Obama defends Obama, while Cheney defends Cheney

The president affirmed today the American view that we are at war with al Qaida and that all means of counter-terrorist actions are in play

Symbols: President Obama speaks in a building that houses the United States Constitution, a document that is built on the ideal and dedication “to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare,” while former Vice President Cheney addresses the American Enterprise Institute, the conservative think tank dedicated to “strengthening the foundations of freedom–limited government, private enterprise.”

Law: The president sees the Constitution as a window through which to view reality, while the vice president sees the Constitution as a mirror to conform to an ideology. The interpretor is open to compromise; the ideologist is not. That’s one thing that irks both liberals and conservatives about President Obama. To put it politely, he adapts.

Frames of mind: The president calls the terrorists a “nimble enemy,” while the vice president characterizes them as “killers.” Both are judgments. One conceives of political evolution, the other does not.

Weaknesses: The president keeps saying none of this was his fault. He’s the president now. He needs to move beyond that point. But the vice president keeps saying he’s not at fault, that “the interrogations were used on hardened terrorists after other efforts failed.” Cheney’s description is in dispute–and by my analysis, inaccurate and misleading–and there exists public testimony from military interrogators that refutes his claim.

Is there a difference between the two positions on terrorists or Guantanomo? Actually, not much.

The vice president disapproves of the Obama decision to close Guantanamo, but the Bush administration also made it quite clear that its intention was to close Guantanomo. Perhaps the vice president’s viewpoint on this action was rejected during the last administration, but now he’s free to articulate it in public.

The Obama administration is dismantling very little of the Bush anti-terrorist polices, in fact. The vice president says the Obama administration views the conflict with terrorists only as a criminal matter. Not true.

The president affirmed today the American view that we are at war with al Qaida and that all means of counter-terrorist actions are in play, including military and civilian criminal avenues and approaches. In fact, the president and the vice president aren’t the only ones who view the conflict as a state of war. So too do the other branches of government.

The vice president supports holding enemy combatants without trial indefinitely and implies that the president is opposed to this action. Not true.

Two months ago the Obama Justice Department reaffirmed the following power of the president to hold enemy combatants without trial: “The President has the authority to detain persons that the President determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, and persons who harbored those responsible for those attacks. The President also has the authority to detain person who were part of, or substantially supported, Taliban or al-Qaida forces or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners….”

The vice president says we only tortured a few prisoners. This could be true but we don’t know. We do know that, for the sake of argument, the few prisoners the vice president describes us torturing were tortured hundreds of times. A rose by any other name…

But the interrogation community today rejects that approach to interrogations, in particular at Guantanomo. Today, nearly half of the prisoners at Guantanomo have voluntarily entered into interrogation. That’s the only way in which an interrogation can occur, in fact. The authorities no longer force interrogations. Why? According to one official, why haul someone into questioning against his will if he’s just going to stare at the floor in silence the whole time?

This post originally appeared on Politico’s Arena.

Subscribe (RSS) to Take 2

Focus on your writing at the Attic Writers’ Workshop

Tortured, Part 3

Cesar Conda, Republican strategist, former Romney and Cheney advisor:

On Tuesday morning, September 11, 2001, my domestic policy staff and I were preparing for our weekly 9:00 a.m. policy briefing with Vice President Cheney. It was a brilliant and crisp fall morning. I hardly ever opened the window in my office in the Old Executive Office Building, but I did that day to get some of the fresh fall air circulating, instead of breathing the air being pumped out of the old Carrier window air conditioning unit.

As we were discussing the Social Security “lock-box” and other “important” issues of the day we were going raise with the Vice President, the television in my office was beaming in pictures of what we thought at the time was an unfortunate commuter plane crash somewhere in New York City. It looked like it had accidently crashed on top of one of the World Trade Center buildings.

We continued our meeting, while at the same time keeping a close eye on the television. Minutes later, to our utter shock, we saw the jetliner careen into other tower. We knew that America was under attack. We never met with the Vice President that morning.

Outside my office, there was a lot of commotion, with the Secret Service agents scurrying up and down the marbled hallway of the OEOB. I then heard a low-level rumble or boom in the distance outside my window, which sent chills up my spine. I didn’t know it at the time, but this boom was the sound of the airplane slamming into the Pentagon just across the Potomac river.

I then went out into the hallway of my office, where an OVP staffer told me that one of the Secret Service agents had told him that another airplane was headed toward the White House, and that we should keep away from the windows facing the West Wing. Minutes later, the guards were screaming to everyone to “move” and “run” out of the White House complex.

As staffers were streaming out of the building, I noticed that everyone was looking skyward. It was utter chaos in the streets surrounding the White House, as people were scrambling to leave Washington. As I crossed the Roosevelt Bridge, I saw the thick black column of smoke rising above the Pentagon. I could even smell it. I thought to myself, “How could this happen in America?”

Early the very next morning, September 12, I went back to the White House, this time having to cross two – maybe three – security perimeter check points, instead of the normal one. From what I could tell, every single person in the OVP and the EOP, from secretaries to senior staffers, went back to work that day. We weren’t told to come back. Many people were scared to come back. But we did anyway, because we wanted to be there to do everything we could to help the President and the Vice President help our country in its hour of need.

I tell this story to give others a sense of what it felt like to be in the White House that horrible day, and to give some context of what a dangerous time it was. I’m sure my colleague Brad Blakeman also remembers every single minute of that day, and could tell a similar story. From that day forward, President Bush and his Administration were almost singularly focused on protecting the America from another attack.

The Bush Administration officials directly involved in creating the intelligence and homeland security infrastructure that kept America safe were selfless, dedicated public servants, who did their best to serve the President and their country. They performed their duties with the best of intentions and not for personal gain or self-aggrandizement.

President Barack Obama has now opened the door to prosecuting these former officials for their role in developing the enhanced interrogation techniques. These public servants could be subject to lawsuits, fines, and possible jail time. And to what end? Will this make America safer? Will this convince CIA, DOJ and other officials involved in protecting America to do everything in their power to stop terrorism? Will it this convince the terrorists not to attack America again? Will this really improve America’s image abroad?

• 

  David Biespiel, Poet and writer, Attic Writers Workshop:

  A public inquiry can provide our country catharsis as a house once divided reuniting itself with faith in our shared constitutional values.

Cesar, this is one of the most poignant posts on the Arena that I’ve read, and I appreciate your sharing your story. The pathos it reveals is raw and convincing, and it illustrates your calm, internalized sense of patriotism, which I respect, as you know. I’m responding to your post based on the deliberate generosity of the debates we’ve had on this page in the past.

• But I am not writing to debate any nuance of your personal story, your experience, sacrifice, and values. Not just in D.C, but all across America, we looked skyward, disoriented and perplexed by the pandemonium and turmoil, wrenched from the everyday, and amazed, frightened, shocked, and then, finally, vigilant against what fell out of the sky that September morning eight years ago.

  The next day, too, not just in D.C. but all across America, the good citizens went back to work and life with new vigilance. Even for supporters of rough interrogation methods, the history of post-9/11 interrogation practices has left many Americans anguished, troubled, and disquieted. While some are viscerally supportive of such “harsh tactics,” others are viscerally opposed to the “torture.”

  But the debate is not only semantic. For many Americans, the issue is personal, even intimate. In response to your private story, one of my own: In my home this week, my father–U.S. Navy (retired), who served as an underwater diver in Korea–and I have been discussing the reports in the news about the interrogation procedures.

  My father, a Texan, twice voted for George W. Bush, admires but didn’t vote for President Obama, really doesn’t trust Vice President Biden, and is an enormous admirer of your former boss, Vice President Cheney. You know my politics; the political debates my father and I have had over the decades have been intense, vehement, and impassioned, as you can imagine, but always punctuated with the lighthearted (he says, “Are you sure you’re my son? or I say, “We’re going to have put you out to pasture sooner than planned…”).

  I adore my father; I’m not throwing him under the bus. As often as not, during a one of our political conversations, one of us will notice that it’s 5:30. “Cocktail hour,” says the other, then we repair for drink and move on to talk about dinner. This week, talking together quietly about the difficult interrogation news, I made many of the same points I’ve made on the Arena about the importance of transparency and the rule of law in relation to national safety.

  My father has taken the position that it’s a dangerous world; we have to do what we have to do. “I don’t like it, but these are bad people,” he says. My 16-year-old–a young leftie, I’m sorry to tell you–weighed in by reading Wikipedia’s entry on waterboarding. “Well, that’s not good,” my father said. “But we have to protect ourselves.” When we saw the headline about one “enhanced technique” being used on two suspects 266 times, my father said, “I don’t like that.”

  But, of course, it didn’t change his position. It made him see that his position was related to actual events. It troubled him. “I don’t know what to do,” he said, looking down. Adding, “these are bad people.” He is opposed to torture; he is in favor of protecting the country; he is in favor of rough interrogation practices; and he is opposed to the excessive use of it. As I say, for a patriot like my father, it’s a very complicated and personal issue. I think we’d all benefit–that’s the public’s interest–in learning what is to be learned and doing so now while we’re still directly engaged with the enemy.

  We should define for the future the rules of engagement for interrogating enemy combatants within the framework of the rule of law. We should provide immunity from prosecution all witnesses to any commission examining the post-9/11 interrogation practices (I’ve said more about this in my normal post today). You’ve asked several questions about the efficacy of such a public study. My answers: Will this make America safer? No. We live in dangerous times. Will this convince CIA, DOJ and other officials involved in protecting America to do everything in their power to stop terrorism?

  No. The debate about the usefulness of harsh techniques is ongoing and complex. Will this convince the terrorists not to attack America again? No. Will this really improve America’s image abroad? Yes. We’re a nation of laws and when we have a crisis about those laws, we investigate and re-establish the parameters of the law.

  But may I ask the questions inside out? Will this make America less safe? No. We live in a dangerous world whether we air our domestic battles in public or not.

  Will this convince CIA, DOJ, and other officials involved in protecting America to do nothing in their power to stop terrorism? No. These are professionals who go to work everyday to protect and defend the nation.

  Will this convince terrorists to attack America again? No. Even the death penalty doesn’t prevent aggravated murders.

  Will this impair America’s image abroad? No. It’ll enhance it, be a beacon for other nations, protect our men and women captured in combat, and restore our credibility as a nation that does not torture.

  I won’t soon forget your post today, Cesar. I respect your service. I was just about to send this in when I noticed Brad Blakeman sent in his account. I can’t help but notice the cathartic nature of these two posts, yours and his. They illustrate, for me at least, that an airing of post-9/11 activities will have a similarly cathartic quality for the nation. First an accounting, followed by understanding, then reconciliation. That’s what a public inquiry can provide our country–a house once divided reuniting itself with faith in our shared constitutional values.

• from Politico
• Tortured, Part 2
• Tortured

• Focus on your writing at the Attic Writers’ Workshop

• follow david on twitter

Tortured

 

Cesar Conda

Republican strategist, former Romney and Cheney advisor

 

Bush’s polices made us safe

In her response to yesterday’s Arena question about the Bush Administration’s interrogation policies, Maria Cardona  asserted that “these misguided and dreadful policies have not made us safer…” and they have only provided “fodder” to our enemies. On 9/11, our enemies killed almost 3,000 of our fellow Americans before “these misguided and dreadful policies” were ever put into place. Our enemies in Al-Qaeda don’t need additional “fodder” or motivation; their hatred for America and the freedoms America stands for is absolute.

Interestingly, when lawmakers were briefed about these tougher interrogation policies, there was bipartisan approval and encouragement for them. Apparently, the Democrats who were briefed on these interrogation policies did not view them as “misguided and dreadful.”

Cardona’s assertion that the intelligence infrastructure created after 9/11 has “not made us safer” doesn’t square with the fact that there has not been another terrorist attack on American soil. Weakening that infrastructure will make America more vulnerable. 

Finally, there is another line from “conservative hero” Ronald Reagan that we should borrow and use to guide us in today’s War on Terror: “We must have the will to meet the challenges of an adversary who is constantly testing our resolve to defend our vital national interests.”

 

• David Biespiel

  Poet and writer, Attic Writer’s Workshop

   

  More Americans have died since 9/11 than on 9/11

  Cesar, you’re right to point out the culpability that Congressional Democrats share in approving the Bush administration’s dubious interrogation policies. These Democrats may not have viewed the interrogation policies, including torture, as “misguided and dreadful,” to use Marina Cordona’s words from the other day on the Arena, but that does not mean that the Democrats’ approval wasn’t itself misguided and dreadful. 

  Both the Bush administration and its supporters overt or tacit approval of torture as an interrogation method was misguided and dreadful. 

  Be that as it may, if supporters of President Bush’s post-9/11 polices can assert that his administration made us safer, then supporters must also affirm the corollary: President Bush’s pre-9/11 policies made us unsafe. If the Bush administration is responsible for the success that’s claimed after 9/11, then it’s responsible for the failure before on 9/10 and prior. While I believe that is the case–that culpability, I do not think it is absolutely so; except for a few spectacular occasions, it’s not like the American homeland has been under attack all that much from 1812 to 2001 anyway.

  Conservatives and Republicans assert that, after 9/11, President Bush’s interrogation policies and actions generally have made us safer because, as you write, “there has not been another terrorist attack on American soil.” I’m disappointed that you make this argument because, for one thing, it’s just the mother of all debate stoppers, to borrow an expression. Why? Because no one can prove a negative. 

  Just because there’s been no attack on American soil, doesn’t confirm that we’re more safe. As you say, terrorists don’t need “fodder.” Meanwhile, Americans have not actually been safer. The 4,924 American service men and women who have been casualties in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom were not safer. (In the spirit of disclosure, I was a supporter of Operation Enduring Freedom and the creation of the Homeland Security Department; I opposed Operation Iraqi Freedom; and as I have written on the Arena and elsewhere I am willing to admit that President Bush was right to conquer Iraq when I see an Iraqi and Iranian embassy in Jerusalem and an Israeli embassy in Baghdad and Tehran.) As far as the issue of American safety is concerned, more Americans have died since 9/11 than died on 9/11.

  Finally, to assert that Americans are safer because of the Bush administration’s interrogation policies is to assert that the rule of law is less important than American safety. That’s a debate that must be had again and again, now and in the future, about the relationship between the importance of American security and the importance of abiding by American laws. It is Machiavellian to assert that torture is justifiable because it prevents further attacks against Americans or because “there has not been another terrorist attack on American soil.” 

  I should like to add something to that fine quote by President Reagan you supplied this morning. Thank you, Cesar, for posting it; I hadn’t read it before. “We must have the will to meet the challenges of an adversary who is constantly testing our resolve to defend our national interests” and we must have the resolve to make sure that those challenges do not cause us to abandon our values about the relationship between freedom and the rule of law.

  from Politico

  Focus on your writing at the Attic Writers’ Workshop

  follow david on twitter