Today On Holden's Obsession With The Gaggle
Criminy! Dana Peroxide Is In Way Over Her Bottle-Blonde Head!
Shorter Dana Peroxide: Yes
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.
Shorter Dana Peroxide: Yes, and Accused Terrorists Are Not People
Q Dana, in September of last year the President told the country about what had been a classified program of CIA prisons in other countries around the world. At that time, he said all the terrorists who were held -- or alleged terrorists -- who were held in those sites were no longer there. Today, do those prisons still exist and are there alleged terrorists being held?
MS. PERINO: The President said that a small number of suspected terrorist leaders and operatives captured during the war had been held and questioned outside the United States, in a separate program that was run by the CIA. The President also at the time said that we were not going to -- while we had talked about the people that had been held -- people, I should say terrorists that were held, they were then transferred to Guantanamo Bay -- that we were not going to tell you every time that that happened.
[snip]
Q Is it reasonable to assume if those prisons were closed, that the President would have deemed that something to tell the country, and in the absence of that, we should assume they are still working?
MS. PERINO: I'm not going to comment whether or not -- and I -- the President said that while he -- on September 6, 2006, when he disclosed that information in a speech in the East Room, that we would not get in the habit of doing press releases every time we had a prisoner. It's not smart. It's not a good way to do national security.
Five - Count 'Em! - Five I Don't Knows
Q In a conference call in July, a senior administration official said that they would no longer -- or wouldn't use extreme temperatures of heat and cold. Is that true?
MS. PERINO: I don't know. I don't -- I wasn't on -- I don't recall.
Q I guess the point is that if the senior administration official told us on a conference call that these methods wouldn't be used, why won't you say whether or not head-slapping, waterboarding, would be used?
MS. PERINO: I don't believe that I -- I'm not in a position to be able to do that. I am not going to comment on specific techniques. And if there's -- I don't know who that individual was, and maybe you can follow up with them and get more.
Q But your point is that you're giving away things to the enemy, but it was okay for someone to do it, but not okay for you to do it? Or are you just --
MS. PERINO: I don't know. I don't know. I don't know who was on the conference call. I don't -- what I -- I know what I know, which is that techniques that we use are classified, and classified for a reason. To the extent that there was one ruled out, then so be it. But I'm not going to comment on others.
And Another One
Q And has -- have any attacks been averted since President Bush revealed the existence of his program, because terrorism suspects have been held in the program?
MS. PERINO: I don't know, Toby. It's not -- I can tell you that General Hayden and Fran Townsend, the President's National -- Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Advisor, have said that this program continues to save lives. When we can, we declassify information so that we can provide it to you. But right now I don't have any to provide.
And Another
Q I just wonder to what extent has information about this program or these memos been shared with the Attorney General nominee, Mukasey? And do you --
MS. PERINO: I would have to check. I would assume -- I would have to check. I don't know.
One More
Q Dana, to what extent has the President been personally involved in deciding what is tough, safe, and legal?
MS. PERINO: I don't know. I think those decisions are made at the -- at a level where they have lawyer -- individuals like Steven Bradbury, who's discussed in the article, at the Office of Legal Counsel. But I am not aware of presidential involvement.
Q So he doesn't necessarily sign off on these then?
MS. PERINO: No, I don't think so. But I --
Q The Attorney General does though, right?
MS. PERINO: I would guess. Can I refer you to the Justice Department, because I just don't know what their chain of command is.
And Again...
Q Senator Clinton said that she had changed her view on torture and the possibilities after talking with the generals. Are those not the same generals that you've been talking to or that the White House has been talking to?
MS. PERINO: I have to say, I just have no idea who Senator Clinton spoke to. I don't know.
Dana Needs A Good Headslap
Q And you won't say whether waterboarding is being ruled out, or head-slapping has been ruled out?
MS. PERINO: I'm not going to comment on those.
Q What is your definition of "torture?"
MS. PERINO: Well, that's clearly spelled out in the -- in the Detainee Treatment Act, and interpreted under the December 2004 opinion that governs, and has governed -- and if you look at the footnote from that opinion, governs all subsequent opinions that have been made by the Justice Department.
Let's Waterboard Dana
Q Dana, you talk about being within the corners of the law. But are you satisfied that there's enough clarity, in sort of the definition --
MS. PERINO: Very. I'm very satisfied that this country is following the laws, and that American personnel, no matter where they are in the world, are held to that standard.
Q My question is approaching it from a different way, though. I mean, are you satisfied that the U.S.'s position on what torture is is clear enough to other countries so that if an American were --
MS. PERINO: I am. We follow our laws and our -- we meet our international obligations, absolutely.
Q But in terms of another country, then, you feel that there is enough clarity in the definition that the administration has put forward that they wouldn't be able to look at something and say, well --
MS. PERINO: I'm not saying that reasonable people couldn't disagree on complex questions. That's possible.
[snip]
Q But what's to stop another country from then taking their own definition and interpretation based on the administration's --
MS. PERINO: As I understand it, under the Geneva Conventions, every country was supposed to interpret it for themselves, and now we have.
Q You don't think there's any ambiguity there in the definition of torture for other countries to abuse Americans if they are captured?
MS. PERINO: No, I think that the countries that we deal with that are our allies, that are a party to the Geneva Conventions, follow that, and they follow their laws. And obviously, if any American was tortured anywhere, we would have big problems with that.
We Don't Need No Stinking International Court
Q Back on Elaine's question about clarity, you said something that if there's a problem with understanding, it's left up to the countries to try to decipher --
MS. PERINO: As I understand it, I believe that the Geneva Conventions, that every country could interpret for themselves what those -- what that language meant. I'm recalling that from the debate that we had in this country from a year and a half ago.
Q Paraphrasing what the Geneva Conventions said, it said that --
MS. PERINO: Not paraphrasing.
Q No, I'm --
MS. PERINO: You're going to paraphrase?
Q Yes.
MS. PERINO: Okay.
Q Paraphrasing what it said, it basically says that if there is some kind of a problem with clarity it is supposed to be taken to an international crimes court. So --
MS. PERINO: Which we are not going to do.
Q Why not?
MS. PERINO: I don't think it's necessary, April. We have clarified in the Detainee Treatment Act and in this December 2004 opinion that the United States does not torture. And outside of some individuals suggesting that we do, I think that our allies are comfortable -- especially because of the protection that we're affording them, as well.
Q Well, Dana, for many years now this administration -- this issue has come up over and over and over again, it's gone to the Hill, it's gone to courts, it's gone everywhere. And it seems to me that there is a problem with clarity. Maybe the people who put the Geneva Conventions together would be the ones to be able to help you out.
MS. PERINO: I don't think we're seeking their help. I don't think they're offering it. I think that we, here in the United States, are a proud country that is working within our laws to make sure that we are going about protecting the country from al Qaeda and other terrorists that want to attack us.
Have I Mentioned That Dana Is Not Very Smart?
Q If an American citizen, whether they be a member of the intelligence community or the armed forces, were taken essentially hostage by one of our enemies and they were subjected to waterboarding or head-slapping or loud music, or subjected to extreme temperatures, would the U.S. government consider that to be torture?
MS. PERINO: Look, you're asking me a hypothetical situation about somebody possibly being taken into custody. I'm just not going to go there.
Q Don't you think it's important that the U.S. government draw a line in the sand and say -- to our enemies, essentially -- hey, if you do these things, we consider that torture?
MS. PERINO: I think our enemies would understand what our response would be to any type of attack on an American citizen.
Q And that attack being waterboarding, head-slapping --
MS. PERINO: I'm not going to go there.
Chimpy Used To Blow Up Frogs
Q Dana, is the President at all concerned that despite his repeated assurances that the U.S. does not engage in torture, that there are persistent concerns and questions raised? Does this suggest he is just not credible when he says the United States --
MS. PERINO: Absolutely not. And I actually think that the people around the country understand that there are things that are secret and classified for a reason, and it's for their protection. And I know that they place trust in this federal government to make sure that a 9/11 doesn't happen again.
[snip]
Q The President does use the phrase "enhanced techniques." Can you add further definition to what that --
MS. PERINO: I can't beyond what is publicly available. But I would just remind you that the most important source of information we have on where the terrorists are hiding and what they are planning is the terrorists themselves, and that's why you have to interrogate them.
Has Chimpy Been "Actively Working" To Convince His Wife And Daughters To Quit Smoking?
Q Finally, the tobacco tax rationale. I don't quite understand why the administration would oppose a tax that would discourage poor people or even -- either to cut back, or to cut smoking altogether, if that's -- that would be the result --
MS. PERINO: But the government --
Q -- of the funding for the program --
MS. PERINO: The Bush administration and the government is actively trying to get people to quit smoking. But we also don't think --
Q But this is an opportunity to do that.
MS. PERINO: Let me finish. We also don't think that raising taxes on a product is smart fiscal policy, especially when in the years 2011 and -- through 2014, this program would take, under their proposal that the President vetoed yesterday, a 65 percent cut. So then what taxes are they going to raise after that? And that's the President's position, is that taxes do not need to be raised to expand this program and to take care of the poorest children first.
Q But what's more important though, fiscal policy or encouraging -- taking a step that would encourage poor people to either cut back or quit smoking altogether?
MS. PERINO: The President is actively working to get people to quit smoking. But I would also say to you, what's more important and what's more compassionate is making sure that those 750,000 children who aren't currently covered under programs they're eligible for go to the front of the line before we give money to middle-class families to pay for a government-sponsored health care.
You know what? The maladministration is not even faking it any longer. They place this incompetent out in front of the WH press corpse to say, "F**k you."
They hold the American people in contempt. They hold the Constitution in contempt, and they hold the law in contempt. They are accountable to no one.
They own the country and no one or no institution seems to be able stop this runaway, lawless, incompetent group of thieves, who have stolen our country away from us.
Posted by: Grandmère Mimi | October 04, 2007 at 21:38
Every time the assministration says that they are following the law, I wanna puke.
If they have been following the law, how come they are trying to provide immunity to the telecom companies *retroactively* for their transgressions, and at the same time claiming national security is the reason they can't discuss it (or even the legal rationalle for it).
Oh, and by the way, the president's signing statements are *not* the law.
And another thing... the definition of torture in that law Dana cited above? That law says that all's OK that doesn't violate the 5th, 8th, and 14th amendments. What a laugh!
The 5th amendment by its own terms does not apply to the military and during wartime. Also, the concept of due process outlined in the 5th amendment is stripped of meaning where the courts are stripped of authority to review any cases alleging violations of the Geneva Convention. Or to provide Habeus Corpus review.
The 14th amendment extends due process solely to the states, and has no meaning in the federal or military context. It clearly has no applicability. Read it. You'd be amazed.
The 8th amendment bars cruel and unusual punishment, but this is a term of art applied to the punishments of those *convicted* of crimes, not those held before or without trial.
If you wanna know why Dana is having such a tough time fielding these questions (apart from not knowin' nuthin), it's because head slaps and waterboarding, loud music, stress positions, extreme temperatures, sensory deprivation, denial of due process, pretending to be your lawyer, and any other degrading treatment and conditions are all perfectly legal.
Posted by: Just Astonished | October 04, 2007 at 22:25
Sadly, Dunno Peroxide is no Tony Blow.
Posted by: anonymouse69 | October 05, 2007 at 14:52
MS. PERINO: ". . .I actually think that the people around the country understand that there are things that are secret and classified for a reason, and it's for their protection."
"their" = bushco criminal mafia
Posted by: anonymouse69 | October 05, 2007 at 14:55