White House press secretary Scott McClellan said yesterday that Bush set broad guidelines, rather than dealing with specific techniques. "While we will seek to gather intelligence from al Qaeda terrorists who seek to inflict mass harm on the American people, the president expects that we do so in a way that is consistent with our laws," McClellan said.
White House Counsel Alberto R. Gonzales said in a May 21 interview with The Washington Post: "Anytime a discussion came up about interrogations with the president, . . . the directive was, 'Make sure it is lawful. Make sure it meets all of our obligations under the Constitution, U.S. federal statutes and applicable treaties.' "
...A former senior administration official involved in discussions about CIA interrogation techniques said Bush's aides knew he wanted them to take an aggressive approach.
"He felt very keenly that his primary responsibility was to do everything within his power to keep the country safe, and he was not concerned with appearances or politics or hiding behind lower-level officials," the official said. "That is not to say he was ready to authorize stuff that would be contrary to law. The whole reason for having the careful legal reviews that went on was to ensure he was not doing that."
Washington Post article
White House Counsel Alberto R. Gonzales said in a May 21 interview with The Washington Post: "Anytime a discussion came up about interrogations with the president, . . . the directive was, 'Make sure it is lawful. Make sure it meets all of our obligations under the Constitution, U.S. federal statutes and applicable treaties.' "
...A former senior administration official involved in discussions about CIA interrogation techniques said Bush's aides knew he wanted them to take an aggressive approach.
"He felt very keenly that his primary responsibility was to do everything within his power to keep the country safe, and he was not concerned with appearances or politics or hiding behind lower-level officials," the official said. "That is not to say he was ready to authorize stuff that would be contrary to law. The whole reason for having the careful legal reviews that went on was to ensure he was not doing that."
Which is precisely what the memo assured him - it wasn't illegal if he gave the order. Therefore, "make sure it is lawful" is covered. And, Ashcroft made it a point to state several times in his testimony that the Geneva Conventions did not apply in certain cases - in particular, where dealing with al Qaeda, because they are not signatories to the Conventions.
They're being too careful about the wording, and pointedly avoiding outright denying that Bush gave any directives on interrogation. Why doesn't the Preznit himself, or his spokesmonkey McClellan, or Ashcroft just come right out and say that no directive or anything remotely construed as such was signed or verbalized by The Oaf as a result of the information in the memos?
McClellan is quoted similarly in a Reuters report:
"Our policy is to comply with all our laws and treaty obligations," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.
"We have detained some dangerous al Qaeda terrorists. ... While we will seek to gather intelligence from these terrorists to prevent attacks from happening, we will do so consistent with our laws," McClellan added.
"We have detained some dangerous al Qaeda terrorists. ... While we will seek to gather intelligence from these terrorists to prevent attacks from happening, we will do so consistent with our laws," McClellan added.
That still only says the same thing. No laws have been broken. And according to the memo, that would be true, even if Bush personally signed a directive to use torture methods, as the memo says that whatever he says is legal.
Senator Biden did get a denial from Ashcroft on a direct question, but I think it may have been too specific.
BIDEN: [I]s there, to the best of your knowledge, a presidential order, not a secret -- a presidential order anywhere that immunizes interrogators of Al Qaida suspects? Is there any order that the president has issued that lets it be known that they're immunized, based on the tactics they use, from prosecution? Is there such an order, if you know?
ASHCROFT: The president has issued no such order. Transcript
ASHCROFT: The president has issued no such order. Transcript
Another possibility is that Ashcroft doesn't know what Bush did or didn't sign, as his function was fullfilled by providing the loophole. Any order may have been passed only between the Oval Office and the CIA, which is reportedly where the request for the DoJ memo originated.
But, I think he does know. Check this out:
LEAHY: I appreciate your straightforward answer to that question. And you followed with an answer to Senator Kyl. So I would ask -- all I'd like is the same kind of straightforward answer to my own yes-or-no question which I asked you earlier. And that can be answered yes or no.
Has there been any order or directive from the president with respect to interrogation of detainees, prisoners or combatants? I should think you could answer either yes or no on that.
ASHCROFT: You know, the president -- as a matter of fact I had it here -- the president ordered the Department of Defense to treat Al Qaida and Taliban detainees humanely and, to the extent consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of the Geneva Conventions.
LEAHY: I appreciate that.
ASHCROFT: That means the answer to your question at least is yes to that extent. I don't know...
LEAHY: And has there been any other order or directive from the president with respect to interrogation of detainees, prisoners or combatants?
ASHCROFT: I'm unable to tell you more than that at this time.
LEAHY: I will submit that as one of the questions so you have a good heads-up when the questions for the record is simply this. Has there been any other order or directive from the president with respect to interrogation of detainees, prisoners or combatants? It's a pretty easy question. It should be a pretty easy answer. Either there is one or there isn't.
ASHCROFT: Mr. Chairman, a note just handed to me indicates that I should correct something that I said to Senator Feingold and I'm sorry he's not here....
Has there been any order or directive from the president with respect to interrogation of detainees, prisoners or combatants? I should think you could answer either yes or no on that.
ASHCROFT: You know, the president -- as a matter of fact I had it here -- the president ordered the Department of Defense to treat Al Qaida and Taliban detainees humanely and, to the extent consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of the Geneva Conventions.
LEAHY: I appreciate that.
ASHCROFT: That means the answer to your question at least is yes to that extent. I don't know...
LEAHY: And has there been any other order or directive from the president with respect to interrogation of detainees, prisoners or combatants?
ASHCROFT: I'm unable to tell you more than that at this time.
LEAHY: I will submit that as one of the questions so you have a good heads-up when the questions for the record is simply this. Has there been any other order or directive from the president with respect to interrogation of detainees, prisoners or combatants? It's a pretty easy question. It should be a pretty easy answer. Either there is one or there isn't.
ASHCROFT: Mr. Chairman, a note just handed to me indicates that I should correct something that I said to Senator Feingold and I'm sorry he's not here....
Ashcroft corrects a statement about how often the DoJ provides reports and Chairman Hatch calls an end to the hearing. Leahy still doesn't get his answer. Ashcroft can sing, and now he's showing his tap-dancing skills.
And, finally...
Unlike documents signed by deputies in the Office of Legal Counsel, which are generally considered by federal agencies as advice, a memorandum written by the head of the office is considered akin to a legally binding document, said another former Office of Legal Counsel lawyer.
The former administration official said the CIA "was prepared to get more aggressive and re-learn old skills, but only with explicit assurances from the top that they were doing so with the full legal authority the president could confer on them."
Washington Post article
The former administration official said the CIA "was prepared to get more aggressive and re-learn old skills, but only with explicit assurances from the top that they were doing so with the full legal authority the president could confer on them."
My bets are that he did just that. I say the man at the top was directly involved. Let's get a leaker to confirm it. Let's see that directive signed by Bush.
