[Peace-discuss] Condi Rice at Stanford / the Stanford anti-war movement's response to a war criminal on campus

[Karen Medina]

Hey Peace-discuss,

Condoleezza Rice is back at Stanford University.

Our friend who now attends Stanford asks: What does it mean for the
Stanford community to accept an alleged war criminal on their campus?
What does the pipeline of war criminals to universities mean for
students everywhere? Please read about Rice's alleged crimes:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/antiwar/cgi-bin/mediawiki/index.php?title=Condi_coalition_letter_draft
 [i've included the text below].

Condi coalition letter draft
To the Stanford community,
As you may have heard, Condoleezza Rice officially returns to the
Hoover Institution March 2,[1] after working eight years as National
Security Advisor and then Secretary of State under the Bush
administration. We, the student group Stanford Says No to War, are
concerned with her actions these past eight years—not academic
beliefs, party affiliation, or scholarly pursuits. Specifically, we
are concerned about serious allegations that Rice has violated our
constitution, domestic laws, and international law and endangered the
American people. We are initiating a coalition of Stanford community
members to create a campus-wide movement to hold Condoleezza Rice
accountable for her actions.

Summary
In this letter we will outline some specific evidence pointing to
violations of international and domestic law by Condoleezza Rice. In
particular, in organizing and executing the Iraq War, and in
personally approving the use of torture. It has become clear that the
invasion of Iraq, and continued violence there, as well as the United
States’ use of torture, has increased violence against Americans and
made the world less safe—while war and bombing diverts resources from
programs of social uplift.
Iraq War

Aggressive Wars and International Law
For one country to invade another without the authorization of the UN
Security Council[2], or the justification of self-defense from
imminent attack[3], is an act of aggressive war. As the Nuremberg
tribunal declared, “To initiate a war of aggression... is not only an
international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing
only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the
accumulated evil of the whole.” [4] It is also a breach of the UN
Charter[5] and other international treaties to which the US is a
party[6] and customary international law.[7]
The US-led invasion of Iraq, therefore, is not to be regarded as a
mistake, or a foreign policy blunder. It is to be regarded as a crime
against humanity, of the worst possible sort. “War is essentially an
evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent
states alone, but affect the whole world.” [8]

Rice's warmongering
“Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by
the conjunction of terrorism and WMD [Weapons of Mass Destruction].
But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” So
reported the head of MI6, the British intelligence agency, in July
2002, according to a memo of his meeting with Bush. The same memo
recorded Foreign Secretary Jack Straw: “it seemed clear that Bush had
made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not
yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his
neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North
Korea or Iran.”[9]

Once the “intelligence and facts” were “fixed,” they were then sold to
the American public, who were manipulated into believing that Iraq
posed an imminent threat to American national security. Condoleezza
Rice was a principal participant in this campaign of disinformation.

As National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice was one of the “five
Administration officials most responsible for providing public
information and shaping public opinion on Iraq”[10] and “central to
policy formulation and execution” [11]. She was among the top
officials promoting, planning, and eventually perpetrating the war.

“Condi’s enthusiasm for regime change is undimmed”—over a year before
war officially started. So reported David Manning, foreign policy
adviser to British Prime Minister Tony Blair, after a meeting with
Rice.[12]

The Bush administration's “intelligence” and “facts” claimed that
Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq possessed nuclear, chemical, and
biological weapons and had connections to al-Qaeda and the terrorist
attacks of September 11, 2001.[13] Subsequent investigations have
proven that this “fixed” intelligence was indeed false.[14]

In the rush to war, Condoleezza Rice played a major role in
manipulating the American public into believing that Iraq posed an
imminent threat to American national security. According to the Center
for Public Integrity, “Following 9/11, President Bush and seven top
officials”—including Condoleezza Rice—“waged a carefully orchestrated
campaign of misinformation about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s
Iraq.” The Center for Public Integrity counted that, overall, the Bush
administration made 935 false statements about the national security
threat posed by Iraq. Of those 935, Condoleezza Rice made 56 false
statements.[15] A congressional report in March 2004, based on a
smaller sample, found that of all the top administration officials,
between September 2002 and September 2003, Rice made the highest
number of categorically false statements, including “that no one in
the White House knew of the intelligence community’s doubts about the
President’s assertion that Iraq sought to import uranium from
Africa.”[16]

It was Condoleezza Rice who made the infamous claim “We don't want the
smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”[17]

In the lead-up to voting in the UN Security Council on the issue of
Iraq, Condoleezza Rice authorized the National Security Agency to
wiretap the private communications of UN delegates in New York. Rice
authorized spying on Security Council diplomats—including home and
office phones and private emails—to provide information on their
voting intentions, “policies” and “negotiating positions they may be
considering” with regard to Iraq.[18]

In April 2007, Rice was subpoenaed to the House Oversight and
Government Reform Committee to testify about justification for the
war,[19] but refused to comply.[20]

The evidence is overwhelming that Condoleezza Rice was a principal
participant in the planning and propaganda efforts of an aggressive
war waged in supreme violation of international law.

Blackwater
Blackwater (now Xe), the notorious private military contractor
involved in several alleged massacres[21], received multiple State
Department contracts worth millions of dollars. As such, they were
contractors—under Condoleezza Rice.
Rice herself admitted in testimony to the House Oversight and
Government Reform Committee in October 2007 that Blackwater
contractors operate in a legal “hole,” without accountability for
their crimes. Nevertheless, she opposed bringing contractors under the
military justice system, rather supporting “new laws that would apply
to contractors”—laws which never materialized.[22]

In December 2006, a Blackwater contractor, under the influence of
alcohol, allegedly killed a guard of Iraqi Vice President Adil
Abd-al-Mahdi. In response, Condoleezza Rice's State Department had
allowed the killer to flee Iraq within 36 hours, and “hoped to keep
the case quiet by helping Blackwater to take Mr. Moonen out of Iraq
and by paying the slain guard’s family $20,000 in cash,” and weeks
later, the alleged killer was again working as a war contractor in the
Middle East.[23]

Instead of ensuring the prosecution of Blackwater employees after the
Nissour Square massacre in September 2007, Rice's State Department
granted them immunity.[24] Rice then “quietly promoted two senior
staffers who directly oversaw controversial Blackwater security
operations.” [25]

In April 2008, despite Iraqi government efforts,[26] Rice's State
Department renewed Blackwater's contract.[27]
Despite the efforts of the Iraqi government, even the 2008 Status of
Forces Agreement was unclear on Blackwater's immunity.[28] Not until
January 2009 did Iraq revoke Blackwater's license. [29]

There appears to be little evidence of Condoleezza Rice's State
Department acting to restrain Blackwater. Instead, the evidence
suggests that the State Department—and hence Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice—is an accessory after the fact to Blackwater's
alleged crimes, resulting in mass deaths.

Tragedy of the War
Hundreds of thousands of people—by some estimates, well over a
million—have died as a result of the war in Iraq. The suffering in
Iraq wrought by the US-led invasion and occupation has been
catastrophic. Multiple independent estimates suggest over 1.2 million
Iraqi people have died as a result of the war.[30] According to the
United Nations High Commission for Refugees, over 4 million Iraqis
have been internally or externally displaced from their homes.[31] On
September 11, 2008, Al-Jazeera reported that “years of war have
degraded water-treatment facilities in Iraq and deprived many Iraqis
of clean drinking water,” which have contributed to an outbreak in
cholera[32]

The war in Iraq to date has resulted in the deaths of over 4,000
American soldiers.[33]. In addition, according to a 2006 National
Intelligence Estimate, “The Iraq conflict has become the ‘cause
celebre’ for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement
in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist
movement.”[34]

The war has devastated families across America, both those whose loved
ones were killed in the war and all those who suffer the consequences
of budget cuts necessitated by massive military spending in Iraq. And
it has made America less safe in its inspiration worldwide of hatred
for America and its actions.

Torture
Definition
Torture, in Article 1(1) of the United Nations Convention Against
Torture, is defined as,
“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.”[35]
Principals meetings

As National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice chaired meetings of the
National Security Council’s Principals Committee. As ABC news reported
in April 2008:[36]

The committee authorized water-boarding of three people in U.S.
custody, and the discussions were so detailed they were “almost
choreographed—down to the number of times CIA agents could use a
specific tactic.”
The role of Condoleezza Rice “was decisive”. Amidst concerns that the
program was harming US image abroad, Rice reportedly told the CIA:
“This is your baby. Go do it.”

Ashcroft is reported to have asked after one meeting: “Why are we
talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this
kindly.”
We agree.

Law against torture
The prohibition on torture in international law is unequivocal. The US
is a party to the UN Convention Against Torture, as well as other
treaties prohibiting torture, which are incorporated into US law as
the “supreme Law of the Land.”[37] Torture is also prohibited under
several US laws.[38]

“No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a
threat of war, internal political instability or any other public
emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture”: Article 2(2)
of the Convention.
Rice's main defense would presumably be the “torture memos,” written
by Justice Department lawyers to justify brutal interrogation
techniques.

The memos were regarded as a “Golden Shield” for officials who feared
prosecution.[39] They were written to get torturers out of jail.
Producing fallacious legal documents, reinterpreting the law to
justify conduct that was previously clearly torture, and doing so
knowing that such conduct was likely to be carried out, has another
name: aiding and abetting torture.[40]

>From this perspective, the memos will get nobody out of jail, but
might get some lawyers into jail.

International law not only prohibits torture: States are obliged to
investigate allegations of torture.[41]

States must “proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever
there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been
committed in any territory under its jurisdiction”: Article 12.

States must also “take effective legislative, administrative,
judicial, or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any
territory under its jurisdiction”: Article 2(1).

There are clear reasonable grounds to believe that acts of torture
have been authorized by Condoleezza Rice. The State is therefore
obliged to investigate.

What do we do if it does not?

Conclusions
This is why it falls to us here in the United States, and at Stanford,
to hold our leaders accountable. That begins now, and it should start
at Stanford, a renowned university that will soon be the home of one
of the major perpetrators of the horrendous acts that have defined the
past 8 years and tainted the reputation of the United States around
the world.

Stanford faculty rules protect tenure and security of appointment,
which is “the right not to be dismissed” or otherwise punished except
for, among other things, “a finding... of substantial and manifest
incompetence” or a “determination pursuant to the Statement on Faculty
Discipline.”[42]

However, the Statement on Faculty Discipline allows faculty to be
charged with misconduct “only for actions taken in association with
the faculty member’s academic duties and responsibilities,” such as
“dishonest or unethical behavior in the faculty member’s own teaching
or research,” “sexual harassment” and the “neglect of
University-related duties and responsibilities.”[43]

Taken literally, these Stanford rules would allow serial killers, mass
murderers and war criminals to remain in tenured positions, provided
they did not harass students, falsify research, or engage in
misconduct “in association with... academic duties and
responsibilities.”

If Condoleezza Rice were a student, she would be subject to the
Fundamental Standard: “Students at Stanford are expected to show both
within and without the University such respect for order, morality,
personal honor and the rights of others as is demanded of good
citizens. Failure to do this will be sufficient cause for removal from
the University.”[44]

How can we hold our students to this standard if we do not hold faculty to it?

We must ask ourselves if the rules laid out for faculty in the
handbook are adequate.

By increasing awareness and in generating discussion about Condoleezza
Rice's actions, we want to encourage everyone to ask themselves:

IS STANFORD A SAFE PLACE FOR WAR CRIMINALS?
Stanford Says No to War is committed to acting on this issue. But we
need your help, opinions, and ideas in approaching Rice’s return.
Stanford Says No to War invites every member of the Stanford community
to join us in a campaign to HOLD CONDOLEEZZA RICE ACCOUNTABLE.

Keep your eye out for petitions, discussions, debates, films, and
other events both educational and action-oriented in calling for her
resignation and in demonstrating to the world that we, the people of
Stanford University, do not accept war crimes.

References
↑ “Rice returns,” Stanford Daily, February 23, 2009.
↑ See Chapter VII of the UN Charter
↑ See article 51 of the UN Charter, which preserves the right of
self-defense. International law only permits attacks in “anticipatory
self-defense” in extremely narrow circumstances: the agreed position,
since the Caroline affair of 1837-38, is that force is only
permissible the “necessity of self-defence” is “instant, overwhelming,
leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation.” See the
original letter from Daniel Webster, Secretary of State, to Lord
Ashburton, August 6, 1842, which is the basis for modern opinio juris.
See, e.g., the discussion in Oppenheim’s International Law: Ninth
Edition, 1991, p. 412; also discussed in the Lawyers' Statement on the
U.N. Charter and the Use of Force Against Iraq by the Lawyers'
Committee on Nuclear Policy and the Western States Legal Foundation.
↑ Judgment of the International Military Tribunal, “The Common Plan or
Conspiracy and Aggressive War” (emphasis added).
↑ See UN Charter, Article 1, which calls for “the suppression of acts
of aggression or other breaches of the peace,” and Article 2(4): “All
members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat
or use of force against the territorial integrity or political
independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with
the Purposes of the United Nations”.
↑ See e.g. the Briand-Kellogg Pact, also known as the Pact of Paris,
dating from 1928.
↑ See, e.g., the judgment, its summary and other documents in the
International Court of Justice in the Case Concerning the Military and
Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United
States of America (1986).
↑ Judgment of the International Military Tribunal, “The Common Plan or
Conspiracy and Aggressive War.” See also, e.g., Iraq war illegal, says
Annan, BBC News, 16 September, 2004.
↑ “The Secret Downing Street Memo”, reported in the Sunday Times, May 1, 2005.
↑ “Iraq On the Record: The Bush Administration's Public Statements on
Iraq,” House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform,
Special Investigations Division, March 16, 2004. The other four are
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell.
↑ See, e.g. the New York Times Editorial Board, “Condoleezza Rice
Teflon No More,” April 23, 2008
↑ The “Manning Memo,” 14 March 2002: original document (PDF) or transcript.
↑ See, e.g., the searchable database of statements at The Center for
Public Integrity's War Card site. The most touted of these statements
was Colin Powell's address to the UN on February 5, 2003: transcript
and video, subsequently regarded by Powell as the “lowest point” in
his life, as reported by CNN in August 2005. See also Iraq On the
Record: The Bush Administration's Public Statements on Iraq,” House of
Representatives Committee on Government Reform, Special Investigations
Division, March 16, 2004.
↑ See, e.g., Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar
Intelligence Assessments on Iraq, Senate Committee on Intelligence,
July 7, 2004; especially its conclusions.
↑ The Center for Public Integrity's War Card site has a fully
searchable database of false statements.
↑ Iraq On the Record: The Bush Administration's Public Statements on
Iraq,” House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform,
Special Investigations Division, March 16, 2004. It also found that
between “September 8, 2002, and September 28, 2003, National Security
Advisor Rice made 29 misleading statements about the threat posed by
Iraq.”
↑ “Top Bush officials push case against Saddam, CNN, September 8, 2002.
↑ Revealed: US dirty tricks to win vote on Iraq war, Martin Bright, Ed
Vulliamy, Peter Beaumont, The Observer, March 2, 2003. The report was
based on an email leaked from the NSA by Katharine Gun email: the text
of the NSA email is available online. See also Rice authorized
National Security Agency to spy on UN Security Council in run-up to
war, former officials say, Jason Leopold, Raw Story, December 27,
2005; and Bugging Kofi Annan: UN Spying and the Evasions of US
Journalism, Norman Solomon, Counterpunch, February 26, 2004.
↑ House committee subpoenas Rice on Iraq, Thomas Ferraro, Reuters, Apr
25, 2007; Hill Subpoenas Approved for Rice, Other Bush Officials, Dan
Eggen and Paul Kane, Washington Post, April 26, 2007.
↑ Rice signals rejection of U.S. House subpoena in Iraq weapons of
mass destruction inquiry, AP, April 26, 2007; Secret to Forcing
Compliance With Subpoenas, David Swanson, August 31, 2007.
↑ Recounted by Jeremy Scahill on Democracy now, Can Iraq (or Anyone)
Hold Blackwater Accountable for Killing Iraqi Civilians? A Debate on
the Role of Private Contractors in Iraq, September 18, 2007; and also
Contract Justice, Jeremy Scahill, The Nation, April 6, 2008.
↑ “I certainly regret that we did not have the kind of oversight that
I would have insisted upon,” she said.Rice Says ‘Hole’ in U.S. Law
Shields Contractors in Iraq, New York Times, October 25, 2007; On
Hill, Rice Talks About Blackwater, Washington Post, October 26, 2007.
There was a proposed law in 2007 to extend the jurisdiction of US
Courts under the Military Extraterritorial Jursidcition Act to all
contractors working for the US government abroad, but the Bush
administration opposed it: White House: Contractor bill would have
'intolerable' effects, CNN, October 3, 2007. Regardless, charges have
been brought against some Blackwater contractors over the Nissour
square massacre in US federal court. On February 18, 2009, a federal
US judge held that the contractors' arguments that the court had no
jurisdiction over them were “rather strong,” but refused to throw out
the case: Judge Refuses to Dismiss Charges Against Blackwater Guards,
Del Quentin Wilber, Washington Post, February 18, 2009.
↑ Ex-Paratrooper Is Suspect in a Blackwater Killing, John M. Broder,
New York Times, October 4, 2007; Contract Justice, Jeremy Scahill, The
Nation, April 6, 2008; Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Memorandum Re: Additional Information about Blackwater USA, October 1,
2007; Contractor involved in Iraq shooting got job in Kuwait, CNN,
October 4, 2007.
↑ See, e.g., State Department under fire over reported Blackwater
immunity, AFP, October 30, 2007; State Department Grants Immunity to
Guards Investigated for Shooting Iraqi Civilians, Jonathan Karl and
Kirit Radia, ABC News, October 30, 2007; House Probes Blackwater
Immunity, Adam Zagorin and Brian Bennett, Time, October 30, 2007.
↑ Despite Blackwater, State Officials Get Promotions, ABC News,
October 25, 2007.
↑ See, e.g. Iraq Limits Blackwater's Operations, Time, September 17, 2007
↑ Blackwater Iraq contract to be renewed, Elise Labott, CNN, April 4,
2008; U.S. to renew Blackwater contract, UPI, April 5, 2008.
↑ Some reports suggested the agreement revoked immunity: see, e.g.
Iraq withdrawal -- not so fast, Kal Raustiala, LA Times, January 3,
2009. However, the word “immunity” does not appear in the text of the
SOFA; article 12 only provides Iraq “the primary right to exercise
jurisdiction over United States contractors and United States
contractor employees.” The details of immunity are unclear: see, e.g.,
Iraq pact fuzzy on Blackwater immunity, Mike Baker, AP, December 24,
2008.
↑ Iraq to Deny New License To Blackwater Security Firm, Ernesto
Londoño and Qais Mizher, Washington Post, January 29, 2009.
↑ See Opinion Research Business and Just Foreign Policy for these
estiamtes. This far exceeds the Iraq Body Count number of around
90,000, which only counts deaths reported by multiple crosschecked
media reports: see their information page. The US government has not
made any serious study of deaths in Iraq during the war and
occupation. Perhaps the closest is Measuring Stability and Security in
Iraq, Report to Congress by Department of Defense, September 2008, at
p.22. However, as noted in the December 2007 version of this report,
there are many deaths for which “the Coalition does not have
visibility, in particular, murders and deaths in locations where
Coalition forces are not present”: at p.18. See the Congressional
Research Service report Iraqi Civilian Casualties Estimates, Hannah
Fischer, January 12, 2009, for some further discussion. The Just
Foreign Policy figure is an extrapolation of an epidemiological-style
cluster study study published in the prestigious British medial
journal The Lancet, which obtained a figure of 426,000-794,000 for the
period March 2003 - July 2006: Gilbert Burnham, Riyadh Lafta, Shannon
Doocy et al., “Mortality After the 2003 Invasion of Iraq: A
Cross-Sectional Cluster Sample Survey,” The Lancet, October 21, 2006,
368 (9545), pp. 1421-1429. The UK Ministry of Defence's chief
scientific advisor called the survey “close to best practice” and
“robust”: High Death Toll Backed, Newsday, March 27, 2007.
↑ See, e.g., Iraq situation, UNHCR Global Appeal 2008-2009.
↑ Cholera outbreak spreads in Iraq, Al-Jazeera, September 11, 2008.
↑ See the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, which maintains an online count.
↑ See selected Declassified Key Judgments of the National Intelligence
Estimate “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United
States,” April 2006.
↑ See the full text of the UN Convention Against Torture and list of
ratifications.
↑ Sources: Top Bush Advisors Approved 'Enhanced Interrogation', Jan
Crawford Greenburg, Howard L. Rosenberg, Ariane de Vogue, ABC News,
April 9, 2008.
↑ Article 6 of the US Constitution. See also the Geneva Conventions:
for instance, article 17 of the Third Geneva Convention requires that
“no physical or mental torture, nor by other form of coercion, may be
inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any
kind whatever”. Also the Universal Declaration of Human rights,
article 5.
↑ See, e.g., the US War Crimes Act and the Eighth Amendment to the US
Constitution.
↑ See the ABC News report for instance.
↑ For further discussion of this question see Michael Ratner, The
Trial of Donald Rumsfeld (2008).
↑ In addition to Articles 12 and 2(1), see: article 4, which requires
States to ensure that torture is a crime in their domestic law,
including complicity or participation in torture; article 11, which
requires States to keep interrogation rules under review “with a view
to preventing any cases of torture.”
↑ Chapter 4, Stanford University Faculty Handbook, section 4.4.B(1)
contains core policy statements on Faulty Appeal Procedures (4.1),
Academic Freedom (4.2), Faculty Discipline (4.3), and Appointment and
Tenure(4.4).
↑ Chapter 4, Stanford University Faculty Handbook, section 4.3.A(3).
↑ Fundamental standard, Stanford University Office of Judicial
Affairs. This argument is also made by Steven Jewell on his website,
No Stanford torture.