always been one big problem with that theory: While torture works on TV, knowledgeable intelligence professionals and trained interrogators know that in the real world, it's actually ineffective and even counterproductive. The only thing it's really good at is getting false confessions.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by jacob
a resident of Stanford
on May 2, 2009 at 5:22 pm

Welcome back Condi, we need you on Campus


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on May 3, 2009 at 9:18 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Posted by Dr. Ferragamo,Let's fact-check Rice's claims:

"(1) She perpetuates the Abu Ghraib myth ("Abu Ghraib was not policy"), even as the Senate Armed Services Committee report demolishes it..."
The military punishment of the soldiers involved in the Abu grabass was well under way before the sensationalization started. Outside this punished aberration, the treatment was more benign than that in American military prisons, where a breach of discipline can see a whole barracks counting cadence while double timing around the quad at midnight.

"(2) In Condiworld,... the American government did not turn to torture..."
In the traditional meaning of the word, we did not torture. By the definition of the opposition, just incarceration is torture. WWII's 'Ks for Krauts' would be considered torture under today's interpretations, and it WAS a violation of Geneva.

"(3) Rice insists that no one was tortured at Guantánamo''."
See above

"(4) Rice claims that the Bush Administration's efforts to try the Guantánamo prisoners were blocked by the Supreme Court. In fact, the years of delay in bringing charges resulted from the Bush Administration's own policies..."
The delay resulted from OPPOSITION to the Bush policy. Not one off the detainees comes within the treaty definition.

"(5) Rice insists that waterboarding is not torture. Why?"
Because within the classic definition of torture it is not torture.

"(6) Whereas the Senate Intelligence Committee's summary shows Rice giving authorization for waterboarding, Rice has a different recollection..."
This is too convoluted even for me to Fisk..

Dr. Ferragamo uses his own academic honorific, yet does not give Dr. Rice her due. My two honorifics, P.E.'s, I use only within my field of expertise. One can only conjecture the campus uproar a similar slight to a Black Woman liberal would have brought down on the Dr.
I request here of the editors that, whenever an academic or professional honorific is used the same courtesy is extended to all .


I still entreat Dr. Ferragamo to join me in petitioning for the change of Sand Hill Road to Dr. Condoleezza Rice Boulevard.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by sarlat
a resident of Crescent Park
on May 3, 2009 at 9:29 am

The torture that Dr. Rice and her masters authorized was, for example, strappado setups in Iraq in which U.S. medics reduced shoulder dislocations so they could be done again.
The stepping on a man's genitals. The anal rape with a gun barre. The pummeling of a man's leg muscles until the resulting rhabdomyalisis poisons his kidneys? The stepping on a man's chest with a boot hard enough to cause lung injuries during an arrest, and then putting the man in strappado so that he dies of positional asphyxiation. Or how about than removing all social and a lot of sensational stimuli from a man's life for several years until his brain degenerates and he wastes away on his bed staring into space with his limbs no longer functional? This is what we are talking about, Gestapo behavior that would've gotten the German counterparts of Condi and her masters a quick death sentence at Nuremberg.

All done "under color of law" by the U.S. What is the matter with people in this country? They need to see the blood flying through the air like it does in HD Hollywood films, or see mutilation or a smile on the perpetrator's face before they consider it wrong. Isn't that a touch sadistic?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Richard Goldenberg
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on May 3, 2009 at 9:55 am

You may want to ask yourself why powerful forces in the US were so eager and intent on legalizing torture. After all, the inefficacy of torture for informational gathering is well-documented. So why push so hard for it? It was done of course to create a climate of fear, both internal to the USA and external. Fearmongering is how you sell wars, and to those selling war, torture is just part of the marketing strategy. It is used to scare enemies AND internal opposition. The combination of univeral surveillance and legalized torture is designed in large part to scare and cow our own citizens.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Glenn
a resident of Stanford
on May 3, 2009 at 10:02 am

tell you what Wallis, you won't get your wish to have Sand Hill Rd renamed after a felon, but I'm willing to stake you to a round trip airline ticket and a front row seat at the Hague so you can watch Condi's war crimes trial in person. When she's sentenced to life in prison, you'll see it up-close and personal.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gerald
a resident of Downtown North
on May 3, 2009 at 10:09 am

The torture that Dr. Rice had authorized has been systematic and evidence is accumulating that this was an intentional practice to terrorize particular populations in Iraq and Aghanistan. I would add to that the evidence that the torture was also aimed at producing false confessions of a Saddam/9-11 link. So while perhaps the occasional interrogator may have bought into the idea that they were trying to "protect America", there can be little doubt that those who orchestrated the program, including Coni Rice, were only using that line as window dressing and are morally equivalent to the worst war criminals.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Perspective
a resident of Midtown
on May 3, 2009 at 10:11 am

Walter, you are speaking to folks incapable of understanding even 1/10th of what you are saying, or maybe they do, but they simply do not want to acknowledge that the facts completely demolish their premises.

Don't waste your time. Just be grateful that we have strong, courageous people like Dr. Rice to keep teaching reality and logic to our University students. She is only one ( that we know of) in the midst of a quaqmire of poor thought and academics, but at least she gives us hope for the next generation to learn something outside the fundamentalist frameword of modern leftist academia.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Frank
a resident of Professorville
on May 3, 2009 at 10:21 am

Did anyone watch the video in which Sheikh Issa al-Nahyan, the prince of the U.A.E. sadistically tortures a prisoner?I s it worse that a Sheik, given his relatively primitive cultural context, in which the use of violence for punishment is well established, should engage in the direct acts of brutality to achieve his political ends, or is it worse that an American, brought up on the idea that cruel and inhuman punishment is barbaric and evil, and that we, as a society, simply don't torture, should engage in the brutality and cruelty of waterboarding and "walling"? I can easily see arguments both ways. Certainly the open, arbitrary, and unchecked brutality of the Sheik is without question evil. And the very primitive person-to-person manner in which the Sheik perpetrates his cruelty strikes us as particularly depraved. Americans prefer of course a "clinical", purportedly dispassionate approach to torture. We invoke "legal justification"; we document supposed national security interests; underlings involved require orders from superiors; we supposedly carefully calibrate our techniques. The end product of that elaborate rationalization and "vetting", however, is the same kind of brutality we see on display in the tape of the Sheik.

So is it worse or better that we, in our "civilized" state, employ this ornate apparatus of rationalization to justify our acts? Is it, perhaps, a demonstration of how coldly, deliberately, and sociopathically sinister we are to construct such an intricate infrastructure of supposed reasons to defend the absolutely indefensible? Certainly, in looking at the Nazis, it is that cold, deliberate sociopathy that seems most evil of all. We feel, among other things, that a sophisticated otherwise civilized society had even less excuse to engage in these acts than might a primitive one.

The real bottom line here, I think, is that it doesn't make a lot of sense to wrestle with distinctions about what is really more evil in cases like this. Precise rungs of hell are not the crucial point. The acts must be taken as evil unto themselves, mostly in abstraction from their societal context.

Torture is a great evil when the Sheik does it; it is a great evil when we do it. There is no other right way to regard it.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on May 3, 2009 at 10:43 am



It is clear that the people obsessed with so called "Torture" and their preoccupation with vivid, intimate descriptions are in fact BDSM addicts who are trying to get off at the expense of innocent posters.

There are no doubt web sites that cater to these perversions, the BDSM addicts should go there and leave us alone.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Andrea
a resident of Community Center
on May 3, 2009 at 11:30 am

Sharon, yet it seems like wingnuts like you are the ones who get off on torture when it's authorized by the likes of Bushco, Cheney, Rumsfeld or Condi.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gerald
a resident of Downtown North
on May 3, 2009 at 11:36 am

We're white and the people we tortured were not. We have a long history of ignoring our abuses against "THEM". Just ask the folks in Central and South America, the Philippines, the Vietnamese. Oh yeah, Native American genocide and slavery to boot. Top it off with Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

We are a country of honor, aren't we Sharon?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on May 3, 2009 at 11:46 am

"we document supposed national security interests"

Thwarting al qaeda plots should be documented. Nothing "supposed" about it. Saving thousands of innocent lives, by using waterboarding, is a highly moral thing to do.

Imagine the political/moral hell to be paid if we are attacked again, and it is found out that our interrogators insisted that we use no harsh methods, because standard police interrogatin methods were considered sufficent, and progress was being made (however slowly)...but it was not fast enough.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by sarlat
a resident of Crescent Park
on May 3, 2009 at 11:52 am

Oh Yes, the old "we are just trying to save thousands of innocent lives" fantasy. Likely our patriotic interrogators (or perhaps they should be more respectfully referred to as Inquistors, or maybe even Grand Inquisitors) had to repeat that phrase constantly, as no doubt they hated every moment of what they were doing and didn't really mean to hurt anyone. And of course it stopped as soon as it was evident that the so called "victim" had no information. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.] That would run counter to our military culture where respect for foreigners, foreign cultures and for the rule of law is deeply ingrained. This is America, after all. We don't worship power.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by the Cohen brother
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on May 3, 2009 at 12:08 pm

Gary, if you want to find out if there's an impending terrorist attack on the USA, all you have to do is torture, oops, sorry, harsh interrogate Dick Cheney.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on May 3, 2009 at 12:14 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Anyone here ever been in a U.S. jail or prison? Anyone here ever resisted arrest in the U.S.? Anyone here ever had custodial responsibility? Anybody here ever have to forcefully
compel obedience by another?
Add the requirement that you cannot hurt the subject and the job becomes well nigh impossible - then add the stipulation you cannot hurt his feelings and fugettaboutit!
Glenn, don't worry about the ticket to the Hague because the U.N will pay my way there to stand trial for upsetting the two Chinese prisoners I took on 11/26/50. I failed to read them their rights and to get them to a place of safety and to, well I did give them the same rations I had, which was nothing. And I denied them a warm shelter.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by andrea
a resident of Community Center
on May 3, 2009 at 12:36 pm

"Saving thousands of innocent lives, by using waterboarding, is a highly moral thing to do."
Gary, your mommy and daddy should use their parent lock option on the TV set in your room. You've been watching far too much "24".


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on May 3, 2009 at 1:01 pm

"High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa'ida organization that was attacking this country," Adm. Dennis C. Blair, the intelligence director, wrote in a memo to his staff last Thursday."

Web Link

Andrea,

Blair is Obama's guy.

I don't need "24" to reveal the truth...I just look at real sources. Actually, I have only watched "24" one time, because it was being hyped so much about an atomic bomb attack against an American city. No need for my dad to lock the box. But thanks for your advice to him...I will let him know.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by the Cohen brother
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on May 3, 2009 at 4:12 pm

Gary, but in all seriousness, there is, to be fair, one huge difference between the torture captured on the UAE tapes and the "torture" inflicted by CIA on suspected terrorists-OUR "torture" was committed by AMERICANS. I mean, put a paint brush in the hands of a monkey, and you get meaningless splotches of paint-put the same paint brush in the hands of a van Gogh, and you have glorious, transportive art. Likewise, put harsh interrogation techniques in the hands of an unprincipled barbarian, and you have torture. Put it into the hands of a moral, contemplative, superior American-under the direction of such compassionate, brilliant men as Bush and Cheney-and you have a legal tool for fending off evil. According to the most respected experts on constitutional and international law (e.g., Addington, Bybee and Yoo), a careful reading of Geneva and CAT makes it very clear: Good guys get to "torture"—bad guys GET tortured. See?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by andrea
a resident of Community Center
on May 3, 2009 at 4:24 pm

Gary...I have little to add to The Cohen Brother's brilliant comment except to point out that your purposeful obtuseness when attempting to legitimize or defend the sadistic and morally repellant practice of torture by offering irrelevant hypothetical factual abstractions and misapplying non-existent quotes to the indefensible. That you attempted to cloak your "defense" in faux philosophical pendantry without admitting the factual unreality buttressing your "arguments" amounted to little more than commonplace vapid inanity. One more thing-you asked a poster if KSM was gay? Since he isn't a Republican senator or a Right wing evangelical preacher, I doubt that very much.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on May 3, 2009 at 5:18 pm

"your purposeful obtuseness"

Andrea,

Purposeful, yes, obtuse no...just the opposite. I actaully go to direct sources...you and yours do not.

As far as I know, KSM is neither gay nor Republican.

Leftist rants do not dissuade me.

Cohen,

The good guys, in this case, did indeed use waterboarding to break al qaeda. That definitely makes them both good and right. Perhaps thousands of innocent Americans (as well as many non-Americans) are alive today, becasue those American good guys did the right thing. I know you would prefer that those thousands now be dead, but they are not. Take up your argument with Andrea...you two can have a nice reinforcement of your own evil morality. It won't bother you, I'm sure, becasue neither of your understand what evil really is.

If you lefties want to have a serious discussion about torture, go get OhlonePar to enter the fray (again). He/she at least brings some serious arguments, without the rants.

Have a nice evening...I am going out for the night.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Torture Happy
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on May 4, 2009 at 10:20 am

Seems there is torture at Stanford.
The presence of Condi on the Stanford campus is torment enough for the liberal leftists.
Welcome back Dr. Rice!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Terry
a resident of Stanford
on May 4, 2009 at 11:34 am

She did authorise torture.

She did have a paper on her desk saying warning of terrorist attack.

She was a mediocre academic.

And stanford has her back because they like giving the best faculty housing not to hard working faculty but to the lackeys of the GOP at who use the Hoover institute as a retirement home.

Its an absolute disgrace.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on May 4, 2009 at 12:30 pm

Stanford has a number of mediocre academics. Some of them signed that ridiculous petition to protest Condi and Rumsfeld. It went nowhere.

Condi Rice challenged that student about his charges of torture, etc., and now some old lefties from the past are trying to gin up their old glory days of protest. It won't work, nor should it.

Condi did her best to help protect innocent Americans and non-Americans... the evidence, thus far, is that she succeeded.

Re that paper on her desk from Richard Clark's crew: Clark was the one that brags about using the U.S. court system to investigate and stop jihadist attacks. The problem is that he failed, big time on 9-11. It is NOT a legal issue, it is war. The poor guy, despite himself, never got it. Condi, after 9-11, did. Thanks, Condi.

BTW, Condi deserves the best faculty house on campus.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Perspective
a resident of Midtown
on May 4, 2009 at 12:43 pm

HURRAY for Condi!

I have to crack up at the "petition" and the "75 marchers"..wow...what an upheaval!! Glad to see that folks are getting a bit more sense over there in Stanford-land.

And, I looked up the Stanford Daily after reading a Post letter to the editor today claming that the Daily was much more balanced, honest and thorough in reporting the story than our local media..I was so impressed, it really was!

So, I wonder, what happens between the time we have the ones writing such incredible real journalism ...at Paly, at Gunn, at Stanford...and the time they end up in our print and cable "news"?

It is truly to the point where I would rather read the Paly paper or the Gunn Partisan Review than any other paper around for good coverage. Maybe I should add the Stanford Daily as my coverage for Dr. Rice.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Voter
a resident of Professorville
on May 4, 2009 at 1:13 pm

Welcome back to Stanford Dr. Rice. We are very lucky to have you back in the community. Your intelligence, integrity. accomplishments and patriotism are extraordinary examples for this college generation and I personally thank you for your service to our country.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Hank
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on May 4, 2009 at 1:59 pm

Torture is reading this nonsensical dribble from armchair Internet-believing analysts that, like many folks in the Bay Area, know just enough to be dangerous. Seems like Palo Alto, Berkeley and San Francisco have a monopoly on these kinds of folks.

So, where is the anti-Pelosi talk? After all, she was briefed too. You nut cases going to put her on a show-trial too?

Or is this just another bogus partisan discussion? Yawn.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Dr. Ferragamo
a resident of Stanford
on May 4, 2009 at 2:52 pm


When did Pelosi ever bother to insist torture has saved American lives?

It's Condi, Cheney, GWB, Robert Bork, Richard Perle, Elliot Abrams, David Addington, Doug Feith, Richard Haas, Richard Holbrooke, Daniel Pipes, Martin Kramer, Martin Indyk, John Podhoretz, Donald Kagan, Fred Kagan, John Yoo, Jay Bybee, Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol, Rush Limbaugh, Oliver North, Michael Savage, etc., who have been banging on about how much they love to torture Muslims.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on May 4, 2009 at 3:22 pm

"When did Pelosi ever bother to insist torture has saved American lives?"

Pelosi did NOT bother to insist...but she still has the opportunity to defend her approval of waterboarding. After all, it worked, and probably saved thousands of innocent lives. If she was not so afraid of her own political base, she might be more forthcoming. She is not politically fearless, thus she is a slave that wallows in the pit of such fear.

With respect to all those others that were mentioned, and it is a real mixture of types, if they supported waterboarding to protect the innocent...then hell yes, they deserve our acknowledgment for saving the innocent! They took the moral and ethical stance...just like Condi did.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on May 4, 2009 at 3:40 pm

Daniel Pearl was not waterboarded, he was beheaded with a knife, we waterboarded his murderers who posted his real torture and slaughter on the web, check it out if you want to see what we are up against.

In July 2002, Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, a British national of Pakistani origin, was sentenced to death by hanging for Pearl's abduction and murder.[3][4]

In March 2007, at a closed military hearing in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said that he had personally beheaded Pearl.

face the reality Web Link

This is not about Muslims, Jews, Christians,etc, it is about mass murdering sadistic thugs.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Dr. Ferragamo
a resident of Stanford
on May 4, 2009 at 4:06 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on May 4, 2009 at 4:27 pm


Sadistic thugs, whatever ideology or belief they cloak themselves in will be brought to heal and destroyed,
ms Ferragamo, have you watched the video of Daniels Pears torture which is linked at the end of the Wiki link I provided?.

When you have viewed it, tell us, is this what you support?

Pearl was tortured for along time unto a horrifying and painful death, this whole obscenity was described to him in detail according to the testimony of his murderers, how does this compare to mild coercion to which we expose our own troops in SERE.

Tell us what you think of the real torture of Pearl, and then contrast that with the multiple reports of people who have been waterboarded according to safe US protocols.
It is the difference between a scary roller coaster ride( US version) and sadistic, perverted torture to death over days(the Pakistani thugs version)

Look at the evidence in the videos, then tell us where you stand, if you dare


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on May 4, 2009 at 9:40 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

"It's Condi, Cheney, GWB, Robert Bork, Richard Perle, Elliot Abrams, David Addington, Doug Feith, Richard Haas, Richard Holbrooke, Daniel Pipes, Martin Kramer, Martin Indyk, John Podhoretz, Donald Kagan, Fred Kagan, John Yoo, Jay Bybee, Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol, Rush Limbaugh, Oliver North, Michael Savage, etc., who have been banging on about how much they love to torture Muslims."
etc? All I get is etc? You sure know how to hurt a guy, Ferragamo.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mike
a resident of Crescent Park
on May 5, 2009 at 3:20 pm

War is Hell.

You folks need to move your rants to ultra late night dorm discussion groups just like you used to do. There everything is really clear and logical.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on May 5, 2009 at 4:39 pm

"After all, it [waterboarding] worked, and probably saved thousands of innocent lives"

Why do you think it worked, Gary? Were you there? No? Then who told you? It wasn't the CIA that told you Iraq had all those WMDs, or was it?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by 35 yr old
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on May 5, 2009 at 10:54 pm

I love Condi. Our country needs more people like her.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by 35 yr old
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on May 5, 2009 at 10:54 pm

I love Condi. Our country needs more people like her.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by sarlat
a resident of Crescent Park
on May 6, 2009 at 7:49 am

Rice is far from being a mediocre academic, she is clueless and worthless, just like she had been in her two posts under the shrub. Saying that if the President authorizes something, it's by definition lega,l is ignorance and stupidity on levels we haven't experienced from people pretending to be academics. It may have been the case while serving a Roman emperor, the Saudi King or Idi Amin, but in our system, no one is above the low and even Presidents must follow the laws they don't determine what's legal and what isn't. It isn't surprising that she ignored all the warning before 9/11, she is the dumbest and most clueless person to ever serve in any US administration and her presence on the Stanford campus brings shame to this great university.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Perspective
a resident of Midtown
on May 6, 2009 at 11:58 am

Perspective is a registered user.

I love Dr. Rice also, 35 year old. The fact that most Americans who actually know who she is and what she has done, those of us who actually pay attention, love her ...well, that really, really scares the far left into real nutty rants.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Amy Zucker Morgenstern
a resident of Fairmeadow
on May 6, 2009 at 9:41 pm

Richard Nixon to David Frost, April 6, 1977: "If the President does it, that means it's not illegal." Rice and her boss were in a fine established US tradition.

I hope there are enough of us who prefer the finer tradition of freedom, democracy, and the rule of law that one day she will be held accountable. Rice, Rumsfeld, Bush, Gonzales, Yoo, and everyone else whose fingerprints are all over the torture at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and secret prisons all over the world are overdue for an indictment. The flunkies who followed their orders got slammed, while the people who gave the orders go free into cushy jobs.

It's heartening that after widespread silence, a college student and a 4th grader are getting some notice for speaking the obvious truth.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Outside Observer
a resident of another community
on May 6, 2009 at 9:57 pm

For those opposed to waterboarding terrorists, what is the part of the word "enemy" that you don't understand?




Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Mixx, Scott's Seafood replacement, opens in Mountain View
By Elena Kadvany | 10 comments | 2,955 views

Ten Steps to Get Started with Financial Aid
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 1 comment | 1,958 views

All Parking Permits Should Have a Fee
By Steve Levy | 23 comments | 1,626 views

To Cambodia With Love
By Laura Stec | 4 comments | 1,489 views

Early Campaign Notes: City Council
By Douglas Moran | 3 comments | 239 views