4 ms·

Without looking at the facts? Guilty until proven innocent? Good for him for convicting others of war crimes without any due process?

cryoshon 13y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condolezza_Rice#Iraq http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condolezza_Rice#Iraq http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condolezza_Rice#Role_in_authorizing_use_of_controversial_interrogation_techniques http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condolezza_Rice#Role_in_authori... The facts have been on the record for years now. She's guilty, but there will never be a formal trial specifically because power will never turn on one of their own if there's nothing to gain.
- notd97843 13y ago
  Hate to break this to you, but Wikipedia is not due process. http://archive.is/vAWQa http://archive.is/vAWQa
  - DominikR 13y ago
    That's usually the first thing that war criminals come up with to shield themselves from prosecution. "They just didn't know better" It doesn't matter if they knew or didn't, they are responsible for what they did. If ignorance was sufficient, they'd place a donkey in the white house and wash their hands in innocence.
    - gfsdg4g54 13y ago
      You're accusing her of war crimes. The burden of proof is on you to prove that she is a war criminal. Cite admissible evidence only, please (not Wikipedia links). We can try her in court once you give us the evidence. You only have to meet the plausible cause standard.
      - clavalle 13y ago
        Ok. Do we get a discovery process where we can sift through all of the correspondence and information they had in the run up to the Iraq war? No? It will be released 25 years after the fact /if/ they are not ordered to remained sealed. I guess we'll have to wait a little while for your admissible evidence. How convenient.
  - JabavuAdams 13y ago
    I'm not sure what you're trying to prove. I don't care whether Bush et. al. lied about Iraq. I'm not here to prosecute them. I have not called them war criminals. I am disgusted by the way the Iraq war was sold to the American public. I'm disgusted by the legitimizing of torture, both legally and culturally, and I disdain anyone who was a part of that fiasco. As a non-American living in another country at the time it couldn't have been more apparent how different the "facts" were inside the US reality distortion bubble and outside of it. E.g. in Canada we watch both US and Canadian news shows. Watching the same events reported in both gives an incredible insight into the amount of propaganda that US citizens are subject to. Look up Knight Ridder's reporting on the run up to the Iraq war if you want to look at some good American coverage at the time.
- schintan 13y ago
  Was there a similar outcry when she joined the Stanford faculty ? Did everyone decide to shun Stanford ? If not , I am curious why her being a faculty member was acceptable and being on the board of Dropbox is not, since the outrage is for her being a liar and a war perpetrator and not due to her skills for the job.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - frandroid 13y ago
    She was Stanford tenured faculty (and maybe even Provost) before joining the Bush administration, and took leave to take her appointments. She then rejoined Standford later. People did complain about that, anyway.
JabavuAdams 13y ago
Stow the butt-hurt. I've looked at the facts. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars will be remembered as the end of the American era, unless Silicon Valley can build US 2.0. and disassociate themselves from Washington.
- hg54yghf 13y ago
  Really? The poster above posted these facts. http://archive.is/vAWQa http://archive.is/vAWQa Will you look at those too or just conveniently ignore them like the other posters who downvoted the FactCheck link above?
  - ChrisGaudreau 13y ago
    Will you use your normal account or just conveniently hide behind fake accounts to say things you know are stupid?
    - gfsdg4g54 13y ago
      Citing FactCheck links is stupid, now?
    - wacknack 13y ago
      Considering that my normal account was permanently slowed and is apparently unable to post more than once an hour due to this thread, I'd say "hiding" is useful if one wants to express an unpopular opinion on HN, merely to retain the functionality of his normal account.
      - ebrenes 13y ago
        That's the system working as intended. This site isn't meant to be about rapid back-n-forth banter or quick retorts and small points. If after an hour, what you meant to say isn't worth saying then it's clear it isn't worth having on the site.
        13y ago

cryoshon 13y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condolezza_Rice#Iraq http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condolezza_Rice#Iraq http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condolezza_Rice#Role_in_authorizing_use_of_controversial_interrogation_techniques http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condolezza_Rice#Role_in_authori... The facts have been on the record for years now. She's guilty, but there will never be a formal trial specifically because power will never turn on one of their own if there's nothing to gain.

notd97843 13y ago
Hate to break this to you, but Wikipedia is not due process. http://archive.is/vAWQa http://archive.is/vAWQa
- DominikR 13y ago
  That's usually the first thing that war criminals come up with to shield themselves from prosecution. "They just didn't know better" It doesn't matter if they knew or didn't, they are responsible for what they did. If ignorance was sufficient, they'd place a donkey in the white house and wash their hands in innocence.
  - gfsdg4g54 13y ago
    You're accusing her of war crimes. The burden of proof is on you to prove that she is a war criminal. Cite admissible evidence only, please (not Wikipedia links). We can try her in court once you give us the evidence. You only have to meet the plausible cause standard.
    - clavalle 13y ago
      Ok. Do we get a discovery process where we can sift through all of the correspondence and information they had in the run up to the Iraq war? No? It will be released 25 years after the fact /if/ they are not ordered to remained sealed. I guess we'll have to wait a little while for your admissible evidence. How convenient.
- JabavuAdams 13y ago
  I'm not sure what you're trying to prove. I don't care whether Bush et. al. lied about Iraq. I'm not here to prosecute them. I have not called them war criminals. I am disgusted by the way the Iraq war was sold to the American public. I'm disgusted by the legitimizing of torture, both legally and culturally, and I disdain anyone who was a part of that fiasco. As a non-American living in another country at the time it couldn't have been more apparent how different the "facts" were inside the US reality distortion bubble and outside of it. E.g. in Canada we watch both US and Canadian news shows. Watching the same events reported in both gives an incredible insight into the amount of propaganda that US citizens are subject to. Look up Knight Ridder's reporting on the run up to the Iraq war if you want to look at some good American coverage at the time.
schintan 13y ago
Was there a similar outcry when she joined the Stanford faculty ? Did everyone decide to shun Stanford ? If not , I am curious why her being a faculty member was acceptable and being on the board of Dropbox is not, since the outrage is for her being a liar and a war perpetrator and not due to her skills for the job.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- frandroid 13y ago
  She was Stanford tenured faculty (and maybe even Provost) before joining the Bush administration, and took leave to take her appointments. She then rejoined Standford later. People did complain about that, anyway.

JabavuAdams 13y ago

Stow the butt-hurt. I've looked at the facts. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars will be remembered as the end of the American era, unless Silicon Valley can build US 2.0. and disassociate themselves from Washington.

hg54yghf 13y ago
Really? The poster above posted these facts. http://archive.is/vAWQa http://archive.is/vAWQa Will you look at those too or just conveniently ignore them like the other posters who downvoted the FactCheck link above?
- ChrisGaudreau 13y ago
  Will you use your normal account or just conveniently hide behind fake accounts to say things you know are stupid?
  - gfsdg4g54 13y ago
    Citing FactCheck links is stupid, now?
  - wacknack 13y ago
    Considering that my normal account was permanently slowed and is apparently unable to post more than once an hour due to this thread, I'd say "hiding" is useful if one wants to express an unpopular opinion on HN, merely to retain the functionality of his normal account.
    - ebrenes 13y ago
      That's the system working as intended. This site isn't meant to be about rapid back-n-forth banter or quick retorts and small points. If after an hour, what you meant to say isn't worth saying then it's clear it isn't worth having on the site.
      - 13y ago