Through video, students speak truth to power
When former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice went to a
student dormitory to have an informal discussion on April 27, 2009, she never
thought it would put her back into the national spotlight.
Speaking with Stanford students in Roble Hall, Rice categorically denied
any personal role in authorizing harsh interrogation techniques and denying that
waterboarding is torture. Sophomore
Reyna Garcia recorded the entire conversation on her video camera and posted 7
minutes of it on YouTube [1]. Within
a week, the video clip had been viewed 185,000 times and had received over 2000
posted comments. Mainstream local
and national media picked up to story, interviewing the two students in person
and by telephone.
In the video, Jeremy Cohn, a junior in public policy,
pressed Rice by making a comparison between Bush Administration policies and
World War II, saying, “we did not torture the prisoners of war [in World War
II].”
Rice retorted, “And we didn’t torture anybody here
either.”
Cohn: “We tortured them in Guantánamo Bay.”
Rice: “No. No dear, you’re wrong. You’re wrong. We
did not torture anyone. And Guantánamo Bay, by the way, was considered a model
‘medium security’ prison by representatives of the Organization of Security
Cooperation in Europe who went there to see it. Did you know that?”
Cohn: “Were they present for the interrogations?”
Rice: “No. Did you know that … Just answer me.
Did you know that the Organization of Security Cooperation in Europe said
Guantánamo was a model medium security prison?”
Cohn: “No, but I feel that changes nothing.”
“Did you know that?” Rice insisted.
She went on the conclude, “Do your homework first!”
Beyond flat denials, Rice persisted in avoiding the
difficult discussions on whether the now widely-acknowledged “harsh
interrogations” constitute torture, or how such methods could be justified on
“enemy combatants” when they are prohibited against “prisoners of war”
or prisoners in the United States.
Another student asked, “Is waterboarding torture?”
Rice: “The President instructed us that nothing we would
do would be outside of our legal obligations under the Convention against
Torture [2]. And, by the way, I didn’t authorize anything. I conveyed the
authorization of the Administration to the Agency that they had policy
authorization subject to the Justice Department’s clearance. That’s what I
did.”
Student: “Is waterboarding torture?”
Rice: “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.”
The immediate response on the Internet was comparison to
former president Richard Nixon’s infamous statement to David Frost in 1977,
“Well, when the President does it, that means it is not illegal.”
This justifiably perked national media interest.
Reflecting on his conversation with Rice, Jeremy Cohn
commented that evening, “she tried to convince me that ‘no torture’
occurred at Guantánamo, again telling me to ‘do my homework.’ Well unfortunately for her I’ve done my homework.
This article [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jan/03/guantanamo.usa]
links to FBI files detailing mistreatment at Guantánamo.
Rachel Maddow even had a former prison guard from Guantánamo Bay on her
show a few weeks ago talking about torture at Guantánamo Bay.”
Cohn observed, “Eventually Professor Rice had to leave
for her dinner with other students. My first response was of disappointment she
had spoken very surely and at points condescendingly. However, after consulting
all of my sources and re-examining the information, I felt re-affirmed in
everything that I had said. She had left trying to make me look bad. Fortunately
the truth is on my side.”
Rice in the hot seat
When Condoleezza Rice left the departing Bush
Administration after eight years of government service, she imagined returning
quietly to private life at Stanford University, where she previously was a
professor of political science and university provost.
In an interview given to the Stanford Report (an official weekly
university newspaper, January 28, 2009), Rice said, “I really don't know what
to expect, but Stanford is my home. I'm comfortable on the campus. I hope pretty
soon to get out among students. I love going over to the houses or the dorms and
having dinner and having a question-and-answer session afterward.”
Under President George W. Bush, Rice was National Security
Advisor from January 2001 to January 2005 and thereafter Secretary of State
until January 2009. She was present
in the many crucial meetings with the President, Vice President Richard B.
Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and her predecessor, then
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell that led to the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan
and Iraq, the launching of the so-called “war on terror,” and the subsequent
decisions to authorize waterboarding and other physical methods of interrogation
of “enemy combatants.”
According to a classified document released by Attorney
General Eric Holder on April 22, 2009 at the request of the Senate Intelligence
Committee, Condoleezza Rice met then CIA Director George Tenet on July 17, 2002
to “advise that the CIA could proceed with its proposed interrogation of Abu
Zubaida” subject to approval by the Justice Department [3].
The Justice Department, in turn, relied heavily on the legal
rationalizations outlined in the memos of University of California law professor
John Yoo and federal judge Jay Bybee, which have now been widely repudiated.
While Rice takes shelter in being only the messenger, the
same Justice Department document indicates that Rice and four other
administration officials were first briefed in May 2002 on “alternative
interrogation methods, including waterboarding.” This is long before Powell, Rumsfeld, and even Cheney became
involved according to the Justice Department timeline.
Thus, with Rice having unique early high-level access to what was going
on and being planned, her early acceptance of these policies was central to the
decision to authorize them.
Justice Department documents have also revealed that Abu
Zubaida was waterboarded at least 83 times, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was
waterboarded 183 times, quantitative evidence of deliberate, persistent, and
prolonged abuses.
Context of protest – what the national media ignored
What the mainstream media ignored was the wider context of
opposition and protest on the Stanford campus and in the community.
As Rice was arguing her case inside Roble Hall protected by a half dozen
Secret Service agents, scores of students and community members were gathered
outside to raise their concerns about Condoleezza Rice’s automatic return to
Stanford University.
For her critics what is most troubling is not her opinions,
but the foregone conclusion by the University that she should be honored without
question with such a prestigious chair as the Thomas and Barbara Stephenson
Senior Fellow on Public Policy at the Hoover Institution.
The case against Rice is outlined in a letter to the Stanford community
by the student organization, Stanford Says No to War [4] and an article in The
Stanford Progressive [5].
Daniel Mathews, a graduate student in mathematics,
emphasized that what is at stake is not academic freedom and freedom of speech
because “we can respectfully and politely disagree.” He continued, “But here today … we have a professor who
did not merely advocate for brutalities like waterboarding – but authorized
them. A professor who did not merely cheerlead for war, but was involved in
official planning and propaganda efforts of that war, at the highest levels.
These are not things to respectfully disagree about. These are not experiences
to learn from. These are crimes to be prosecuted.”
Two protesters adorned orange jumpsuits and black hoods to
remind students entering Roble Hall about Condoleezza Rice’s role in
authorizing waterboarding, other harsh interrogation methods, extraordinary
rendition, and indefinite detentions. Handwritten
banners demanded “prosecute torturers” and “no war criminals.”
While eating pizza, students, staff, alumni, and members of the community
listened to speakers call for change in the way Stanford and other universities
so readily honor top government policy-makers with prestigious academic chairs
without apparent regard to the crimes they may have committed while in high
office.
Mathews cautioned, “In calling for prosecutions, we are
not looking for retribution. The most important thing is to make sure that the
horrible episodes we have seen – war, torture, aggression, violations of
international law – do not happen again. How do you ensure they do not happen
again? By letting anybody who is thinking of doing it again know that if they do
it again, they will be prosecuted. And how do you ensure that? By prosecuting
those who did it this time.”
When Condoleezza Rice and fellow former Secretary of State
George Shultz showed up for a second dinner discussion with a limited number of
students at Wilbur Hall on May 12, 2009, they were again greeted by protests
quietly reminding Rice to “do her homework,” about her role in the
road to war and torture, and about Shultz’s role in the Iran-Contra fiasco.
Meanwhile, other students organized “Condival” in White
Plaza on May 1, 2009 as a carnival parody on Condoleezza Rice’s role the
“race to war,” waterboarding (for apples), “Abu Ghraib ring toss,” and
other games that are “so much fun that it’s a war crime.”
Some students thought Condival “went too far” and was “in bad
taste,” but hundreds of students participated in having “fun raising
awareness on campus.”
Petition
When Stanford Says No to War began circulating a petition
calling for Condoleezza Rice to be held accountable for potential war crimes,
Stanford alumni also took up the cause. A
weekend fortieth anniversary reunion of the April Third Movement (A3M) brought
together nearly 150 Stanford alumni who were student activists against the
Vietnam War in 1969. The final
event of the reunion was a press conference for presenting the petition to the
University. It reads:
“We the undersigned students, faculty, staff, alumni, and
other concerned members of the Stanford community, believe that high officials
of the U.S. Government, including our former Provost, current Political Science
Professor, and Hoover Institution Senior Fellow, Condoleezza Rice, should be
held accountable for any serious violations of the Law (including ratified
treaties, statutes, and/or the U.S. Constitution) through investigation and, if
the facts warrant, prosecution by appropriate legal authorities.” [6]
Marjorie Cohn, President of the National Lawyers’ Guild,
explained the purpose of the gathering and press conference: “By nailing this
petition to the door of the President’s office, we are telling Stanford that
the university should not have war criminals on its faculty.
There is prima facia evidence that Rice approved torture and
misled the country into the Iraq war. Stanford
has an obligation to investigate those charges.”
Cohn went on to emphasize that the call to investigate Rice
is not a denial of academic freedom. Every
faculty member has a right to express ideas and opinions, she said.
But this does not apply to violating international and constitutional
law.
Then Lenny Seigel, Stanford alumnus of the class of 1970,
with hammer in hand, nailed the petition onto the door of the office of Stanford
President John L. Hennessy in Inner Quad Building 10.
The practice of nailing a petition to the door of a
university office follows an historic precedent set in October 1968 when
students nailed a document on the door of the office of the Stanford Board of
Trustees demanding that Stanford “halt all military and economic projects and
operations concerned with Southeast Asia.”
The action launched a campaign that led to the formation of the April
Third Movement in the spring of 1969.
Notes
1.
Video clip by Reyna Garcia, YouTube, 27 April 2009, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijEED_iviTA
2.
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the U.N. General Assembly on 10 December
1984, http://www2.ohchr.org/English/law/cat.htm
3.
R.J. Smith and P. Finn, “Harsh methods approved as early as summer
2002,” Washington Post, 23 April 2009, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/22/AR2009042203141.html
4.
“Condi Coalition Letter to Stanford Community,” 16 April 2009,
http://www.stanford.edu/group/antiwar/cgi-bin/mediawiki/index.php?title=Condi_coalition_letter_draft
5.
Daniel Mathews, “Prosecuting Condoleezza Rice,” The Stanford
Progressive, January 2009, http://progressive.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/article.php?article_id=271
6.
Sign the Stanford Community Petition at http://www.stanford.edu/group/antiwar/crpetition.html