in their own words
 |
|
|
|
 The Non-Clarity of Yesterday - Air Force One Press Gaggle by Robert Gibbs 4/22/09 — Wednesday, April 22, 2009 —  Q Any clarity from yesterday on the President's position on torture memos, and any reaction to Dennis Blair's memo that appeared in papers today?MR. GIBBS: Well, on the first question, what exactly -- what clarity are you looking for? Q We're looking -- you said you were going to talk to -- get back to us with clarity on the President's remarks. MR. GIBBS: Well, I think what -- maybe what I wasn’t clear about yesterday and -- because what was said yesterday was exactly what the President has said for not just the past week, as we've dealt with these OLC memos, but for the past many months. Let's just go through the whole sort of decision in general. The President, at the beginning of his administration, banned the use of enhanced interrogation techniques because he believed they were -- they opposed our values and, on balance, they made the country less safe. As part of an ongoing legal proceeding, the President released these memos because there was no legal justification for continuing to keep them classified; that a lot of the information that was contained in the memos, that the types of techniques were in the public domain. So that is part of the backdrop of where we are. The President also believes that the memos and their release should be a moment for us to reflect, but not a moment for retribution. The President, as he said yesterday, has a lot on his plate and he believes that our focus looking forward should be on the crises that we have in the bank industry, in unemployment, the financial sector, and as he and the Attorney General have said, that while no one is above the law, those that worked within the four corners of the legal advice they were given, and those that acted in good faith based on the advice they were provided should not be subject to interrogation. That's what the President said -- that's what the President has said all along. Q Should not be subject to what? MR. GIBBS: Should not be subject to prosecution. Q The President said yesterday that he wanted to ensure that if there was any kind of investigation, politics were not part of the equation. Given that, would he be supportive at some point appointing a special prosecutor to look into these Bush-era officials? MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I think this goes into the -- in some ways, the non-clarity of yesterday. Let me use an example. If you go in the back of the plane, Air Force One, and spray-paint the walls and smoke in the bathroom, the President isn’t going to determine whether you broke the law; a legal official is going to determine whether you broke the law. That's the determination that will be made in any instance whereby anybody knowingly breaks the law. Q But due to the fact that his AG, Eric Holder, is a political appointee, would it not be less political to have a prosecutor to look into these issues? MR. GIBBS: I think that the lawyers that are involved are plenty capable of determining whether any law has been broken. I want to stress that that determination is not going to be made by the President, or the Vice President, or anybody that works in the White House, because that's why many, many, many, many moons ago we created a Department of Justice. Q To switch gears, can you tell us a little bit more about this planned summit with Zardari and Karzai? What does the President hope to achieve with this, what I understand is going to be a three-way? MR. GIBBS: Yes, it will be a trilateral meeting in early May. Look, obviously, without getting into a lot of the technical details, these are -- this is part of the ongoing new policy and process that was put into place at the conclusion of the review of where we are in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Understanding that this is a very important and very dangerous part of the world, the President wants to be personally involved, as he has been throughout his administration, in seeking to find solutions to the problems that are in this region and to protect the United States. Q He said before that he doesn’t -- that they're not going to have a blank check. Is that something he's going to communicate to them again when he meets them? MR. GIBBS: Absolutely. And I don't -- the President will reiterate his hopes and his belief of the opportunities, but also the responsibilities that each leader has. Q There are lots and lots of news reports today saying that what the President did yesterday was open the door, change his policy, make a surprising announcement. Are all of those stories just flat wrong? MR. GIBBS: Yes. And let me -- again, I'll use the example that I used with Jonathan to you -- I think you were getting a pen or something. If you spray-paint the back of this plane, if you tear up one of the seats, even though it's Air Force One, the President doesn’t make a determination as to who broke the law. That's a legal official. The notion that the President is open to anything is -- I think misses the point. If somebody knowingly broke the law, that's a determination that will be ultimately made by a legal official, not by the President of the United States, or not by anybody else. Air Force One | Interrogation | Obama Administration | Press Gaggle | Robert Gibbs | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Air Force One, Interrogation, Obama Administration, Press Gaggle, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 7:34 PM
|
|
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
< whpc home