“[B]y definition, if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Convention Against Torture.”  Yes, former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice pulled the Nixonian defense when asked whether waterboarding is torture.  Rice was caught up again when a fourth grader from Bethesda asked the following question during the former Secretary’s first public appearance since leaving office. 

What did Rice think about the things President Obama’s administration was saying about the methods the Bush administration had used to get information from detainees?  

This time however Rice had honed her story a bit.  She first expressed how terrified the administration was that America would be attacked again and then went on to say that she did not pull the Nixonian defense in her prior statement on this topic but had misspoke.  What she had meant to say was the president would never authorize an action that was in violation of the Convention Against Torture….yea right!  We’ll take the first honest, unprepared answer thank you.  Rice also claimed as her defense in the prior statement that she merely “conveyed the information” to the appropriate actors but played no part in the actual decision to waterboard detainees.  What we did find out is that Rice is clearly not an attorney nor is she informed as to what is considered a violation of the UN Convention Against Torture and the lack of defenses thereof.  We have included the relevant sections and non-defenses for her to study before her next press outing.

United Nations Convention Against Torture and other Cruel and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 

PART 1 -Article 1:    Definition of Torture

1. For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

PART 1 – Article II:   No Defenses

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.