Why the Urgency?

This past Friday, President Bush held a televised press conference in the White House Rose Garden. Many news outlets critiqued his performance (his tone, gestures, selected phrases) in order to read into why he seemed so angry and somewhat petulant in his conduct with the press corps. I've excerpted a few passages from the transcript to analyze (you can watch the whole thing at this link):

There are two vital pieces of legislation in Congress now that I think are necessary to help us win the war on terror. We will work with members of both parties to get legislation that works out of the Congress. The first bill will allow us to use military commissions to try suspected terrorists for war crimes. We need the legislation because the Supreme Court recently ruled that military commissions must be explicitly authorized by Congress. So we're working with Congress. The Supreme Court said, you must work with Congress; we are working with Congress to get a good piece of legislation out.

The bill I have proposed will ensure that suspected terrorists will receive full and fair trials, without revealing to them our nation's sensitive intelligence secrets. As soon as Congress acts on this bill, the man our intelligence agencies believe helped orchestrate the 9/11 attacks can face justice.

The bill would also provide clear rules for our personnel involved in detaining and questioning captured terrorists. The information that the Central Intelligence Agency has obtained by questioning men like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has provided valuable information and has helped disrupt terrorist plots, including strikes within the United States.

For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high -- a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping.

He gave us information that helped uncover al Qaeda cells' efforts to obtain biological weapons.

We've also learned information from the CIA program that has helped stop other plots, including attacks on the U.S. Marine base in East Africa, or American consulate in Pakistan, or Britain's Heathrow Airport. This program has been one of the most vital tools in our efforts to protect this country. It's been invaluable to our country, and it's invaluable to our allies.

Were it not for this program, our intelligence community believes that al Qaeda and its allies would have succeeded in launching another attack against the American homeland. Making us -- giving us information about terrorist plans we couldn't get anywhere else, this program has saved innocent lives. In other words, it's vital. That's why I asked Congress to pass legislation so that our professionals can go forward, doing the duty we expect them to do. Unfortunately, the recent Supreme Court decision put the future of this program in question. That's another reason I went to Congress. We need this legislation to save it.

I am asking Congress to pass a clear law with clear guidelines based on the Detainee Treatment Act that was strongly supported by Senator John McCain. There is a debate about the specific provisions in my bill, and we'll work with Congress to continue to try to find common ground. I have one test for this legislation, I'm going to answer one question as this legislation proceeds, and it's this: The intelligence community must be able to tell me that the bill Congress sends to my desk will allow this vital program to continue. That's what I'm going to ask.

The second bill before Congress would modernize our electronic surveillance laws and provide additional authority for the terrorist surveillance program. I authorized the National Security Agency to operate this vital program in response to the 9/11 attacks. It allows us to quickly monitor terrorist communications between someone overseas and someone in the United States, and it's helped detect and prevent attacks on our country.

The principle behind this program is clear: when an al Qaeda operative is calling into the United States or out of the country, we need to know who they're calling, why they're calling, and what they're planning. Both these bills are essential to winning the war on terror. We will work with Congress to get good bills out. We have a duty, we have a duty to work together to give our folks on the front line the tools necessary to protect America. Time is running out. Congress is set to adjourn in just a few weeks. Congress needs to act wisely and promptly so I can sign good legislation.

- Press conference; Washington, DC; September 15, 2006


This is something different for this president (a newfound spirit of cooperation and conciliation has replaced the previous swagger) and his administration. The last few lines above, I feel, are the key to why these 'unorthodox' attributes are surfacing. Although a woman in a persistent vegetative state is not involved in this particular instance, there is an obvious sense of urgency in the president's voice and words.

He seems very concerned about two pieces of legislation currently in front of Congress (he refers to one of them as the 'Detainee Treatment Act' and the other is considered to be modifications to his existing 'Terrorist Surveillance Program'--a.k.a. the 'Warrantless Eavesdropping Program' by those outside of the administration). Below are some long-standing issues that these initiatives will touch upon (I've highlighted the administration's actions/responses to them):

Warrantless wiretapping:

The authorization I gave the National Security Agency after September the 11th helped address that problem in a way that is fully consistent with my constitutional responsibilities and authorities. The activities I have authorized make it more likely that killers like these 9/11 hijackers will be identified and located in time. And the activities conducted under this authorization have helped detect and prevent possible terrorist attacks in the United States and abroad.

- Weekly radio address; Washington, DC; December 17, 2005

Today there are new claims about other ways we are tracking down al Qaeda to prevent attacks on America. I want to make some important points about what the government is doing and what the government is not doing.

First, our international activities strictly target al Qaeda and their known affiliates. Al Qaeda is our enemy, and we want to know their plans. Second, the government does not listen to domestic phone calls without court approval. Third, the intelligence activities I authorized are lawful and have been briefed to appropriate members of Congress, both Republican and Democrat. Fourth, the privacy of ordinary Americans is fiercely protected in all our activities.

- Presidential remarks; Washington, DC; May 11, 2006

I'm here to do a job that needs to be done for the President of the United States. And I'm perfectly willing to go out and speak out on those issues such as the NSA terrorist surveillance program because I believe very deeply in what we're doing. It's the right thing to do, and, frankly, I don't spend a lot of time worrying about the polls.

- Face the Nation; Washington, DC; March 19, 2006

Torture:

2. Pursuant to my authority as commander in chief and chief executive of the United States, and relying on the opinion of the Department of Justice dated January 22, 2002, and on the legal opinion rendered by the attorney general in his letter of February 1, 2002, I hereby determine as follows:

a. I accept the legal conclusion of the Department of Justice and determine that none of the provisions of Geneva apply to our conflict with al-Qaida in Afghanistan or elsewhere throughout the world because, among other reasons, al-Qaida is not a High Contracting Party to Geneva.

b. I accept the legal conclusion of the attorney general and the Department of Justice that I have the authority under the Constitution to suspend Geneva as between the United States and Afghanistan, but I decline to exercise that authority at this time. Accordingly, I determine that the provisions of Geneva will apply to our present conflict with the Taliban. I reserve the right to exercise the authority in this or future conflicts.

c. I also accept the legal conclusion of the Department of Justice and determine that common Article 3 of Geneva does not apply to either al-Qaida or Taliban detainees, because, among other reasons, the relevant conflicts are international in scope and common Article 3 applies only to "armed conflict not of an international character."

d. Based on the facts supplied by the Department of Defense and the recommendation of the Department of Justice, I determine that the Taliban detainees are unlawful combatants and, therefore, do not qualify as prisoners of war under Article 4 of Geneva. I note that, because Geneva does not apply to our conflict with al-Qaida, al-Qaida detainees also do not qualify as prisoners of war.

- Excerpt from presidential order given on Feb. 7, 2002, outlining treatment of al-Qaida and Taliban detainees

In early October, 2002, Joint Task Force 170, the SouthCom entity charged with prisoner interrogation at Guantanamo Bay forwarded a Request for Approval of Counter Resistance Strategies of 11 October, 02. That, in turn, was forwarded to the Joint Chiefs of Staff by Commander SouthCom on 25 October, 02.

The Request noted that "current" interrogation guidelines "limit the ability of interrogators to counter advanced resistance." It proposed three categories of interrogation techniques.

- Category I included an initial comfortable environment but if the detainee was determined by the interrogator to be uncooperative, could include 1) yelling (but not loudly enough to cause physical pain), and 2) techniques of deception including multiple interrogators and misidentification of the interrogator as a citizen of a foreign country "with a reputation for harsh treatment of detainees."

- Category II, which required the permission of the General in Charge of the Interrogation Section, included "...the use of stress positions (like standing), for a maximum of four hours," the use of falsified documents or reports, solitary confinement for up to thirty days, interrogation in other than the standard interrogation booth, sensory deprivation, hooding with unrestricted breathing, "removal of all comfort items (including religious items)," feeding cold Army rations, removal of clothing, "forced grooming (shaving of facial hair etc.)," and "use of detainees individual phobias (such as fear of dogs) to induce stress."

- Category III techniques include the use of "scenarios designed to convince the detainee that death or severely painful consequences are imminent for him and/or his family," "exposure to cold weather or water (with appropriate medical monitoring)," "use of a wet towel and dripping water to induce the misperception of suffocation," and use of "mild, non injurious physical contact such as grabbing, poking in the chest with the finger and light pushing."

- Counter-resistance techniques suggested by JTF 170; October 11, 2002

On 2 December, 2002, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, approved Category I and II techniques and the fourth technique in Category III ("mild, non-injurious physical contact"). The use of death threats to family, exposure to cold weather and water, and simulated drowning was not approved although DOD General counsel advised they "may be legally available." A number of those techniques were apparently used. On 15 January, 2003, Secretary Rumsfeld rescinded his approval of Category II and one Category III techniques pending a study by DOD General Counsel. He noted that "Should you determine that particular techniques in either of these categories are warranted in an individual case, you should forward that request to me." Approval of Category I techniques apparently remained in effect.

We conclude that for an act to constitute torture as defined in Section 2340, it must inflict pain that is difficult to endure. Physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death. For purely mental pain or suffering to amount to torture under Section 2340, it must result in significant psychological harm of significant duration, e.g., lasting for months or even years. We conclude that the mental harm also must result from one of the predicate acts listed in the statute, namely: threats of imminent death; threats of infliction of the kind of pain that would amount ot physical torture; infliction of such physical pain as a means of psychological torture; use of drugs or other procedures designed to deeply disrupt the senses, or fundamentally alter an individual’s personality; or threatening to do any of these things to a third party. The legislative history simply reveals that Congress intended for the statute’s definition to track the Convention’s definition of torture and the reservations, understandings, and declarations that the United States submitted with its ratification. We conclude that the statute, taken as a whole, makes plain that it prohibits only extreme acts.

- Excerpt from memorandum from Office of the Assistant Attorney General for Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President; Re: Standards of Conduct for Interrogation under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2340-2340A

ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero released the memo Dec. 20 in New York. That document, a May 22, 2004 FBI internal e-mail, suggests that Bush issued a secret Executive Order authorizing the use of extreme coercive measures in interrogation, including sleep deprivation, stress positions, attack dogs, and use of hoods to intimidate prisoners. The Geneva Convention Against Torture bans all of these practices.

- Army email referencing a secret executive order authorizing the use of torture in Iraq

I can say that we, in fact, are consistent with the commitments of the United States that we don't engage in torture. And we don't.

I can guarantee you that we do do as a government, as an administration, is to support and uphold the Constitution of United States, that we do, in fact, take extraordinary steps to make certain we maintain our constitutional obligations and responsibilities, which includes both defending the country as well as defending individual liberties and protecting the rights of all Americans.

- Nightline; Al-Asad, Iraq; December 18, 2005

I want to be absolutely clear with our people, and the world: The United States does not torture. It's against our laws, and it's against our values. I have not authorized it -- and I will not authorize it.

- Press event; Washington, DC; September 6, 2006

Secret prisons:

In addition to the terrorists held at Guantanamo, a small number of suspected terrorist leaders and operatives captured during the war have been held and questioned outside the United States, in a separate program operated by the Central Intelligence Agency.

Many specifics of this program, including where these detainees have been held and the details of their confinement, cannot be divulged.

Information from the terrorists in this program has helped us to identify individuals that al Qaeda deemed suitable for Western operations, many of whom we had never heard about before.

This program has also played a critical role in helping us understand the enemy we face in this war.

The CIA program has detained only a limited number of terrorists at any given time -- and once we've determined that the terrorists held by the CIA have little or no additional intelligence value, many of them have been returned to their home countries for prosecution or detention by their governments.

- Press event; Washington, DC; September 6, 2006

So why is there a rush to get these proposed pieces of legislation through Congress? Could it be that he knows that Congress will change hands in the new year and someone (actually a lot of people pictured above and behind the scenes) will be caught with their hand in the legal ‘cookie jar’??? Johnathan Turley, George Washington University professor and Consitutional scholar, brought up this subject later that same night on MSNBC's 'Countdown' program (click on graphic below to watch the video segment):

"You know, the thing that is ticking here, in terms of a clock, is the fact that these 14 guys that were recently transferred just arrived not that long ago in Gitmo in Cuba. They are going to be, or have been, interviewed by the Red Cross. Most people believe that waterboarding, they where (ph) you are held underwater until you think that you‘re going to drown. That is undeniably torture under the international standard.

If that occurs in the coming days, the United States, and specifically the president, will be accused of committing a very serious violation of international law. Torture is one of the top three or four things that the international law is designed to prevent.

And so the reason there‘s this move to try to get legislation as fast as possible is because I think the administration senses that there‘s a lot of trouble coming down this mountain."

- Countdown; Washington, DC; September 15, 2006

It now appears quite possible that the administration that could not be defeated via the ballot box could well be removed (or seriously damaged) at the hands of their own hubris. These are the same people who believed the ends justified the means in any situation, no matter how incongruent their methods were to existing statues, accepted protocols or traditions, or even Constitutional law. Oh, how the mighty have fallen...

Soon to be mass-issued throughout the Bush Administration

To request such legislation (Turley insinuated that they might provide retroactive protection for the president's already committed 'transgressions') at this late hour of the Congressional session demonstrates their desperation to avoid any accountability for their actions over the past five years. Immigration reform, border security, the Iraq war--all will be pushed aside to save the president's backside. At least they won't be debating about Terri Schiavo again...