RECENT POSTS
- White House Study Looks at Job Creation in Illinois if Gitmo Prisoners Transferred There
- President Obama: Asia Trip Helped Usher in a New Era of American Engagement
- Secretary Sebelius Celebrates the Tenth Anniversary of National Adoption Day
- Organizing for America Targets Sarah Palin
- Obama Administration Starts to Publicly Raise Issue of Detained US Citizen Xue Feng
- President Obama Gives Interview (of Sorts) to Dissident Cuban Blogger
- "You Guys Make a Pretty Good Photo Op," President Obama Jokes to Troops at Osan Air Base
- Did the Chinese Government Crack Down on an Obama Interview?
- Our Trip to the DMZ
- President Obama Greets U.S. Troops in South Korea, Wraps Up Week in Asia
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Today's Qs for O's WH - 5/21/2009
May 21, 2009 3:42 PM
TAPPER: Just to follow up on this, is it -- is it legal to put people who the president might put in indefinite detention in any facility in the United States?
GIBBS: Well, I think, obviously, some of these issues are going to have to be worked out. Well, two things, obviously, decisions will have to be worked out with Congress about how, where, in what manner people might -- might be detained in that way.
And I think you heard the president, secondly, say today that, certainly as it relates to preventive or administrative detention, you -- you would want to -- he would certainly want to do that through a legal mechanism, again, in working with -- in conjunction with both Congress and the court system, to ensure that there's a standard by which we're doing that.
TAPPER: OK. The Pentagon has an internal document indicating that, of the 540 or so detainees released by the previous administration, 14 percent are jihadists. What lessons is the Obama administration learning from those apparent mistakes in release?
GIBBS: Well, I think, first and foremost, that we have to go through each and every case, that we have to go through each and every case, that we have to seek that swift and certain justice that the president has talked about, figure out if they're making a determination about who these people are, the evidence that we have against them. Can we try them using the reformed military commissions? Can we try them, as the president said, in a federal court of law, as Mr. Gelani will be tried, and make some of the those individual determinations.
But I think, in many ways, Jake, the report, in many way proves the argument that we've tried to make over the past four months. And that is that Guantanamo Bay is an ad hoc patchwork of legal theories that isn't working legally or organizationally. Because, let's for a minute -- let's play this out for a second.
Dick Cheney said today that Guantanamo Bay has made us safer. Right? So let's set aside, then, the argument that the Bush administration -- based on that argument, I assume the Bush administration is arguing they didn't knowingly release people that they thought would go back into -- and join the battle in a different place. That leaves you, roughly, with two different scenarios.
Either, in reviewing who was there, you had, again, an ad hoc patchwork that organizationally and legally didn't work. You determined that people weren't a danger, and they were. Or they weren't a danger and you released them, but because they had been mistakenly picked up, they became terrorists.
That's our second point. I think the report very clearly demonstrates the argument that we've made that legally and organizationally the prison camp doesn't work and that it's become a powerful argument not for -- not for our strength in the world but a rallying cry for those who have joined the battle.
TAPPER: Just a follow-up on this one: How do you respond to those who say the argument is actually the opposite? What this shows is you can't release these individuals...
GIBBS: Well, but then I guess...
TAPPER: ...especially these last 240 that have been the most difficult to deal with.
GIBBS: Well, I guess my question -- it's a better question for the vice president.
TAPPER: He’s not standing in front of me.
GIBBS: No, he's not. But I understand he's got some free time and doing some speaking. (LAUGHTER)
But one might ask, if the prison kept us safer, if what they were doing was protecting safety and security of the American people, how on earth did they make the determination that those people should be let free? I'd be interested in the answer.
-- jpt
May 21, 2009 in Today's Qs for Obama's WH | Permalink | Share | User Comments (76)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
In reading the Q and A transcript, it is hard to follow the ramblings of Baghdad Bob the Minister of Propaganda. This dude should have an Interpreter standing by. Sheesh!
Posted by: SunnyR | May 22, 2009 3:08:57 PM
Posted by: verner | May 21, 2009 5:55:50 PM
Obama gave a typical speech today blaming Bush for making a mess and all kinds of mistakes.
Then Obama tried to explain why he has kept many of Bush's policies.
The man is a walking talking contradiction.
----------------------------------------
Oh, you noticed that too! :)
Posted by: SunnyR | May 22, 2009 3:06:12 PM
The greatest commonality we share is ethical misconduct of the middle/core bureaucracy. An unjust judicial system is a feeding trough for unethical lawyers & fiduciaries (It’s an industry). In our case, it's WFBank. My family was prey for the (ex-?)current system. State agencies allow the abuse. Try and file criminal charges against a court officer, executor or trustee and see where it gets you. 1. Pressure authorities to prosecute ethical misconduct as the felony it is. 2. Extend `grand jury' rights to civil justice sector & be given the same rights as the criminal `grand jury'. Allow the public to present testimony & evidence to credible groups (Ex. Community & watchdog groups, etc.) These groups of laypeople would be able to allow indictments of criminals from -us denied justice. My q.'s; How to stop the abuse?
Posted by: Laird | May 22, 2009 1:50:31 PM
Kind of interesting that Gibbs is making light of the VP and his mouth during a press briefing on national security. That would be more appropriately done by the VP himself or maybe the President at the White House correspondents dinner.
Posted by: Jason | May 22, 2009 8:10:20 AM
Republicans are wishing for documents to be revealed, be careful what you wish for,...
I want to see everything from the moment Bush was 'elected'.
Cheney could have leaked/provided the few docs that years ago could have stopped all the controversy, when he had the authority to do it..but he didn't.
Posted by: Ray | May 22, 2009 12:13:48 AM
Gibbs is a disgrace. His childish remarks about Cheney, today and in the past, are really illustrative of how out of his depth the press spokesman is. Tapper isn't asking for Cheney's interpretation, but for the WH line, Gibby. Answer the question and stop trying to dump everything on the past administration. For a WH that insists they are focused on the future, these folks spend an awful lot of time looking backward and blaming everything on the previous administration.
Posted by: moderate | May 21, 2009 11:33:02 PM
Fascist Hyena, you're my hero. Reading the way that you and a batch of thoughtful posters (too numerous to mention, but including Sigmonde, Ross, Max, and Verner) are demolishing the 'arguments' of Ryan_C and his cohort reminds me of the way that Tapper reduces Gibby to incoherence on a daily basis.
Posted by: moderate | May 21, 2009 11:30:21 PM
Boy oh boy, now that Obama is going down in flames he sure is turning on Biden.
Posted by: jeff | May 21, 2009 9:06:30 PM
He's not standing in front of me.
Love it!
Posted by: jcarob | May 21, 2009 8:58:23 PM
"As are why they are being held and what danger they present."
Why do you continue to write such utter and provable falsehoods? Not only is there a CSRT file on each and every man in Gitmo, but all those files are reviewable by the courts on a habeas corpus petition. Have you no regard for facts, or do you think we are unaware of those facts?
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | May 21, 2009 8:43:18 PM
"Is he going to fabricate reasons for wars, hold detainees indefinitely without records, indisciminately torture for primarily political ends, ect?"
Please. Let's take 'em in order:
(1) The reasons for the war in Iraq are set forth in detail in the AUMF of October 2002, supported by three-fourths of the Congress. The reasons for the war in Afghanistan are the same ones that cause Obama to fight that war.
(2) Bush held no one indefinitely "without records" (whatever that means). He claimed to right to detain certain people indefinitely without trial, Obama claims the identical right, and the courts have upheld that right. With respect to habeas corpus rights, Obama's position has been identical to Bush's.
(3) Three men were waterboarded, all in 2002-03, and all three gave valuable intelligence that saved American lives.
Do you seriously think you advance your cause at all by making such statements?
How do you feel about Obama's detention camp at Bagram? How do you feel about his claimed right to detain the 600 men there indefinitely without trial? Has the cat got your tongue on these subjects?
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | May 21, 2009 8:38:00 PM
"Obama must be criticized no matter what he does even if they agree with it."
I agree with his policy on indefinite detention and the lack of habeas corpus rights for unlawful combatants, just as I agreed with Bush's identical policies. The ones I criticize are those who reviled Bush for doing exactly what Obama is doing now. And they simply cannot and will not explain themselves. Who has come forward from the left to explain their support for Bagram?
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | May 21, 2009 8:31:11 PM
"the circumstances of most detainees capture is unknown to the gen public."
False. The CSRT findings on each have been published long ago. For openers, not a one wore a uniform.
And Obama has not afforded them the treatment to which POW's are entitled under the Geneva Convention, nor does he intend to, nor should he.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | May 21, 2009 8:28:36 PM
"And if we could just see those two memos that Cheney wants released, we'd have the whole truth."
Cheney and the truth are foreign concepts to one another.
Posted by: Ryan C | May 21, 2009 8:10:44 PM
"Those on the right are applauding Obama for flipping and following their lead."
Perhaps you are sigmonde but the other right wingers here decided that Obama must be criticized no matter what he does even if they agree with it.
Posted by: Ryan C | May 21, 2009 8:09:20 PM
Probably yes to all of the above
******************************************************
You claimed to affirm my question with a yes and elaborated on totally different things. It wasn't a logical response. Anyway, since you claim the right has applauded Obama, then perhaps one can expect to see less polarization around here. But of course, that's not going to happen.
Posted by: kat | May 21, 2009 7:30:31 PM
"Is he going to fabricate reasons for wars, hold detainees indefinitely without records, indisciminately torture for primarily political ends, ect?"
Probably yes to all of the above. In fact, it is likely he will also keep Guantanamo open and use enhanced interrogation procedures if faced with having to obtain critical information that could save hundreds or thousands of lives. Look for more reversals of his proposals and promises in the future.
Posted by: Sigmonde | May 21, 2009 7:15:44 PM
To all the Obama pawns with their stale talking points:
PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
Insist that Obama release those two memos so that the American people can finally know the facts about the threats they faced-or admit that you're all a bunch of pathetic political hacks who don't care about the truth.
Posted by: verner | May 21, 2009 7:13:00 PM
Looks to me like it is the left that is insulting Obama for adopting and following Bush and Cheney's policies. Those on the right are applauding Obama for flipping and following their lead.
****************************************************
Oh, he's continuing to follow Bush and Cheney's policies? Is he going to fabricate reasons for wars, hold detainees indefinitely without records, indisciminately torture for primarily political ends, ect?S So is that why the right's primary spokesmen like Limbaugh and Beck will applaud him? Can we expect their points to be recycled here in praise of Obama?
Posted by: kat | May 21, 2009 7:05:46 PM
I'll have to add that Cheney OWNED Obama today. The former VP is getting so deep under Obama's skin that he had to drag the press to the National Archives for a photo op in front of a fake copy of the original constitution.
Too bad, we all know Cheney's un-teleprompted speech was planned weeks ago. And he made Obama's platitude filled bilge look muddled and shallow.
For the last five months, every other word out of Obama's mouth has been "Bush's Fault." How dare they criticize Cheney for setting the record straight.
And if we could just see those two memos that Cheney wants released, we'd have the whole truth. And anyone who claims that Obama couldn't release them tomorrow is a liar.
Posted by: verner | May 21, 2009 6:22:18 PM
Post a comment
