No Comment — May 6, 2009, 9:29 am

A Talk with Condi’s Interrogators

On April 27, Condoleezza Rice went to a reception at a Stanford University dormitory, which was followed by a private dinner with some of the students. Stanford undergrads Jeremy Cohn and Sammy Abusrur took the opportunity to pose some demanding questions, while a third Stanford student, Reyna Garcia, captured the event on film. The tape was posted to the Internet and quickly worked its way on to the news in the U.S. and around the world. I discussed the event with Cohn and Abusrur.

Q: What gave rise to your sparring match with Condoleezza Rice?

Cohn: First of all, I should say that I never intended our conversation to become a “sparring match.” I knew that my questions were not soft questions, but I specifically went in with the intention of keeping my words civil.

I had seen an email a few weeks ago advertising that Rice would be coming to my dorm to speak with and have dinner with several students. I immediately signed up to be in the pool from which the students would be randomly selected. I thought about the questions that I might ask, though I really doubted that I would be able to ask anything, especially once I was told I was not one of the students selected for the dinner. I went to the meet and greet, which was open to the dorm as a whole, and as students began to leave, I approached Rice, though only after encouragement from one of my friends.

harper-pic-jeremy-cohn

After my second question things became less civil, but you can watch the video and make your own decision about how things developed. She began to get defensive after my comment regarding World War II. After that our conversation wasn’t as polite.

Abusrur: I am a freelance photographer and was photographing Rice as she conversed with students at the Roble dormitory at Stanford. It bothered me that almost all of the students–except for the ones protesting outside–seemed thrilled to see her. They were simply lobbing banal questions and comments at her. Weren’t they aware of her history as National Security Advisor and Secretary of State in the Bush Administration? Finally Jeremy began asking Rice about Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo. I was disappointed when she deflected his questions with patronizing comments and finger-wagging. Rice’s defensive attitude prompted me to consider asking her a question, so I put down my camera and told her that I had a question. I told her about the recent report I had read concerning her approval of the use of torture by the CIA, and she objected, and I said, “not torture, waterboarding.” She seemed happy at that. Then it struck me to ask her whether she thought waterboarding was a form of torture. First, she replied that she did not authorize anything but just “conveyed” the authorization of the administration. At the time, her claim struck me as being similar to the Nuremberg Defense. Then I repeated my question: was waterboarding torture? Her response that, “By definition, if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Conventions Against Torture,” sounded eerily like President Richard Nixon’s infamous response to David Frost: “When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.” I was delighted with her very revealing response. In fact, it was the highlight of my four years at Stanford.

Q: What kind of reaction have you gotten after the YouTube video began to circulate?

Cohn: Mostly positive. Several students, alumni, and locals have sent me positive emails thanking me for my part. People around campus have recognized me and shaken my hand and voiced their approval. They were happy that I posed tough questions, and several also noted that Rice was evasive. On the other hand, one student told me that he “did not think I was as smart as Rice.” Another student told me he thought Rice’s responses were accurate and appropriate.

sammy-abusrur

Abusrur: It’s been a unique experience. I had absolutely no idea that a video even existed before a friend sent me the link to it. I was excited that it had been captured on video; I was able to share my experience with my family and friends. Once the video spread around campus via email lists and Facebook, friends poured in their support. One friend started calling me Sammy “Frost” Abusrur.

Q: Rice kept insisting to you that she had to grapple with tough choices. How successfully do you think she did that? Did her eight years of stewardship as National Security Advisor and then Secretary of State leave the world a better place?

Cohn: It’s true that she had to deal with some enormously difficult choices. However, I have wondered and continue to wonder about many of her actions since 9/11. And I do wonder about our diplomatic progress in the past few years.

I think the reputation of the United States suffered. Many of the Administration’s actions reflect poorly on the United States: holding prisoners indefinitely without trial, utilizing interrogation methods that many consider torture, decrying the human rights violations of one nation while remaining silent about the violations of our allies. Whether we like it or not, many nations believe that the United States violated international treaties with our treatment of detainees and enemy combatants. These perceptions of the United States affect how we interact with every other nation and its people. And ultimately these perceptions do affect our security.

Abusrur: I am not a political scientist, nor an international relations major, so I am not going to pretend that I am an expert on this subject. However, in my opinion, Condoleezza Rice’s eight years in the Bush Administration were a disaster for the United States. Evidence has shown she failed to act on intelligence warning of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, approved torture, and finally, unconditionally supported Israel’s campaigns in Lebanon and Gaza, which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of innocent Lebanese and Palestinian children, women, and men. Therefore, I don’t think history will look back kindly on Condoleezza Rice. Indeed, the Bush Administration left the world in a worse state than it found it.

Share
Single Page

More from Scott Horton:

Conversation August 5, 2016, 12:08 pm

Lincoln’s Party

Sidney Blumenthal on the origins of the Republican Party, the fallout from Clinton’s emails, and his new biography of Abraham Lincoln

Conversation March 30, 2016, 3:44 pm

Burn Pits

Joseph Hickman discusses his new book, The Burn Pits, which tells the story of thousands of U.S. soldiers who, after returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, have developed rare cancers and respiratory diseases.

Context, No Comment August 28, 2015, 12:16 pm

Beltway Secrecy

In five easy lessons

Get access to 167 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

December 2017

Document of Barbarism

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Destroyer of Worlds

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Crossing Guards

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

“I am Here Only for Working”

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Dear Rose

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Year of The Frog

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
Destroyer of Worlds·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In February 1947, Harper’s Magazine published Henry L. Stimson’s “The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb.” As secretary of war, Stimson had served as the chief military adviser to President Truman, and recommended the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The terms of his unrepentant apologia, an excerpt of which appears on page 35, are now familiar to us: the risk of a dud made a demonstration too risky; the human cost of a land invasion would be too high; nothing short of the bomb’s awesome lethality would compel Japan to surrender. The bomb was the only option. Seventy years later, we find his reasoning unconvincing. Entirely aside from the destruction of the blasts themselves, the decision thrust the world irrevocably into a high-stakes arms race — in which, as Stimson took care to warn, the technology would proliferate, evolve, and quite possibly lead to the end of modern civilization. The first half of that forecast has long since come to pass, and the second feels as plausible as ever. Increasingly, the atmosphere seems to reflect the anxious days of the Cold War, albeit with more juvenile insults and more colorful threats. Terms once consigned to the history books — “madman theory,” “brinkmanship” — have returned to the news cycle with frightening regularity. In the pages that follow, seven writers and experts survey the current nuclear landscape. Our hope is to call attention to the bomb’s ever-present menace and point our way toward a world in which it finally ceases to exist.

Illustration by Darrel Rees. Source photographs: Kim Jong-un © ITAR-TASS Photo Agency/Alamy Stock Photo; Donald Trump © Yuri Gripas/Reuters/Newscom
Article
Crossing Guards·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Ambassador Bridge arcs over the Detroit River, connecting Detroit to Windsor, Ontario, the southernmost city in Canada. Driving in from the Canadian side, where I grew up, is like viewing a panorama of the Motor City’s rise and fall, visible on either side of the bridge’s turquoise steel stanchions. On the right are the tubular glass towers of the Renaissance Center, headquarters of General Motors, and Michigan Central Station, the rail terminal that closed in 1988. On the left is a rusted industrial corridor — fuel tanks, docks, abandoned warehouses. I have taken this route all my life, but one morning this spring, I crossed for the first time in a truck.

Illustration by Richard Mia
Article
“I am Here Only for Working”·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

But the exercise of labor is the worker’s own life-activity, the manifestation of his own life. . . . He works in order to live. He does not even reckon labor as part of his life, it is rather a sacrifice of his life.

— Karl Marx

Photograph from the United Arab Emirates by the author. This page: Ruwais Mall
Article
The Year of The Frog·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

To look at him, Sweet Macho was a beautiful horse, lean and strong with muscles that twitched beneath his shining black coat. A former racehorse, he carried himself with ceremony, prancing the field behind our house as though it were the winner’s circle. When he approached us that day at the edge of the yard, his eyes shone with what might’ve looked like intelligence but was actually a form of insanity. Not that there was any telling our mother’s boyfriend this — he fancied himself a cowboy.

“Horse 1,” by Nine Francois. Courtesy the artist and AgavePrint, Austin, Texas
Article
Dead Ball Situation·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

What We Think About When We Think About Soccer, by Simon Critchley. Penguin Books. 224 pages. $20.

Begin, as Wallace Stevens didn’t quite say, with the idea of it. I so like the idea of Simon Critchley, whose books offer philosophical takes on a variety of subjects: Stevens, David Bowie, suicide, humor, and now football — or soccer, as the US edition has it. (As a matter of principle I shall refer to this sport throughout as football.) “All of us are mysteriously affected by our names,” decides one of Milan Kundera’s characters in Immortality, and I like Critchley because his name would seem to have put him at a vocational disadvantage compared with Martin Heidegger, Søren Kierkegaard, or even, in the Anglophone world, A. J. Ayer or Richard Rorty. (How different philosophy might look today if someone called Nobby Stiles had been appointed as the Wykeham Professor of Logic.)

Tostão, No. 9, and Pelé, No. 10, celebrate Carlos Alberto’s final goal for Brazil in the World Cup final against Italy on June 21, 1970, Mexico City © Heidtmann/picture-alliance/dpa/AP Images

Factor by which single Americans who use emoji are more likely than other single Americans to be sexually active:

1.85

Brontosaurus was restored as a genus, and cannibalism was reported in tyrannosaurine dinosaurs.

Moore said he did not “generally” date teenage girls, and it was reported that in the 1970s Moore had been banned from his local mall and YMCA for bothering teenage girls.

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Report — From the June 2013 issue

How to Make Your Own AR-15

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

By

"Gun owners have long been the hypochondriacs of American politics. Over the past twenty years, the gun-rights movement has won just about every battle it has fought; states have passed at least a hundred laws loosening gun restrictions since President Obama took office. Yet the National Rifle Association has continued to insist that government confiscation of privately owned firearms is nigh. The NRA’s alarmism helped maintain an active membership, but the strategy was risky: sooner or later, gun guys might have realized that they’d been had. Then came the shootings at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, and at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, followed swiftly by the nightmare the NRA had been promising for decades: a dedicated push at every level of government for new gun laws. The gun-rights movement was now that most insufferable of species: a hypochondriac taken suddenly, seriously ill."

Subscribe Today