Printer-friendly version
PDF version
Condoleezza Rice spoke at a synagogue in St. Louis Park Sunday, addressing issues related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, terrorism and the spread of democracy in the Middle East.
Rice’s visit is part of Beth El Synagogue’s national speaker series, which has included the likes of Dan Rather, Colin Powell and former President Bill Clinton, and acts as an important fundraiser for the community.
“The only reason that we are able to fight for our freedoms is because there are those on the frontlines of freedom …” Rice said in her speech. “Especially those men and women in uniform on the frontlines of freedom in places like Bosnia and Baghdad …”
Roughly 100 protestors demonstrated outside the synagogue behind a police barricade, chanting “Torture isn’t kosher,” among other criticisms. They held banners and signs denouncing the use of torture and Rice’s alleged involvement.
However, former Sen. Norm Coleman attended the speech and was supportive of Rice’s position.
“Condoleezza Rice is a brilliant woman with experience. I certainly like to hear her perspective and I hope that we can find peace in the Middle East,” Coleman said.
Rice served as the Secretary of State and National Security Adviser for the Bush administration. She now is a professor of political science and a senior fellow at Stanford University.
In her speech, Rice said Israel is an important ally for the United States in the Middle East. She also focused on eliminating terrorism in the region and spreading democracy.
“Every day, terrorists plotted and they planned,” Rice said. “We had to recognize that they had to be right only once, and we had to be right 100 percent of the time and that was an unfair fight.”
During the question and answer segment that followed Rice’s speech, she answered queries relating to the United States’ stance on the Iranian nuclear weapons program, Chinese-U.S. relations and the importance of education, among other topics.
Kaitlyn Steffenhagen, a St. Louis Park High School senior, said Rice did not address questions about her involvement in authorizing torture during her role under the Bush administration, which angered some of the attendees.
Rice has recently been asked by many to explain the Bush administration’s definition of torture and if waterboarding is considered torture.
Rice’s invitation divided the synagogue along traditional political lines.
“Whenever there’s a political speaker it’s more divisive than if they perhaps pick a columnist or an author,” congregation member Anne Devitt said. “I think no matter which way you go politically, it’s going to be a controversy.”
Larry Johnson, a member of Veterans for Peace, believes the Bush administration’s treatment of prisoners of war is hurt the United States’ reputation and gives the opposition the warrant to reciprocate.
“I’m glad we’re in a democracy where [people] can protest, and I’m very glad that the people of Iraq and Kabul can too,” Rice said as she was leaving the speech in response to the protesters.
Serving the University of Minnesota Community since 1900
7 Comments
To comment, please login.
Beth El said it wanted dialogue on difficult issues
If that's the case, why not have more than one view presented, Ms. Devitt? It's not her politics that made her unfit for this invitation; it's her actions. This wasn't about dialogue; this was about money.
Ms. Rice in all likelihood is guilty of the charge of conspiracy to commit torture. Here's a letter submitted to the FBI last Friday:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: cturchick@hotmail.com
To: minneapolis@ic.fbi.gov
Subject: Report of Violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2340A (c)
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 14:14:59 +0000
To whom it may concern:
We would like to report a violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2340A (c), conspiracy to commit torture, the substantive offense being described in Sec. 2340A (a).
We refer you to the following videotape, which can be found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijEED_iviTA&feature=player_embedded. At approximately 5:22 of this video, the following conversation occurs:
Questioner: So I read in a recent report recently, um, it said that, uh, you, you did a memo, you were the one who authorized torture, uh, to the secret
Condoleezza Rice: Is that what you read?
Questioner: I'm sorry, not torture, I'm sorry.
Rice: Thanks.
Questioner: Waterboarding.
Rice: Uh-huh.
Questioner: Waterboarding. Is waterboarding torture?
Rice: Uh, the President instructed us that nothing we would do would be outside of our obligations, legal obligations, under the Convention against Torture. So that's, and by the way, I didn't authorize anything. I conveyed the authorization of the Administration to the agency that they had policy authorizations, subject to the Justice Department's clearance.
Questioner: Okay.
Rice: That's what I did.
Questioner: Is waterboarding torture in your view?
Rice: And I just said 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.
This statement is consistent with a United States Senate Intelligence Committee report released on April 22, 2009, that indicates Ms. Rice personally conveyed the Administration's approval for waterboarding Abu Zubaydah to the then CIA director, George Tenet, in July 2002. This was prior to Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel completing the so-called "torture memos," the first of which was completed on Aug. 1, 2002.
Ms. Rice, as National Security Advisor to the President of the United States, surely should have known, or was in a position to know, that regardless of pending "Justice Department clearance," waterboarding constituted torture under U.S. law. She knew, or should have known, that in the Japanese War Crimes Trials subsequent to World War II, people were prosecuted for precisely this offense. Moreover, waterboarding clearly comes within the definition of torture, as found in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2340 (1), where it is defined as follows: "'[T]orture' means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control."
When Ms. Rice admits to "conveying" the authorization, it is our belief that she is not claiming she was simply a messenger delivering a package. We believe she orally conveyed the message, after having been involved in previous discussions about waterboarding detainees. In the Fall of 2008, Ms. Rice acknowledged to the Senate Armed Services Committee that she had attended meetings where the CIA interrogation request was discussed.
We believe this constitutes a conspiracy to commit torture in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2340A (c).
On Sunday, November 8, 2009, at approximately 6:00 p.m., Ms. Condoleezza Rice will be present at Beth El Synagogue, 5224 West 26th Street, St. Louis Park, Minnesota.
Clearly, there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed, and Condoleezza Rice, among others, is one of the perpetrators. If you do not come to a similar conclusion, surely there is enough evidence to bring her in for questioning. Frankly, Ms. Rice has been a fairly public person, and we are surprised that she has managed to evade federal authorities thus far. Please feel free to email us if we can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Deborah K. Andresen, Roger Cuthbertson, Patricia Guerrero,
Robert A. Heberle, Sonja Johnson, Coleen Rowley,
Lois Swenson and Chuck Turchick,
Members of Tackling Torture at the Top
cc U.S. Attorney, District of Minnesota
Judge Baltasar Garzon
A Briliant Woman?! She's been wrong about everything!
"Condoleezza Rice is a brilliant woman with experience.” Coleman said....“Every day, terrorists plotted and they planned,” Rice said. “We had to recognize that they had to be right only once, and we had to be right 100 percent of the time and that was an unfair fight.”
Orwell rolls over in his grave one more time! The woman is "brilliant" who gave a blank stare, exclaiming that "no one would have ever guessed terrorists would fly planes into buildings"? After she had been directly involved just months before in security planning for an international conference in Italy that encompassed this threat of terrorists flying planes into buildings. After she had been constantly briefed all summer from CIA and other intelligence on such threats including a heavy duty intelligence-based warning in July and also the August 6th "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US?"
Rice was involved in wrong calls over and over that led to American deaths; to rounding up 1000 innocent immigrants after 9-11 and touting it as "progress"; to paying bounties to gain captives to imprison at Guantanamo for years without any evidence of terrorism connections; to "fixing the intelligence" to enable launching pre-emptive war on Iraq, a country that had no WMD or ties to Al Qaeda and finally to the decision to extract unreliable confessions by torturing people that the U.S. kidnapped or captured, which also included some innocent people. Rice's record has been almost nothing but a long list of constant mistakes that have done nothing but damage U.S. security.
I think historians are going to be hard pressed to find that Condoleezza Rice has been right even once! Oh yeah, I guess she DID find a nice pair of Gucci shoes while shopping during Hurricane Katrina.
More "brilliance"
In an attempted correction of her misstatement that "by definiton, if it was authorized by the President, it did not violate our obligations...," Ms. Rice said the following in a subsequent interview:
"There's been another confusing statement. I said at one point it was therefore, um, uh, a given right that the Presdient , if the President authorized it, it was legal. This was not a Nixon-Frost moment, right? What I intended to say, or what I meant to say about this is, the President said, 'I won't authorize anything this is illegal.' It's not that because he authorized it, it was legal. No, that, that's a tautology. [emphasis added] It was that he said that I won't authorize anything that's illegal."
God save the students at Stanford from such "brilliance."
More "brilliance"
In an attempted correction of her misstatement that "by definiton, if it was authorized by the President, it did not violate our obligations...," Ms. Rice said the following in a subsequent interview:
"There's been another confusing statement. I said at one point it was therefore, um, uh, a given right that the Presdient , if the President authorized it, it was legal. This was not a Nixon-Frost moment, right? What I intended to say, or what I meant to say about this is, the President said, 'I won't authorize anything this is illegal.' It's not that because he authorized it, it was legal. No, that, that's a tautology. [emphasis added] It was that he said that I won't authorize anything that's illegal."
God save the students at Stanford from such "brilliance."
My letter to editor of Star Tribune which never got published
What Might Rattle Rice?
Some in the audience who paid up to $12,500 for a table might not have felt they got their money’s worth on the “unscripted Q and A” that was advertised but it was apparently easy for Condoleezza Rice to "remain unrattled during (her) Twin Cities visit”. By all accounts, it was easy for her to throw back her well-rehearsed platitudes as she fielded softball questions from the event’s admiring moderator Don Shelby at the Beth El Synagogue. Rice’s famously focused neo-conservative group has, after all, been likened to “arsonists who set a fire and then laugh when no one can put it out.” Federal authorities are, however, gaining more and more evidence of her complicity in violating the torture statute. So it would be interesting to see if she could remain as unrattled when the “unscripted Q and A” is preceded by the official Miranda warnings.
Here's an article, by the way, which says Condi's speaking fee is $150,000: http://www.newser.com/story/56482/condi-commands-same-speaking-fee-as-ex... . Who said crime does not pay?!
Ugg Mayfaire Boots On Sale
Ugg Mayfaire Boots On Sale Buy Cheap Ugg knightsbridge boots,Ugg Bailey Button boots,more 2009 new uggs arrival at Softugg.Inc for you!Free shipping and nontax,Save you 50% OFF!
Classic Tall Ugg Boots on sale!,We are professional supply Ugg bailey button Classic Short Ugg Boots is your best choice,free shipping and nontax,only need 1 week to your door!
Miumiu knockoff handbags
doubted. produce Miumiu knockoff handbags makes a woman's pressure