Pity. Rice would have made a great conservative.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

If I’m willing to vote for Condi Rice for President, does that mean I’m NOT a racist?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@adagioforstrings: We’re going to start lecturing the British on proper English?

In this case you are right, but I wouldn’t push it.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@adagioforstrings:

or am I being overly pedantic?

Thank you, adagio, I learned a new word! “pedantic”. Probably something I’m guilty of.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I don’t understand James Delingpole’s use of personal pronouns:

“if America won’t have you as our next president, please will you come over and be our next Queen instead?”

Is he an American ex-pat living in London? Why wouldn’t he write either “their president…our queen” or, conversely, “our president…their queen”, or am I being overly pedantic?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

EIT=Enhanced Interrogation Techniques, Heather.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Herein lies the idiocy of Obama and Holder thinking they want to go after the attorneys who advised Bush as legal counsel.

ITA, that is scary.

When it comes to an absolute lawsuit for supposed “torture”, Holder knows they don’t have a legal leg to stand on going against the administration… otherwise they’d be doing it.

I disagree, we have a duty to investigate fully and prosecute any violations of the Geneva Convention, including any by Obama’s administration. We signed a paper that said we “shall” do that, not we may or we could.

They also don’t have a chance with holding legal advisors responsible for their interpretations in a court of law.

It certainly is a chilling thought.

However Holder and Obama aren’t playing to a court of law. They are playing to the court of public opinion… their typical Alinsky tactic to rile up the citizens into a frenzy of discontent with misinformation or lack of clarifying information (i.e. the memos that denote the results of EITs).

I agree, except I don’t know what an EIT is.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I wish she would run for President. I would vote for her and send her $$ to support her.

jensad

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@PDill:

SoCal Chris I agree, but would go even further. I would wager Condi Rice is one of the most intelligent (and accomplished) women in America, surely in the top 100, maybe even the top 10.

Thank you for going further, PDill. I COMPLETELY agree with that statement. I just referenced during the time that she was in public office, but she is no doubt one intelligent lady, period.

It’s far more than Oprah’s loss, it’s America’s loss, and especially a loss to the American Negro.

Again, I completely agree. When I say Oprah’s loss, I mean to the millions of women as well who watch her show. And, I’m sure it would have benefited Oprah’s ratings tremendously by having Condi on, thus Oprah’s loss. But, what a role model Condi is to every woman, black and white, and therefore I’m sad that she wasn’t given the acknowledgement she was due. But, as dr.john mentioned about her speaking at his son’s graduation, perhaps she will continue to speak in venues like this. And, she has mentioned writing a book, which you know will be a best seller. So, I think we will continue to be blessed by more of Condoleezza Rice in years to come.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

What she said, Heather, was that the ICRC’s problem was not with the detainee’s treatment, but with indefinite detention. And then she said those trials (the military trials, as were planned) “were stayed by whom”. So they were delayed first by the lawsuits lobbying for access to the US courts, which was granted by Boumediene in 2008… aka the habeus corpus issue.

The Boumediene decision did not say to “try them in court”. What it said is that they were allowed access to petition to be tried in a federal court instead of a military tribunal…. which they did not enjoy as aliens held on foreign soil. They prefer to be tried in the US federal system because they will not allow evidence that is necessary for conviction. Might as well just give ‘em a toothbrush, and send them on their merry way.

The 2006 SCOTUS decision was Hamdan v Rumsfeld where the high court said the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA) didn’t apply to those who were already in the appeal process.

INRE: your comment:

BTW, how will you feel when Obama copies Rice’s “If the President authorizes it then it is always legal” argument?

Obama will get his WH legal counsel on what he can and can’t do, just as any POTUS does. When their attorneys give them the go ahead, it is just like anything else in the US system…. acceptable unless challenged successfully in a court of law. And of course I accept that, for not to is to reject the way our system was constructed by the Framers.

If an attorney gives you advice… bad or otherwise… you operate on the notion that it’s okay to do. That only changes if someone challenges that, and you stand before a judge who interprets the action as legal or illegal. Attorneys are there to help give an interpretation, but the final word on interpretation is always the presiding judge.

Herein lies the idiocy of Obama and Holder thinking they want to go after the attorneys who advised Bush as legal counsel. When it comes to an absolute lawsuit for supposed “torture”, Holder knows they don’t have a legal leg to stand on going against the administration… otherwise they’d be doing it. They also don’t have a chance with holding legal advisors responsible for their interpretations in a court of law.

However Holder and Obama aren’t playing to a court of law. They are playing to the court of public opinion… their typical Alinsky tactic to rile up the citizens into a frenzy of discontent with misinformation or lack of clarifying information (i.e. the memos that denote the results of EITs).

Like or Dislike: 0  0