The Presser

The President came out guns blazing yesterday, aimed at the Senate and it's proposal for the treatement of terrorist combatants. He looked and sounded angry and frankly I don't blame him.

The video and transcript of the press conference are found here. The President chuckled at one point about getting everybody a question and he did his best to fulfill the promise. I'll focus on just two.

The first was this directly in-direct allusion to former Secretary of State Powell's statement(s) made just the day before:

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, former Secretary of State Colin Powell says the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. If a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former Secretary of State feels this way, don't you think that Americans and the rest of the world are beginning to wonder whether you're following a flawed strategy?

The President rejects the premise, and he should: If there's any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it's flawed logic. I simply can't accept that. It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective, Terry.

I've said this for years now and believe it as wholeheartedly as I did the first time it came out of my mouth. As soon as we see the first detainee's head hacked off live-to-tape, or burned body hung from a bridge, the equivalence argument might gain a leg to stand on.

Regardless of how you feel about it, our worst techniques of interrogation don't begin to touch what terrorists have done to virtually every American they've captured, soldier or civilian. The calls for some sort of conscience-driven approach that ensures the safety of American prisoners in some future hypothetical situation is a strawman.

Nothing we do has or will keep them from being mistreated should their captors so choose. And it's been a long time since any enemy of America bothered with Geneva Convention protections. Rich Lowry, with the help of a reader email, explains perfectly:

An argument of administration critics is that we are putting American soldiers at risk by treating al Qaeda as outside the Convention. A reader asks: "Why doesn't anyone mention the obvious? NO American adversary in war has followed the Geneva Convention in 84 years! Last night I watched Jonathan Turley portentously tell Jeff Greenfield that we dare not be legalistic in our interpretation of the Convention—after all, we needed it, our soldiers depended on it, so we should not really be too assertive or argumentative about our rights.

“But can Jonathan Turley or anyone else name one enemy of the United States in a war since 1918 (declared or not) that has followed the Geneva convention? The answer is no, because there aren't any—not Nazi Germany (see the Battle of the Bulge for starters), not Japan (which didn't even sign it), not North Korea or Red China (real undiluted torture), not the Vietcong or North Vietnam (the same), not Iran in the hostage crisis, and certainly not Iraq. Everyone of these countries egregiously violated the Convention in dealing with our soldiers and diplomats.

As for Powell's criticisms, well I for one am having a hard time not dismissing them outright. The bloom is off that rose...this is the same man who let his erstwhile friend, the President, hang out to dry in the Plame affair when he knew the identity of the leaker before the Special Prosecutor ever began his investigation.

My second focus was the obligatory smart-ass questioning of NBC's David Gregory. Combative as usual, he got into this exchange with the President:

Q Mr. President, critics of your proposed bill on interrogation rules say there's another important test -- these critics include John McCain, who you've mentioned several times this morning -- and that test is this: If a CIA officer, paramilitary or special operations soldier from the United States were captured in Iran or North Korea, and they were roughed up, and those governments said, well, they were interrogated in accordance with our interpretation of the Geneva Conventions, and then they were put on trial and they were convicted based on secret evidence that they were not able to see, how would you react to that, as Commander-in-Chief?

THE PRESIDENT: David, my reaction is, is that if the nations such as those you named, adopted the standards within the Detainee Detention Act, the world would be better. That's my reaction. We're trying to clarify law. We're trying to set high standards, not ambiguous standards.

And let me just repeat, Dave, we can debate this issue all we want, but the practical matter is, if our professionals don't have clear standards in the law, the program is not going to go forward. You cannot ask a young intelligence officer to violate the law. And they're not going to. They -- let me finish, please -- they will not violate the law. You can ask this question all you want, but the bottom line is -- and the American people have got to understand this -- that this program won't go forward; if there is vague standards applied, like those in Common Article III from the Geneva Convention, it's just not going to go forward. You can't ask a young professional on the front line of protecting this country to violate law.

Now, I know they said they're not going to prosecute them. Think about that: Go ahead and violate it, we won't prosecute you. These people aren't going to do that, Dave. Now, we can justify anything you want and bring up this example or that example, I'm just telling you the bottom line, and that's why this debate is important, and it's a vital debate.

Now, perhaps some in Congress don't think the program is important. That's fine. I don't know if they do or don't. I think it's vital, and I have the obligation to make sure that our professionals who I would ask to go conduct interrogations to find out what might be happening or who might be coming to this country, I got to give them the tools they need. And that is clear law.

Q But sir, this is an important point, and I think it depends --

THE PRESIDENT: The point I just made is the most important point.

Q Okay.

THE PRESIDENT: And that is the program is not going forward. David, you can give a hypothetical about North Korea, or any other country, the point is that the program is not going to go forward if our professionals do not have clarity in the law. And the best way to provide clarity in the law is to make sure the Detainee Treatment Act is the crux of the law. That's how we define Common Article III, and it sets a good standard for the countries that you just talked about.

Next man.

Q No, but wait a second, I think this is an important point --

THE PRESIDENT: I know you think it's an important point. (Laughter.)

Q Sir, with respect, if other countries interpret the Geneva Conventions as they see fit -- as they see fit -- you're saying that you'd be okay with that?

THE PRESIDENT: I am saying that I would hope that they would adopt the same standards we adopt; and that by clarifying Article III, we make it stronger, we make it clearer, we make it definite.

And I will tell you again, David, you can ask every hypothetical you want, but the American people have got to know the facts. And the bottom line is simple: If Congress passes a law that does not clarify the rules, if they do not do that, the program is not going forward.

Q This will not endanger U.S. troops, in your --

THE PRESIDENT: Next man.

Q This will not endanger U.S. troops --

THE PRESIDENT: David, next man, please. Thank you. It took you a long time to unravel, and it took you a long time to ask your question.

Any day with a good beat-down of Gregory is a good day. It's what makes the whole thing worth watching.