in their own words
 |
|
|
|
 The President Has Been Consistent - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 5/15/09 — Friday, May 15, 2009 —  Q One of the reasons that human rights groups are upset about the announcement today is many of them believed, based on a couple statements the President had made, that the President was looking -- then-senator, now President -- was looking forward to a system where detainees would be tried either through the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or through U.S. courts.And there are a couple statements the President made. I’m wondering if you could just reconcile it. He said in August ‘07: "I have faith in America’s courts. I have faith in our JAGs. As President, I’ll close Guantanamo, reject the Military Commissions Act, adhere to the Geneva Conventions. Our Constitution and our Uniform Code of Military Justice provide a framework for dealing with the terrorists." And then in August, the campaign issued a statement responding to the Hamdan conviction. The key line being: "It’s time to better protect the American people and our values by bringing swift and sure justice to terrorists through our courts and through our Uniform Code of Military Justice" -- no mention of military commissions. Now, I understand he supported McCain-Graham-Warner back in ‘08. But how do you reconcile these statements with the military commissions? They make no mention of them. MR. GIBBS: Well, look, Jake, the underlying issues in each of those statements affording -- first affording for swift and certain justice, as well as sufficient detainee protection that the Supreme Court has now rendered have to be a part of any military commission is embedded in the exact suggestions that the President is filing today with the Court, ensuring that -- the Court ruled last year that significant protection had to be afforded for the first time to detainees in order for something like this to be constitutional, and those are the changes that the President sought. Again, I think if you go back and look at his statements and understand the role that military commissions have played in the history of the United States, the President believes that, in dealing with certain detainees at Guantanamo Bay, that this is an appropriate avenue. Obviously we will also use, in some instances, Article III courts in order to ensure the certainty of justice that the President spoke about. Q I’m sorry, just to follow up. I mean, are these just two statements where, if you could go back, you would just add the term "military commission"? They were just -- they were just vague? Because -- MR. GIBBS: No, I think that the -- I think if you look back at all these statements, Jake, the President has been consistent in his views on this issue and been consistent on what was lacking in order to ensure justice, in order to ensure protection, and most of all to ensure that this process goes forward with -- and doesn’t see repeated legal stalls in going through the court system. And again, the notion of military commissions in a larger sense is something that’s been with us now for almost eight years. I think some 242 detainees resided at Guantanamo when the President took office, obviously at certain points there have been even more, and exactly three cases have gone through this system in those almost intervening eight years. I don’t think this is a system that works in any way, shape, or form for the American people. Q But if I can just follow on that, when you say the President has been consistent, the quote that Jake read from 2007 where the President flatly said, I would reject -- using the word "reject" -- the Military Commissions Act. He’s not rejecting it today. He’s embracing the Bush law -- MR. GIBBS: No, no, no, no -- Q -- with tweaks. He’s embracing that law but saying, "I want to tweak it." MR. GIBBS: "I’m buying a car except I’m changing the engine and painting it a different color and calling it a different" -- Q Well, he’s not rejecting this law. There’s not a new law coming. He’s not rejecting this. He’s saying, "We’re going to live with this law with tweaks." MR. GIBBS: No. The law, as you talk about it, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, passed in late September of 2006 and signed by this President, was ruled in 2007, Section 7, to be unconstitutional, okay. That law doesn’t work, okay. The President will seek a continuance in the nine cases that are currently part of the military commissions, setting those cases aside for 120 days in order to institute these changes. These cases won’t go forward under these rules. Therefore, the system that was set up by Congress and signed by then-President Bush won’t be the course under which these cases will ultimately be heard. Your characterization is just simply wrong. Q So then why is the ACLU saying you’re just building on a flawed system, a system that is unconstitutional, as you just pointed out? You’re just building on that flawed system. MR. GIBBS: Well, you know, Jake -- I’m sorry, not Jake, Ed, you -- sorry -- (laughter) -- you know, I think you started out on Monday wondering why -- in questioning why we were being so much like -- so opposite of George Bush in all these questions. And on Friday I’m answering questions about why are we so much like George Bush on all these questions. I’ll let you guys discern what inflection point -- what period of day that all changed. But this notion that somehow the law is the same under the protections that the President is entering into, I would simply point to you the opinion that Justice Kennedy wrote in a Supreme Court case in 2007, denoting that without the protections that the President is enumerating to the court today, those trials can’t go forward. This notion is the same -- the notion that this is the same vehicle is simply -- it’s simply not true. The protections -- Q So if you want to take issue with the characterization of the relation to Bush -- MR. GIBBS: I think you should take issue with those -- Q -- former President Bush -- MR. GIBBS: I don’t think I would. I think you should. I think the protections that are afforded -- that the President will ask the court or will note that he’s going to send to Congress to amend represent a far different system. Again, in 2006, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Carl Levin and John Warner all supported a piece of legislation similar to what the President is enumerating today. Have you asked each of them why they’re -- Q You just said three Republicans, right? Warner, Graham, McCain -- MR. GIBBS: Four. I’m sorry, and Susan Collins. Four Republicans joined 11 Democrats in a 15-9 vote for a very different set of rules governing military commissions. Q When you mentioned President Bush -- MR. GIBBS: That which got politicized, a different proposal got into the mix, and the law that ultimately came from that was very different than what was proposed in the Senate Armed Services Committee. Q But when the ACLU and other critics say -- what they complain about, in part, is they look at the executives orders that were signed on week one of this administration, and there seemed to be a signal that was being sent that you were turning the page on the Bush years, there was going to be a sharp break. Now you’re looking at what you did on the photos Wednesday, what you’re doing here today -- they’re getting the sense that you’re moving closer to President Bush. And again, you’re quoting what Republicans were saying, like John Warner, John McCain. And they see John McCain cheering this decision today and they say this is not what we voted for. MR. GIBBS: But, Ed, first of all -- let me give you two answers. First of all, go back and talk to those that voted for S. 3901 in 2006. The reason that bill didn’t get a majority was, that’s not what the Bush administration wanted, okay? And secondly -- and I would say this to somebody who criticizes us from the left and criticizes us from the right -- one thing that we’re not having a debate about is whether or not these tactics exist, whether they can currently be used by this administration, because this President took, with one stroke of a pen, the swift action to ensure that these enhanced interrogation techniques aren’t used by this administration. I think, if I understand the former Vice President of the United States correctly, I’m to understand that he doesn’t necessarily agree with that, marking somewhat of a change from the previous administration’s discourse of justice. Q I didn’t mention the former Vice President in my question. MR. GIBBS: I did. Q Okay. MR. GIBBS: I did. ACLU | Military Tribunals | President Obama | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: ACLU, Military Commissions, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 6:12:00 PM
|
|
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
< whpc home