Letters to the Editor
-
White House talking points: (A) 9/11! (B) 9/11! (C) 9/11!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=5IsKkfjm73A&eurl=
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/10/20071004-4.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
October 4, 2007
Press Briefing by Dana Perino
James S. Brady Briefing Room
12:42 P.M. EDTMS. PERINO: Good afternoon. I do not have anything to start with, so we can go to questions.
Deb?Q: Just generally, does the administration -- does the President believe that head-slapping and simulated drowning are necessary tactics to use against suspected terrorists to keep America safe?
MS. PERINO: [...] In this new war, which is an unprecedented war, facing an enemy unlike we've ever faced before, sometimes -- oftentimes the best information that you get is from the terrorists themselves.
[...] And to win the war on terror we must be able to detain them, interrogate them, question them, and when appropriate, prosecute them -- in America -- when we capture them here in America and on battlefields around the world. The policy of the United States is not to torture. The President has not authorized it, he will not authorize it.
Martha.Q: In a conference call in July, a senior administration official said that they would no longer -- or wouldn't use extreme temperatures of heat and cold. Is that true?
MS. PERINO: I don't know. I don't -- I wasn't on -- I don't recall.
[...]
Q: What is your definition of "torture?"
MS. PERINO: Well, that's clearly spelled out in the -- in the Detainee Treatment Act, and interpreted under the December 2004 opinion that governs, and has governed -- and if you look at the footnote from that opinion, governs all subsequent opinions that have been made by the Justice Department.
[...]
Q: Dana, you talk about being within the corners of the law. But are you satisfied that there's enough clarity, in sort of the definition --
[...]
MS. PERINO: Now, if there were an attack on this country, all of the questions in here would be very different. You would be asking me, how did you allow this to happen? And what I am telling you is that within the law, we are making sure that we are doing everything we can to prevent it from happening again.
[...]
Q: And when you say that if we had just had an attack, the questions would be very different, what then would you say to someone like Senator McCain, who feels that harsh interrogation techniques are not more effective in generating valuable information?
MS. PERINO: Well, I think -- I think what we'd say to Senator McCain is that we appreciated the work he did on the Detainee Treatment Act, and the President was proud to sign it into law, that we don't torture, and that we appreciate his attention to this effort and to this issue, and that we follow the law as he would want us to.
Q: But if there can be reasonable disagreements on what amounts to torture, then what you are actually saying is, we don't believe what we do is torture.
MS. PERINO: Look, under the United States' interpretation and -- we -- in that December 2004 opinion that is publicly available at the Justice Department for everyone to see, we believe that we are following our laws and that we are meeting our international obligations in order to prevent attacks on Americans and our allies. And we're meeting that.
Peter.Q: Dana, to what extent has the President been personally involved in deciding what is tough, safe, and legal?
MS. PERINO: I don't know. I think those decisions are made at the -- at a level where they have lawyer -- individuals like Steven Bradbury, who's discussed in the article, at the Office of Legal Counsel. But I am not aware of presidential involvement.
Q: So he doesn't necessarily sign off on these then?
MS. PERINO: No, I don't think so. But I --
Q: The Attorney General does though, right?
MS. PERINO: I would guess. Can I refer you to the Justice Department, because I just don't know what their chain of command is.
[...]
Q: Paraphrasing what the Geneva Conventions said, it said that -- [...] if there is some kind of a problem with clarity it is supposed to be taken to an international crimes court. So --
MS. PERINO: Which we are not going to do.
Q: Why not?
MS. PERINO: I don't think it's necessary, April. We have clarified in the Detainee Treatment Act and in this December 2004 opinion that the United States does not torture. And outside of some individuals suggesting that we do, I think that our allies are comfortable -- especially because of the protection that we're affording them, as well.
Q: Dana, is the President at all concerned that despite his repeated assurances that the U.S. does not engage in torture, that there are persistent concerns and questions raised? Does this suggest he is just not credible when he says the United States --
MS. PERINO: Absolutely not. And I actually think that the people around the country understand that there are things that are secret and classified for a reason, and it's for their protection. And I know that they place trust in this federal government to make sure that a 9/11 doesn't happen again.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/10/20071004-4.html
http://youtube.com/watch?v=5IsKkfjm73A&eurl=
-
injunction
Glenn: you profile describes you as some kind of big time litigator. Instead of complaining about these "revelations of lawbreaking", why don't you file an injunction somewhere to get this so called lawbreaking stopped. Put down your pen and do something. Apparently nothing less than our country is at stake.
-
I'm actually starting to feel sorry for you guys. Tsk on me.
Look people, all this moaning and groaning is symptomatic of the clash between reality and fantasy. The fantasy being what most here think SHOULD happen, but doesn't. Perhaps it's time to grow up and face the idea that the world (not Bush) is modeled more upon Myanmar and that you, the liberal faithful are the hapless monks. Couple that with the observation that you take what is truly liberal about our country for granted, and make "the perfect the enemy of the good." It's the perfect recipe for disillusionment and frustration. Some things to consider...
"The press isn't resourceful or confrontational".
Sorry but that just isn't true, particularly when compared to the press of days past. The reality is that it's unprecedented for a time of war that most if not all the distasteful processes of prisoner management are not only known, but have been addressed and corrected. Do you not understand what a big deal that is? It's huge. Personal lives of candidates are now open books. There is little left that can be hidden."Bush lied us into war"
No he didn't, but considering that the country was effectively deprived of all early warning systems by the Church hearings, how surprising is it that we relied on faulty intelligence? It's all we were allowed. You can take away the eyes and ears of the CIA and NSA, but then don't be surprised when the country falls into a hole."We are responsible for the Iraq mess"
Only in that we have allowed the Iraqis to be Iraqis. We haven't killed anyone that hasn't tried to kill us since the summer of 2003. If you are surprised that members of the same country and same religion are willing to exterminate each other, you never learned the lessons of our own civil war. If you think we shouldn't have invaded in the first place, that makes you a supporter of regimes like the junta in Myanmar. Sorry, but it's true."Congressional Democrats are wimps"
They know things you don't. Not the least of which, is the knowledge of culpability for their positions. That and the sure knowledge that the polls are BS.Who is the leading Dem candidate and prohibitive favorite to win it all? Not the leading anti-war candidate, Obama. Not the rich boy "poverty candidate". Nope, it's a person who has maintained the aura of national security advocate while triangulating the far left. Does that match up with the polls about the war? Of course not. The polls merely reflect the desire for a good outcome regardless of the consequences, and frustration with the intractability of the fighting factions in Iraq who don't understand the gift they've been given. Anyone with a brain isn't going to give the reins of power to someone like McGovern. People may say one thing, but when the chips are down the truth emerges.
"The golden age of America was in the fifties"
That's not related to the thread but one of my favorites. Yes it was the "golden age" of America because our biggest competitors had been completely, totally, destroyed,during WW2. It certainly wasn't because we were "special".The truth of life people, is that it's all well and good to hope that everyone stops their cars at red lights, and one can walk through in perfect safety - but don't you look both ways because the world isn't perfect? To expect more than that when dealing with politics is just dumb. Santa Claus isn't keeping a list, and God isn't on anybody's side. Get over it, and see what the world really looks like.