For fans of circular reasoning, today’s press gaggle was a classic. Here’s White House spokeswoman Dana Perino reacting to this morning’s New York Times blockbuster that revealed secret Justice Department memos that authorized brutal interrogation techniques:
QUESTION: You maintain that the administration still does not torture?
PERINO: Correct….
QUESTION: But is it not possible that some of these classified opinions may have changed the definition of “torture”?
PERINO: No. I don’t believe so. I have not seen them. But as everything was described to me, no, I don’t believe that’s possible….
QUESTION: But the idea that you can’t discuss it and that you blanketly say there’s no torture when, clearly, in the Department of Justice there has been a debate about if those techniques were too severe … and to simply say there’s no torture, but then to never provide any insight as to what the limitations are, with the exception of death or organ failure …
PERINO: I’m not disputing that there can be legal disagreements between reasonable people who may look at something one way and another person looks at it in another way. I’m not disputing that. What I am saying is that we do not torture, and I disagree with the notion that just because information is leaked or provided to The New York Times or any other news organization that this country should … that this government should then have to spell out any specifics. And I’m not confirming or denying anything that you just listed … all the ones that you just listed.
QUESTION: How can you say that … how can you say with assurance that we don’t torture if you don’t know what was in the …
PERINO: Because we follow the law.
Much more from this morning below.
QUESTION: The New York Times has a piece today about legal opinions from the Justice Department authorizing harsh interrogation techniques. Do you challenge the accuracy of that report at all?
PERINO: Let me start off by saying that our programs have always been designed within U.S. law and in keeping with our international obligations. Our intelligence agencies, they work every day to make sure that they’re keeping our country safe, and they legally obtain information that they need to protect us from attack from foreign terrorists who aim to kill Americans. The article is quite long. You’re asking me if everything in is accurate. No, I would not think that everything in it is accurate, and I would have to refer you to the Justice Department for some specifics on that.
QUESTION: Well, how about the central points, about the legal opinions?
PERINO: What about the legal opinions? What’s the …
QUESTION: Shortly … shortly after Alberto Gonzales got there, did the Justice Department issue a legal opinion that …
PERINO: That is different from a December 2004? No, I don’t … no. My understanding is that there is the December 2004 opinion, which is publicly available for everyone to read. Additional opinions on specific applications were done. They are classified. I have not seen those, but they were not … the general opinion was the one that was done in December 2004, and as I understand it this February 5th one, was just talking about … it was different in that it was focusing on specifics, not reinterpreting that memo.
QUESTION: Well, it says for … that the February one authorized things like head-slapping, simulated drowning, and …
PERINO: I don’t know about that. But again, look at what I just said. The December 2004 memo, which is publicly available for all of you to read, is more … is broad and general about interpreting the statute. And, not commenting specifically on any particular memos, what I just said is that the memo … any opinions that were issued in February of 2005 were specific to the … were more specific to applications under that agreement.
QUESTION: But that would not deny … that wouldn’t deny what the Times is reporting.
PERINO: I didn’t say that I was. I said, are there two different … were there two different pieces of paper or opinions that were released. There was the broader opinion, yes, and I think … it’s not apples and oranges, but it was an altogether different type of document that was released in February 2005.
QUESTION: You’re being specific to applications.
PERINO: Well, if you look at the December 2004 opinion, which I haven’t in a long time, but it’s publicly available, you can see it, and it’s a general overview of OLC’s opinion … Office of Legal Counsel’s opinion … interpreting the statute more broadly. Then there are specifics that … regarding interrogation techniques that were reviewed and that are classified, that I haven’t seen. So it’s a different document altogether. But it’s within … still within that overall broad framework of the December 2004 document.
QUESTION: The New York Times also says that the U.S. is still using black sites for prisoners, to interrogate them. Is that accurate?
PERINO: I’m just not going to comment. I would refer you back to what the President said in a December … I’m sorry … September 10th … I’m sorry … September 6, 2006, when the President held a East Room event where he laid out the fact that we have been holding some of the people responsible for the 9/11 attacks and that they had been transferred to Guantanamo Bay.
QUESTION: Have you heard whether any other … they’ve started holding prisoners again?
PERINO: I would refer you back to that speech, and in it the President said, I will not be coming back to you every time we might hold somebody in the future because these are classified for a reason; we’re trying to protect the American people and the more information that’s out there that gives other people clues as to what we might or may not … who we may or may not have … the President said we’re not going to be providing information.
And we did do … I think there was one … we have told you when we have transferred people to … terrorists to Gitmo, but we haven’t been in the habit of doing a press release every time we have a prisoner.
QUESTION: Does the administration still assert that it does not engage or authorize torture?
PERINO: Absolutely. This country does not torture. It is the policy of the United States that we do not torture … and we do not. I would also say that one of the things that I would challenge in this article is the characterization of Steve Bradbury, who is one of the most decent, patriotic human beings I know. He is dedicated to the law. He calls them like he sees them. He is asked to consider very complex and unique legal questions. He provides his best guidance, his best judgment.
Is it … it is possible that reasonable people could disagree on opinions regarding complex and unique and novel questions that are put to them, but this is an individual who the President nominated a long time ago. He deserves to be confirmed in the United States Senate. He has given a lot to his country, and we fully appreciate all he’s done for us.
QUESTION: You maintain that the administration still does not torture?
PERINO: Correct.
QUESTION: But is it not possible that some of these classified opinions may have changed the definition of “torture”?
PERINO: No. I don’t believe so. I have not seen them. But as everything was described to me, no, I don’t believe that’s possible.
QUESTION: Isn’t it inconsistent with the commitment to democracy to hold people outside the country when we want to do things to them we cannot do under the laws inside the country?
PERINO: Wendell, the policy of the United States is not to torture. We have not and we are not torturing anyone.
QUESTION: It is oft declared that the policy of the United States is not to torture, but, of course, you won’t describe to us what you do … that you don’t call torture.
PERINO: Well, there’s a very good reason for that.
QUESTION: So once again I will say, whether or not you torture them, whether or not you consider what you’re doing to these people torture … isn’t it inconsistent with a commitment to democracy to hold someone outside the United States when you want to do to them what you cannot do inside the United States?
PERINO: I will tell you what … the reason that we don’t provide the classified information on interrogation techniques is because we know very well that individuals like al Qaeda … let me finish, Wendell … that individuals like al Qaeda …
QUESTION: I’m granting you that.
PERINO: That … well, then let me say it … that individuals like al Qaeda train to interrogation techniques. And we know that these are people who will make sure that they can resist any type of interrogation technique in order to carry out horrible, murderous deeds, like killing 3,000 Americans in New York City and at the Pentagon. And we are in a global war on terror. The President … go back to the September 6th speech. The President was very clear as to the situation that we are in and why are we are endeavoring to protect the American people like we are. That’s exactly why we do it.
QUESTION: I will stipulate these are bad people. I am not asking you to tell me what is being done to them; I’m asking you about the principle of holding them someplace where you can do what you can’t do in the United States.
PERINO: Look, regardless of where they are, we do not torture anyone. And getting that information from those individuals is critically important to protecting this country.
QUESTION: Can I go back to … you say we do not provide information … is it because you’re saying you don’t want al Qaeda to train its people to resist your techniques; is that the reason?
PERINO: That’s right.
QUESTION: That’s the reason.
PERINO: You don’t hand over your game book to the opposing team. And we know that these are ruthless individuals who will do anything, and that they’re very patient … that they’ll do anything to try to carry out their attacks. And this President has put in place … all within the foursquare corners of the law … tools in the global war on terror that we need and that the future President … and Presidents, plural … will need in order to protect this country.
QUESTION: Dana, these techniques that have been talked about through intelligence sources and published … whether it’s waterboarding, simulated drowning, subjection to extreme temperatures, loud music, deprived of food or sleep for periods of time … all of that is well known. And if al Qaeda needs a game book, they can read The New York Times and figure out, well, those are a few techniques we might try to train against. So doesn’t that sort of defeat the purpose of saying that it is not something we want to …
PERINO: Just because it’s printed in The New York Times doesn’t mean that we should talk about it publicly. I just reject the notion …
QUESTION: But the idea that you can’t discuss it and that you blanketly say there’s no torture when, clearly, in the Department of Justice there has been a debate about if those techniques were too severe … and to simply say there’s no torture, but then to never provide any insight as to what the limitations are, with the exception of death or organ failure …
PERINO: I’m not disputing that there can be legal disagreements between reasonable people who may look at something one way and another person looks at it in another way. I’m not disputing that. What I am saying is that we do not torture, and I disagree with the notion that just because information is leaked or provided to The New York Times or any other news organization that this country should … that this government should then have to spell out any specifics. And I’m not confirming or denying anything that you just listed … all the ones that you just listed.
QUESTION: How can you say that … how can you say with assurance that we don’t torture if you don’t know what was in the …
PERINO: Because we follow the law.
QUESTION: … if you don’t know what was in the other opinions, the classified opinions?
PERINO: Because all of the opinions and all of the discussions, everything has to be within the law and the policy, and the policy of the United States is that we don’t torture.
QUESTION: Well, we’d like to believe that, but there’s no way to assure us, is there?
QUESTION: Do you think the people have a right to know what we do to others?
PERINO: I think to a certain extent, yes, and that’s why we have, for example, that December 2004 opinion that lays out broadly how we interpret the law.
QUESTION: Taking your word for it, though, is not true …
PERINO: Well, I think that the American people can understand … I believe that the American people can understand why there are certain pieces of information and tools that we use in the global war on terror that remain classified in order to protect them …
QUESTION: Why do you believe that?
PERINO: … and I believe they have every right to know that.
QUESTION: Why do you believe they are not disgraced and shamed when torture is attached to our name?
PERINO: Helen, the United States policy is not to torture, and we do not.
QUESTION: I hear what you’re saying, the policy. But what do we really do …
PERINO: The American people have every right to be very proud of what we’ve done, and we have not had another terrorist attack on this country. And they should be glad of that, as well.
QUESTION: So the end justifies the means.
PERINO: Our end is that we don’t … our means are that we don’t torture, and the end result is that we’ve not had a terrorist attack.
QUESTION: Just you saying it doesn’t mean it’s true.
PERINO: Well, Helen, look, I can’t decide … if I can’t change your mind, I mean, that’s fine. I just … I’m giving you the information that I have.
QUESTION: Well, I think the testimony of the people who have been tortured themselves.
PERINO: Elaine.
QUESTION: What can you tell us about members of Congress and sort of how they fit into this picture and that time frame you described, December 2004 being the broad overview, but then any kind of more specific classified opinions coming out in February of ’05?
PERINO: I would ask the Department of Justice, I don’t know what the congressional …
QUESTION: Were there briefings taking place to kind of …
PERINO: I’d have to refer you to Justice Department, because I don’t know. I’ll see if I can get more for you.
