Zelikow learned of the then-classified Justice Department legal opinions in May 2005 and wrote a memo a few months later that contended the policies violated the U.S. Constitution.I still don't understand exactly what Zelikow is doing here. Is this Rice's way of hitting back at Big Dick? Her "Bush authorized it so it's legal" argument ain't gonna stand up, she's floundering, but she sure knows some shit.
More importantly, the memo was part of the internal arguments in the Bush administration that pitted the State Department against then-Vice President Dick Cheney and the Justice Department.
At times, Rice actively joined the dissent, a position that evolved from one of support after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. Cheney, to this day, contends the interrogations prevented terrorist attacks.
Rice ignited a controversy last month when she told Stanford University students, "If it was authorized by the president it did not violate our obligations under the convention against torture." But in an appearance in Washington afterward, Rice said she really meant "the president (George W. Bush) said, 'I won't authorize anything that is illegal."
Maybe this is Rice's boy acting on her orders in order to save her
So is this laying the grounds for another look at Zelikow's 9-11 Commission report? Surely if the whole report was based on information extracted by torture, it cannot be considered reliable? Particularly when people like Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari (see below) are calling Bin Laden a US Agent (why did they fly his whole family out of the USA on 9-11 anyway, hmmn?).
More on Zelikow's one-man tennis game here.