in their own words
 |
|
|
|
 Right to Remain Silent - Air Force One Press Gaggle by Bill Burton 6/11/09 — Thursday, June 11, 2009 —  Q Bill, did you and Gibbs clarify reading Miranda rights to combatants in Iraq and Afghanistan?MR. BURTON: I'm going to direct you over to the Department of Justice on that. They put out a statement on that yesterday, and I think that there's been some mischaracterization of what's happening over there. Air Force One | Bill Burton | Department of Justice | Interrogation | Press Gaggle | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Air Force One, Bill Burton, Department of Justice, Interrogation, Press Gaggle, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 9:26:00 PM  Miranda Rights Read To Detainees - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs — Wednesday, June 10, 2009 —  MR. GIBBS: Yes, sir.Q Robert, something completely different. Mike Rogers is a member of Congress, Republican from Michigan, has come back from Afghanistan and he tells our network that while he was there he witnessed U.S. military personnel reading Miranda rights to high-value detainees at Bagram detention facility in Afghanistan. He said this -- was informed by the military there that this is a common practice now to, upon their capture of these high-value targets, read them the Miranda rights. And he considers this a significant policy change, one that suggests to him, at least, that the administration has changed the orientation in Afghanistan from war fighting to law enforcement with this use of Miranda rights read to detainees. Would you care to comment on any of those observations? MR. GIBBS: I think I'd need a little bit more information. Q Do you know if that's true or untrue, that the Miranda rights are read? MR. GIBBS: I have no reason to disbelieve a member of Congress, but I don't know any of the circumstances that are involved around it. Q Would it come as a surprise to the White House that that's what would be happening? MR. GIBBS: It's not a surprise to me, but again, I think I'd need a little bit more information to begin to surmise some of what the Congressman has -- I don't know if he spoke with commanders on the ground, I don't know if he saw General McChrystal or -- Q In general does the White House think that's a good idea? MR. GIBBS: Major, let me get a little bit -- I'm happy to look at whatever longer-form information and get someone at NSC also to look at it. I hate to speculate on four sentences off of a report. Q Okay. Just so I understand what you're saying, when you said it wouldn't come as a surprise to you, what did you mean by that? MR. GIBBS: I'm not surprised by a lot in this town anymore. Let me look at what you're talking about -- Q You're not contesting that that's a policy that's being used? I'm just trying to make sure I understand what you're saying. MR. GIBBS: I feel like you should be reading me my rights. (Laughter.) That's why I'm hoping to get my lawyer. Again, I'm happy to look at whatever you have and try to give you an informed opinion based on somebody who's got greater jurisdiction over detainees at Bagram. That's outside of my portfolio. Afghanistan | Department of Justice | Interrogation | Obama Administration | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Afghanistan, Department of Justice, Interrogation, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 7:20:00 PM Likely To Impact Our Legislative Agenda (Cell Phone Rings) - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 5/13/09 — Wednesday, May 13, 2009 —  Q Robert, regarding the photos of detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq, you took several questions on this on April 24. You said that it was that DOJ decided it was hopeless to appeal and the administration had entered into an agreement to release the photos. You got a question about whether the President was concerned about if the release might do harm to our troops, and you said his decision was consistent with his goal of keeping the nation and the troops safe. And you said that this is among the many actions that are out of our control. So my question is what has changed to make you think that you have more control, and what has changed about the concerns about the harm to the troops? MR. GIBBS: Well, Chuck, as I said yesterday, the President was concerned about harm to the troops. I think part of my answer in that briefing also was a question about whether or not this was likely to impact our legislative agenda. The President, as you all know, met with his legal team last week because he did not feel comfortable with the release of the photos; primarily believes that -- and I'll go through some of the dates in the court that I did yesterday. This all stems from a FOIA -- first from detainee abuse investigations that were concluded by the end of 2004. There was a FOIA case that started -- the first ruling was in September of 2008. That ruling was appealed I believe in December of 2008. On March 11th, the Second Circuit declined to have the full circuit review the three-judge ruling appealing the decision that was made. The President does not believe that the strongest case regarding the release of these photos was presented to the court, and that was a case based on his concern of what the release of these would do to our national security. He believes that the release of these photos could pose a threat to the men and women we have in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan, and doesn't believe that we made -- doesn't believe that the government made the strongest case possible to the court and asked the legal team to go make that case. Q But what changed to -- you're just stating now that he is concerned that it would do harm, but -- MR. GIBBS: I'm not stating that now. I believe I've always stated that and I stated it as well yesterday. Q On the 24th you stated the opposite, that he had come to the conclusion that this would not cause harm to the troops. MR. GIBBS: I will go back and -- I looked at part of that a few days ago. I have not seen the full -- but I'll be happy to take a look at it. Q The question is, are you concerned that it would cause a backlash against our troops in harm's way? You said that the President has done a lot of back-and-forth in his mind over the course of several weeks about ensuring that this protected those who keep us safe, that it protected our national security. The President came to a determination that the decision that he made was consistent with all those criteria. MR. GIBBS: Well, the President reflected on this case and believes that they have the potential to pose harm to our troops. Q Was he pressured by the military? MR. GIBBS: No. In fact, this was brought up -- his decision was brought up with General Odierno yesterday at the end of their meeting, the meeting that General Odierno and Ambassador Hill had with the President. The President brought this up at the end of the meeting to inform General Odierno of his decision. Obviously, there has been concern. There was certainly concern throughout the process by folks that -- the harm that could be caused by the release. Q Did they make it known to him? MR. GIBBS: I think they have. But I would also say the President believes a couple of other things. Understand that the existence of these investigations are -- and I don't know the exact address, but they're on the DOD website. The President believes that the release of these photos will also provide a disincentive for detainee abuse investigation. The photos don't denote the existence of the investigations -- they're simply part of the potential evidence in the cases that have been finished since 2004. But if in each of these instances somebody looking into detainee abuse takes evidentiary photos in a case that's eventually concluded, this could provide a tremendous disincentive to take those photos and investigate that abuse. I would also add, lastly -- Q Wait, try that once again. I don't follow you. Where's the disincentive? MR. GIBBS: The disincentive is in the notion that every time one of these photos is taken, that it's going to be released. Nothing is added by the release of the photo, right? The existence of the investigation is not increased because of the release of the photo; it's just to provide, in some ways, a sensationalistic portion of that investigation. These are all investigations that were undertaken by the Pentagon and have been concluded. I think if every time somebody took a picture of detainee abuse, if every time that -- if any time any of those pictures were mandatorily going to be necessarily released, despite the fact that they were being investigated, I think that would provide a disincentive to take those pictures and investigate. Q How do you square this -- you use the term "sensationalistic." But how do you square that with your frequent comments about greater transparency? That seems completely at odds. MR. GIBBS: No, Chuck, again, the existence of the detainee abuse cases is not denoted by the photos. They're evidence contained -- or evidence as part of those investigations. The existence of the cases are on the websites, they're on the DOD website. Okay? So the notion that somehow you don't know about these investigations because you haven't seen the photos doesn't make any sense. Q Right, but you agree that you should allow photos, for example, of the troops that were killed in action coming back to Dover Air Force Base. MR. GIBBS: No, again, let's be precise. The President and the Secretary left it up to those involved in those cases for families to determine whether or not they wanted to make the ceremony open to the press or not. Q The point I'm trying to make is that you have -- you're saying -- you have acknowledged that the existence of photographs can be a compelling component of understanding what's going on in any given situation, and in the name of transparency it seems like it would apply here. MR. GIBBS: The President doesn't believe that the release of these photos adds in any way to that. It only adds to pose harm. Q Robert, can you go over the sequence of events that led to his thought process? Because on April 24th, when the Pentagon was explaining its decision to release the photos, it said that -- the spokesman said that there was a feeling that the case has pretty much run its course. And now you're saying that the President feels that there's a strong argument to be made -- MR. GIBBS: Because the argument that the President has asked his legal team to make is not an argument that the previous legal team made in that case. They argued a couple of different things including a law enforcement exception, and a judge ruled that to seek a law enforcement exception you have to disclose the name of the person that would be -- that harm would be derived for in seeking that exception. This is a different argument that the President thinks is compelling. Q When did you decide that it was important to make that argument? Did one of the lawyers come to him and say -- MR. GIBBS: No, he came to the lawyers. Q And when did all of that take place? MR. GIBBS: That was a meeting that was held last week in the Oval Office. Q Robert, if that was such a compelling case why was that not weighed in April then? Because it seems like -- was there a failure here at the White House in the first go-round in April to fully weigh the national security implications? MR. GIBBS: The argument that the President seeks to make is one that hasn't been made before. I'm not going to get into blame for this or that, understanding that there was significant legal momentum in these cases prior to the President entering into office. We are now at a point where it is likely that some stay will be asked to prevent the release of these photos. And I believe the date, that we have until June 8th to appeal -- to seek review of the decision by the Second Circuit. Q Well, on April 24th, you also said, the Department of Justice decided based on the ruling, the court ruling, that it was "hopeless to appeal." Now you're saying it's not hopeless. MR. GIBBS: Well, based on the argument that -- yes, I said that it was hopeless based on the argument that was made during the course of the original FOIA lawsuit, the appeal, the three-judge ruling and the decision to decline the full circuit to make that -- to make those determinations. The President isn't -- what I'm saying to you, Ed, is the President isn't going back to remake the argument that has been made. The President is going -- has asked his legal team to go back and make a new argument based on national security. Q This new argument -- if you're saying basically that this could put troops in further harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan -- former Vice President Cheney, General Hayden, others have made the same argument about releasing the so-called torture memos. Do you have any regrets about putting those memos out -- MR. GIBBS: No -- Q They've made the same argument about them. MR. GIBBS: Well, I'll use the example I've used on this before, Ed. You didn't begin to report on enhanced interrogation techniques at the release of the OLC memos, did you? Q No. MR. GIBBS: Okay. I'm sensing -- Q But you all are saying -- MR. GIBBS: Hold on. I'm also sensing that the graphic that CNN uses to denote what happens when somebody gets waterboarded wasn't likely developed based on reading memos that were released three weeks ago. The existence of enhanced interrogation techniques were noted by the former administration in speeches that they gave. You read about the enhanced interrogation techniques in autobiographies written by members of that former administration. The notion that -- Q So by that argument, our graphics would not also be based on any prisoner photos you might release because we already know that people we're abused in prisons. So why not put them out there -- MR. GIBBS: I'm not sure that you'd do a graphic of a photo. Q Well, a graphic of someone being abused. We all have seen the Abu Ghraib photos. And you were saying about the photos back in April, look, it's already exhausted and essentially these photos are going to come out anyway. MR. GIBBS: Based on the previous legal argument, yes. The previous legal argument denoted that the case had been lost. There's a new legal argument that's being made. But my sense is, Ed, why do you do a graphic on CNN? Q We're trying to show people what -- explain to people what -- MR. GIBBS: Okay. The President believes that the existence of the photos themselves doesn't actually add to the understanding that detainee abuse happened, was investigated, that actions were taken by those that did indeed or might have undertaken potential abuse of detainees, and that those cases were all dating back to finishing in 2004. The President doesn't believe the release of photos surrounding that investigation does anything to illuminate the existence of that investigation, only to provide some portion of sensationalism. Q But, Robert, is that really his role to decide whether or not it illuminates? That's not the President of the United States' role to decide, well, this information will illuminate for the people and this information isn't -- MR. GIBBS: No, the role of the President in this situation is as Commander-in-Chief, and if he determines that through the release of these photos that they pose a threat to those that serve to protect our freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan through the illumination of whatever, he can make a determination to ask his legal team to go back to court and make a legal argument that he doesn't believe was made and provides the most salient case and most important points for not releasing these photos. Those determinations are indeed made by this President and are being made. (Cell phone rings.) Just put in on vibrate, man, we did this before. (Laughter.) Q I'm sorry. MR. GIBBS: That's all right. It's all right. Q -- time it happened. MR. GIBBS: Third, actually. It happened twice that one day. Go ahead. Q The Bush administration has obviously made the argument that releasing these specific photographs will endanger troops and they did so in a way that he described with -- while seeking the FOIA exemption for law enforcement personnel. The Second Circuit Court ruled against that, saying that it's not -- that exemption is not intended "as an all-purpose damper on global controversy." What is this new argument that the President wants his team to present? MR. GIBBS: That not seeking an exemption for law enforcement -- (cell phone rings.) Give me the phone. (Laughter.) All right. This is -- come here. Let me see this. (Laughter and applause.) This is enhanced interrogation technique. (Laughter.) Q He threw your phone. MR. GIBBS: No, no, somebody caught it, no worries. (Laughter.) I made the determination that -- (laughter) -- the illumination of the sound was distracting to the briefing as the Press Secretary to the President of the United States. Q Here's that mallet you wanted. (Laughter.) (Cell phone rings.) (Laughter.) MR. GIBBS: You, too? You want to do this, too? Here, come on. (Laughter.) Q Gibbs wants to take my phone, but I don't think it's a good idea. (Laughter.) Q No favoritism. Q I'll explain later. (Laughter.) MR. GIBBS: I assume it's your banker, with a suit like that. (Laughter.) Sorry. This is -- cotton candy down the street, it's a circus. The President believes that the specific case surrounding the damage that would be done to our troops and our national security has not fully been developed and put in front of the court to make. That's the case that the legal team will now make. The Department of Justice will seek to look for different avenues; as I said earlier, likely seek a stay. Q With the Supreme Court? MR. GIBBS: Well, you could seek a stay with an additional judge. The June 8 deadline also is for an appeal to the Supreme Court, and that's likely the next -- (cell phone rings.) Golly, guys. Just put them on vibrate. Yes, go ahead. Q The specific avenue that your legal team is going to go, you're not sure if it's going to be going back to the District Court? MR. GIBBS: I don't know. I'll check with -- we'll check with those guys specifically. I think in some ways they're looking at whether it is to go to a lower court, or to go to the Supreme Court. Q And then just to follow up on the new argument. So are there specific -- is there specific case law arguments that the President knows that exist that were not used? Because I find it hard to believe that the Bush administration didn't turn under every rock to try and find an argument -- MR. GIBBS: Well, the President doesn't believe that was the case. And the President, after reviewing the case, believes that we have a compelling argument. Q Could you let us know what those new arguments are? MR. GIBBS: Yes. Q Thank you. Q Is part of his concern here, though, that this would open the flood gates for new calls for an investigation? And what does this mean for his stance on whether more memos should be released and that type of thing? MR. GIBBS: Well, I'm not sure that this case is necessarily analogous and I wouldn't want to draw broad conclusions not based on some specificity. Q What is his current stance on whether there should be an investigation? MR. GIBBS: Well, I think we covered that a few weeks ago. Q We covered it, but -- MR. GIBBS: Well, I should say that it hasn't changed since we last covered it. Q He's sort of gone back and forth on that issue. I mean, he sort of left the door open to it, but then you've signaled -- MR. GIBBS: No, no, no. We'll do this again. The President believes that the determination about whether or not anybody broke the law should be made by those who determine whether or not anybody broke the law, and that, in this case, would be the Department of Justice. Q But should there be any kind of congressional panel looking into this? At one stage, you raised the idea of a 9/11 type of -- MR. GIBBS: Yes, I think the President -- and I have said this before -- the President believes a lot of this is being investigated by the Senate Intelligence Committee; that that's an avenue and a venue that possesses, because of clearances and such, a broad ability to conduct an investigation, and he thinks that an appropriate place for it to be. Yes, sir. Q On the argument that this would -- that release of the photos would be a disincentive into investigations, wouldn't it also be a disincentive into detainee abuse? And on those investigations, we don't -- if they're administrative rather than judicial, we don't know the outcome of a lot of those investigations. MR. GIBBS: On the first part -- I can certainly check with Pentagon on part two. Look, I think you could certainly argue that it hasn't always been the case, because obviously there continue to be cases, regrettably, of detainee abuse. But at the same time, if each and every photo that is taken, regardless of whether that -- regardless of the fact that it doesn't actually add to the notion that these cases are being looked into, the President believes provides that disincentive. On behalf of CBS, Mark. You're now the sole representative for the -- Q Let me get my cell phone out. (Laughter.) MR. GIBBS: Yes, exactly. You want to phone it in? (Laughter.) Q How was this decision on the photos consistent with what he said on his second day in office: "I will hold myself, as President, to a new standard of openness. Information will not be withheld just because I say so." MR. GIBBS: Look at that. I got a "hmm." Because, Mark, the President has, in this case -- welcome back. Q What did I miss? (Laughter.) Q There was a call for you. (Laughter.) MR. GIBBS: Will somebody brief Bill on the new Supreme Court nominee. (Laughter.) Because, again, the President -- as I said to Jake's question, the President made this determination as the Commander-in-Chief; made this determination as somebody who is charged with protecting our men and women in harm's way. That's why this determination was made. That's why he's asked the legal team to go back to court. Q And his statement is for civilian matters, and not for national security matters? MR. GIBBS: No. I think, again, Mark, as I said, I don't think the -- the existence of the photos doesn't denote -- isn't the only thing that denotes the existence of an investigation. The website includes documentation that underscores the potential abuse that was being investigated through the year 2004. The President doesn't believe that the existence publically of the photos adds to that. Q I want to change topics for just I'm sure what will be a brief moment. (Laughter.) MR. GIBBS: Thirty seconds to respond. No, I'm kidding. Q Former SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt today said that when it comes to the government imposing executive compensation restrictions across all -- the whole financial services industry, that it can't work, it won't work, and that the government shouldn't be micromanaging in this way. Why does the President think that it will work now and why is he okay with such micromanaging? MR. GIBBS: Well, I don't necessarily want to buy into the premise of Mr. Levitt in this case. I think the President has talked about -- repeatedly, in previous years as well as this year -- and set up a standard for what makes sense in terms of executive compensation, certainly related to companies or financial institutions receiving extraordinary assistance from the government. Q These are firms that don't receive extraordinary -- MR. GIBBS: I think the President has outlined his thinking on the notion that -- and I don't have the exact figures in front of me, but I think you can see over a several year period, if you go back, executive compensation as it related to the average worker in a business, that has ballooned in only a short period of time; that there is an important interest in ensuring some fairness in this and in giving, as the President has talked about, giving shareholders some say in ultimately the type of compensation that their executives receive. Q Even at hedge funds, private equity firms? MR. GIBBS: Well, I would point you to Treasury for the notion of what they're looking at. Obviously, the say-on-pay provisions that the President has supported are not legally binding, but through the court of public opinion might have an impact on some of that. Yes, sir. Q A couple on the photos, and then on a separate topic. The President has been Commander-in-Chief throughout his presidency, since January 20th. What is it about his role as Commander-in-Chief that occurred to him differently after the White House announced and the Pentagon said it was going to, the Justice Department reaffirmed the decision to release these photos? Are you telling us there was an inadequate weighing of the national security implications before, and there's now been a more intensive one recently? MR. GIBBS: I don't know the exacting of that, except to say that the President has spent a considerable amount of time thinking about the specific instance recently. That's why the meeting was had last week in the Oval Office with his legal team. Q What instigated that more intensive or -- whatever how you describe it -- MR. GIBBS: That's what I seek to check. Q And did the President come up with this idea of a national security argument, or did someone bring it to him and did he say that's a path I want to go down? MR. GIBBS: As I understand it, the President, in reviewing this, didn't believe that the case that was being made was the most effective on the grounds of national security. Q He was the originator of the idea to take this case back and make the national security argument? MR. GIBBS: The meeting, specifically, was had to bring the legal team in to inform them and others of a change in the way this case would be handled, and the President discussed directly with them the notion that they'd be making a different argument than one that he believed had previously been made. Q The argument being made is his? Okay. Separate topic. The National Rifle Association is going to meet this weekend. And they tout that their membership has increased 30 percent since the President was inaugurated. And they say that's because there is some palpable anxiety, legitimate or otherwise, that people have about their gun rights. I'd like you to address that generally. What does the White House think about that? What's erroneous or misguided about that particular impression out there? And more specifically, Senator Feinstein has committed publicly to bringing the assault weapons ban to the floor of the Senate and pursuing that legislatively this year. If that were to pass through Congress, would the President sign or veto that? MR. GIBBS: I think the President's views on the support of an assault weapons ban, as he said in the campaign, are known. As we've been reminded repeatedly in this room, there's a lot of stuff on the docket, and I think the President, certainly in the recent trip to Mexico, covered his thinking on that. In terms of increased membership at the NRA, I don't -- obviously, I'm not privy to their statistics. I think if you go back and look at the most previous presidential elections, I think the very same people that you might be talking to argued that stances cost Democratic nominees the change of being President of the United States. And I think this President articulated the viewpoint that he was a believer in the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms, and I don't think -- I don't believe that his actions have denoted anything that would give the NRA members cause for concern. Q Just to follow up on the assault weapons ban, you said yesterday you need a legislative vehicle to engage more directly in the question of "don't ask, don't tell." There's going to be a legislative vehicle on the assault weapons ban. If it gets there, what's going to happen? MR. GIBBS: When you change the word "if" to "is," then we'll get into the hypothetica. Q Robert, first, when did the President see these pictures? MR. GIBBS: I know he has seen them. I don't know the first day he saw them. Q Do you know if they're qualitatively different, the content, than what we've seen so far? MR. GIBBS: You mean, as far as the Abu Ghraib -- I personally have not seen the pictures. I can certainly seek to find somebody who has or seek to find -- seek to see the pictures myself. Q One more quick thing. What does the President think that the release of the OLC memos -- what new light did that shed on the debate about which books have been written about? MR. GIBBS: Well, I think any number of things. Obviously that was -- and we're talking about -- in talking about legal scenarios, obviously those avenues and the arguments that could be made, the President and the team believe were exhausted. The President also believed that, as you've heard him say, the most important thing relating to these techniques, in his opinion, was the executive order banning their use. At the same time, I don't think that helped the legal argument. So the President I don't think believed that the release of the memos did -- had an analogous impact that these photos would have. Jeff. Q As you know, during the presidential campaign, then-Senator Obama talked a lot about -- his campaign was based on the idea of improving America's image around the world. How does he believe that that's possible without showing these photographs and sort of cleansing that idea? MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President would believe that the -- making the -- that what's important in dealing with the potential detainee abuse is to investigate that abuse and act accordingly on that investigation, right? I think you could draw an analogy to a murder case. If somebody is involved in that case, is it more important to show the crime -- the picture of the crime scene or deal with the potential that somebody might have killed somebody? I think the President doesn't believe that the release of the photos in and of itself add to the notion that you discussed; that instead what's important for our values and for our image around the world was to understand that if this was taking place, that it be looked into and that it be dealt with. That, in this case, has happened, and it was done without the release of the photos. Q And how will he explain this, whenever he decides to speak on this, if it's at the commencement address, which I doubt, or in the coming days? How do you plan to have him address this personally? Because there obviously is a lot of concern about this from some of his supporters on the left. MR. GIBBS: Well, I doubt that he would do this this evening at Arizona State. I haven't talked about that with him. There may be occasion to take questions in the next few days. We'll have a town hall meeting tomorrow and certainly the topic could come up there. Afghanistan | Interrogation | Iraq | Legislation | Obama Administration | Photos | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Afghanistan, Interrogation, Iraq, Legislation, Photos, President Obama, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 9:31:00 PM Hopeless To Appeal? - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 4/24/09 — Wednesday, April 29, 2009 —  Q Robert, on the issue of the release of photos of -- photos being released of abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan, two questions. One, can you explain why those are going to be released?MR. GIBBS: Sure. Q And secondly -- well, let's start with that. MR. GIBBS: Sure. The Second Circuit Court ruled in December of 2008 that the photos had to be released. The previous administration lost a court case on that. The Department of Justice decided based on the ruling that it was hopeless to appeal, and a mandate ordering the release of those photos came Monday. And the administration, the Pentagon, and the court entered into an agreement to release those photos. So this is part of the very same case that OLC memos were derived from. This was a court case based on information that was compelled to be released. Q So did this administration think that it was out of legal options, it had no more recourse, or did it decide it was time to release those? MR. GIBBS: I'll double-check. Specifically on the second part of that, I know that the Department of Justice determined specifically based on the ruling that they were not likely to be successful. Q And more big picture, just one last one. When these are released, are you concerned at all that that's going to be another version of the debate we've had here for the last week of a lot of looking back, looking back to the Bush administration and that time? MR. GIBBS: Well, again -- again, this was -- this was largely compelled by a court decision than this is -- there are going to be actions that -- many actions that are out of our control. But I think the President believes that -- the President believes that, as I've said throughout this process, that it is important to look forward and not to look backward, and that's the posture that he'll continue to take. Department of Justice | Interrogation | Obama Administration | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Department of Justice, Interrogation, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 2:15:00 PM Whether To Prosecute - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 4/23/09 — Friday, April 24, 2009 —  MR. GIBBS: Steve.Q Robert, as you said, it's up to the Justice Department, not the White House, to decide whether there were crimes committed and whether to prosecute. Will the White House -- MR. GIBBS: Let me say -- let me -- I want to rephrase it. I haven’t said that. Well, I have said that, but that's what -- that's the legal system that's set up in this country. I mean, I -- what I said -- I didn't say that in terms of setting this doctrine up, right? Like if you drive 85 miles an hour on your way home, I may think it's against the law, but it's not likely I'm going to be the one providing you a speeding ticket, Steve. Q Will the White House play any role in that conversation, particularly if the decision is made to charge high-ranking officials like the Vice President or the President with a crime? MR. GIBBS: I think the President campaigned on, and will continue to keep the promise that he made in that campaign, as he has on many others, to leave legal determinations up to those that make legal determinations, not the President. Q Well, the White House worked with the Justice Department on the determination not to hold accountable the field operatives that are responsible for this behavior. MR. GIBBS: But that wasn't a political decision, Major. That was a decision based on -- Q I'm just saying it was a cooperative arrangement between this White House and the Justice Department on that decision. MR. GIBBS: I wouldn't discuss this as an arrangement. I think two people can understand that -- again, this isn't -- this is a fairly time-honored legal tradition, if you follow legal advice rendered in good faith to govern your actions that you're not going to be held accountable or prosecuted for those actions. All this is to say the best way to determine -- Q That's not what I'm talking about. What I was talking about is the collaborative effort between the White House and Justice Department some places and not elsewhere. MR. GIBBS: The best way to determine -- the best way to determine who's going to -- the rule of law is to have it determined by lawyers who can determine whether or not somebody knowingly broke the law. Q We've started talking in the last 24 hours more and more about very high-ranking people - MR. GIBBS: I haven't talked about -- Q -- Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney -- MR. GIBBS: -- you guys have. Q If in fact it reaches that level, would the President weigh in? MR. GIBBS: Okay, you guys and Jay Rockefeller. (Laughter.) I'm sorry, what was -- Q Would the President weigh in -- MR. GIBBS: Now, that we've -- Q -- turn to very high-ranking levels of the government? What does he think, for example, of the fact that Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon? Was that a breach of the presidential duty, or should that have been left to the Attorney General? MR. GIBBS: I think the President has seen Frost/Nixon, but I do not know whether he's determined the efficacy of such a pardon. Thanks, guys. Department of Justice | Interrogation | Obama Administration | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | White House Press Corps Labels: Department of Justice, Interrogation, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 5:08:00 PM 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 >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 7:34:00 PM Whatever Confusion Might Exist - White House Press Briefing by Robert Gibbs 4/21/09  Q It sounded as though the President took a somewhat different policy today than his Chief of Staff did on Sunday regarding possible prosecution of those who devised the policies. The President said today, regarding those who'd formulated these legal decisions, that that's more of a decision for the Attorney General. And Rahm Emanuel said on Sunday, for those who devised the policy, he -- being the President -- believes they should not be prosecuted. Is that a shift in position?MR. GIBBS: Well, let's -- instead of referring to what anybody might have said, I think it's important -- or anything that I might have said -- it's important to refer to what the President said, and what he said over the course of many months, in all honestly, because this dates back to questions that has received in press conferences or even during the transition, and that is, very much as he said -- reiterated today, that he says as a general deal, I think we should be looking forward and not backward. The President has also said he does not believe that people are above the rule of law. And the President stated accurately that any determination as to whether a law was broken would rightly be made not by the President but by the chief law enforcement officer of the United States. Q But it did seem like a sound -- at least a difference in tone, if not policy, by particularly saying the Attorney General would be the most likely one to look at those who devise a policy. That sounds different from what he has said in the past, where he always talked about let's just move forward -- MR. GIBBS: Well, again -- Q -- and in fact, Rahm Emanuel -- MR. GIBBS: Well, again, whatever confusion might exist, I think it's important -- again, the President said throughout the campaign that he would leave determinations on science in his administration to scientists; that he would leave determinations about the law to those in the Justice Department. And I think he reiterated that today, that people aren't above the law. I do think it's important to make a distinguishing -- to distinguish exactly what the President said last week. The President believes and was assured by the Justice Department that those that have acted in good faith on what they believed was legal won't be prosecuted. The President still believes that. Yes, ma'am. Q Robert, I just want to follow up on Chuck's question, because it does seem that there is a shift there. Because if you look at what the President said today, he said, with regard to those who formulated the legal decisions, he said that that was a decision for the Attorney General, and he said he didn't want to prejudge that. But Rahm Emanuel on Sunday said that those who devise the policy, he believes that they should -- that they were -- should not be prosecuted either, so -- MR. GIBBS: Well, to clear up any confusion on anything that might have been said, I would point you to what the President said. Q Did he have a change of heart on this issue over the last few days? Is he -- MR. GIBBS: No, I think the President, as I said, you can date back to the -- I think was asked, at least I recall it being asked in the transition -- and discussed the rule of law, that nobody in the country is above that rule of law. Q And just on the issue of a further accounting, which he talked about today and which Chuck also asked you about, is he actively considering a 9/11-type of panel? Is he -- MR. GIBBS: No, I think -- Q -- it seemed like he was trying to get at something like that, he said that he would like to see something outside of the hearing process. MR. GIBBS: Well, I think he was asked, if something were to be set up, how would it be set up. How would -- Q Right. But wouldn't he be the one to set it up? MR. GIBBS: Not necessarily. I'm reminded that Congress has a pretty big say in something like that, given their ability and their lawmaking power. Q Is he conferring with people on that? MR. GIBBS: I will check if it's something that's active. Again, the President's position is to look forward. If there are those that want to look back, I think the President strongly believes that anything has to be done in a way that doesn't, as he said today, doesn't overly politicize and hamper either the ability of anybody involved to carry out the functions of their job or the functions that protect our country. Yes, sir. Q Robert, what changed over the last 24 hours, though? Because yesterday you were flat in saying that we're not going there, as Rahm was on Sunday. And in the last 24 hours we've seen groups like moveon.org on the left come out and write a petition to the Attorney General saying they want accountability from the Bush administration. Is this an example of this White House giving in to pressure from the left? MR. GIBBS: I don't -- I have not, and I doubt the President has been on moveon.org in the last 24 hours, so, no. Q Okay. But then why was Rahm so firm on Sunday, and you were firm yesterday in this very room; what changed? MR. GIBBS: Again, to clear up any of the confusion, I would simply say that the President reiterated that there is -- that, as he said, his general posture is to look forward, and that at the same time, nobody is above the law. Q Why would there be any confusion, as you call it? I don't understand. This is a pretty straightforward topic. MR. GIBBS: Well, I predicated your question then posited some confusion with acknowledgment. Q Did you misspeak? Or did Rahm misspeak? MR. GIBBS: You know, I -- whether or not anybody was confused or misspoke, I would take what the President said as -- I'm informed he got more votes than either of the two of us. Q Can I follow on -- Vice President Cheney yesterday weighed in on this and said he found it disturbing that the President put these memos out. And he also is charging, if you can answer, that this White House basically selectively declassified some of these torture memos, and that there are other memos somewhere in the CIA that would show that the interrogation actually yielded what the former Vice President would call good intelligence that prevented terror attacks. How do you answer that? MR. GIBBS: Well, I would suggest that you contact the CIA. You might be -- Q Well, they're not about to turn these over to me or anyone else in this room? MR. GIBBS: Including me. (Laughter.) Q But if the President wanted to declassify it, he could. He just declassified it -- MR. GIBBS: Yes, I would -- Q So the question is, are there other memos that you're keeping under wraps? MR. GIBBS: And I just said, I don't know. Again, that's why I would -- I know sometimes when I ask you to contact the agencies with the wherewithal to answer your questions, you think that I'm not answering your question. But as you just said, they're not going to give them to you, they're coincidentally not going to give them to me. And I think the best place to ask about their existence is the CIA. Attorney General | Bush Administration | Interrogation | Obama Administration | Press Briefing | Robert Gibbs | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Attorney General, Bush Administration, Interrogation, Obama Administration, Press Briefing, Robert Gibbs, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 3:08:00 PM White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 4/23/08 (Helen and Torture) — Wednesday, April 23, 2008 — Q The President has said publicly several times, in two consecutive news conferences a few months ago, and you have said over and over again, we do not torture. Now he has admitted that he did sign off on torture, he did know about it. So how do you reconcile this credibility gap? MS. PERINO: Helen, you're taking liberties with the what the President said. The United States has not, is not torturing any detainees in the global war on terror. And General Hayden, amongst others, have spoken on Capitol Hill fully in this regard, and it is -- I'll leave it where it is. The President is accurate in saying what he said. Q That's not my question. My question is, why did he state publicly, we do not torture -- MS. PERINO: Because we do not. Q -- when he really did know that we do? MS. PERINO: No, that's what I mean, Helen. We've talked about the legal authorities -- Q Are you saying that we did not? MS. PERINO: I am saying we did not, yes. Q How can you when you have photographs and everything else? I mean, how can you say that when he admits that he knew about it? MS. PERINO: Helen, I think that you're -- again, I think you're conflating some issues and you're misconstruing what the President said. Q I'm asking for the credibility of this country, not just this administration. MS. PERINO: And what I'm telling you is we have -- torture has not occurred. And you can go back through all the public record. Just make sure -- I would just respectfully ask you not to misconstrue what the President said. Q You're denying, in this room, that we torture and we have tortured? MS. PERINO: Yes, I am denying that. Dana Perino | Helen | Interrogation | President Bush | Press Briefing | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Dana Perino, Helen, Interrogation, President Bush, Press Briefing, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 4:03:00 PM White House Press Briefing by Dana Perino 10/4/07 (Secret Interrogation Memos) — Thursday, October 04, 2007 — 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: Let me take a step back. In the days after 9/11, when we were getting a steady stream of intelligence about potential new attacks, the President faced a lot of challenges. And he asked his national security team to make sure that we designed and made sure that within the laws we had all the tools that we needed in order to keep this country safe and to prevent another attack. 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. They know where the other terrorists are hiding and what the other terrorists are planning. 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. But he had done everything within the corners of the law to make sure that we prevent another attack on this country, which is what we have done in this administration. I am not going to comment on any specific alleged techniques. It is not appropriate for me to do so. And to do so would provide the enemy with more information for how to train against these techniques. And so I am going to decline to comment on those, but I will reiterate to you once again that we do not torture. We want to make sure that we keep this country safe. And I think another thing that everyone should keep in mind is that here in this country, it's quite a testament that even though we have a sworn enemy of the United States that has declared war on us and has acted upon that and killed thousands of our own citizens here just seven -- six years ago, we are still having a debate to talk about how we should make sure that we treat people, and that we don't torture them. That is quite a testament to this country. And the President is very proud to lead it. Q Some of the members of Congress are already upset that they weren't aware of these second memos that are classified, and have asked for the administration to release them. What's the administration's position on why a briefing was released about what they are about? MS. PERINO: Well -- I would have to refer you to Department of Justice and also the Central Intelligence Agency. As I understand it, appropriate members of Congress have been briefed. Releasing classified information is not prudent, it is not a smart thing to do. So I -- let me refer you to them to talk about the procedures that they went through to talk to members of Congress. Dana Perino | Interrogation | Press Briefing | War on Terror | White House Press Corps Labels: Dana Perino, Interrogation, Press Briefing, War on Terror, White House Press Corps >> Full Story
Posted by White House Press Corps @ 6:55:00 PM
|
|
