Condoleeza Rice's Heated Exchange With Stanford Students

There was a very interesting and rather heated exchange between former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and a student at Stanford University on Monday.

During this conversation Rice makes the statements that:

1. Al Qaeda is a bigger threat to the United States than the Nazi's were because Al Qaeda has attacked our homeland.

2. That the Supreme Court blocked detainees from standing trial under the Military Commissions that the Bush Administration had set up.

3. That because President Bush told his Administration that nothing they were doing violated the Convention Against Toture, this inherently means that it was legal.

I wonder if Rice was channeling Nixon when she gave her own "if the President authorized it, it means it was legal" defense. Watch:



Notice how condescending and defensive Rice was during this exchange. She not only tells this student that he can't begin to understand the pressure decision makers were under after 9/11, but denies responsibility for authorizing anything after dismissing the student with the "do your homework" line.

Out of the three points I listed above, the first needs no explanation and the third has been shown to be a narrow and warped Nixonesque view of excutive power, but for the second Ali Frick weighs in:

"Of course, the Supreme Court "stayed" the Bush administration's military commissions because they were woefully inadequate. The Court -- three separate times -- required the administration to come up with meaningful judicial review of suspects' detentions. Indeed, last June the court held that military commissions "are not an adequate and effective substitute for habeas corpus" and thus "operates as an unconstitutional suspension of the writ."">Of course, the Supreme Court "stayed" the Bush administration's military commissions because they were woefully inadequate. The Court -- three separate times -- required the administration to come up with meaningful judicial review of suspects' detentions. Indeed, last June the court held that military commissions "are not an adequate and effective substitute for habeas corpus" and thus "operates as an unconstitutional suspension of the writ."

The defenses for torture are flying fast and furious out of this Administration and as Spain proceeds with criminal investigations the pressure is mounting for investigations within the United States. In last night's Presidential Press Conference, President Obama voiced his direct opposition to the position put forth by Rice and other Bush Administration officials:

What I've said — and I will repeat — is that waterboarding violates our ideals and our values. I do believe that it is torture. I don't think that's just my opinion; that's the opinion of many who've examined the topic. And that's why I put an end to these practices.

So...if torture is against the law and if waterboarding is torture and if we know that the Bush Administration authorized waterboarding...then is there any reason why investigations should not move forward if we are a nation where no one is above the law?