Tony Snow and Press Spar: 'Torture' For All of Them

[one...two...tree 2,762]

By E&P Staff

Published: September 14, 2006 9:30 PM ET

NEW YORK Tony Snow conducted one of his most fascinating briefings today in his relatively short time as White House press secretary.

Most of it had to do with the administration's attempt to redefine -- or as it claims, simply make clearer -- certain key parts of the Geneva Convention's rules on torture and interrogation. In the course of it, Snow charged that former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who had just written a letter critical of this move, was "confused" about the matter, and several key GOP senators, including John McCain, similarly not on the right path.

It seemed reasonable enough -- if one can ignore the fact that the Geneva prohibitions have lasted almost 60 years without others feeling a crying need to clarify or re-define them, perhaps because doing so, critics charge, opens it up for everyone else, including some really bad guys, to come up with their own standards, endangering our captured soldiers.

Snow said the issue had never "come up" before. Does this mean we never tried to raise the questions before because we had never felt an urge to torture previously? Or what?

Here are some excerpts.

*

Q The critics of this, Republicans that you've talked about, think that you are seeking to alter Article III, because you are, in effect, lowering the standards of Article III by the elimination of this language.

MR. SNOW: No, it's a straw man. As a matter of fact, what we're trying to do is we're trying to reach out and work with them to come up with the issues. ...

Q Right. But in your attempt to redefine it --

MR. SNOW: No, it's to define it.

Q Well, right, but that's your interpretation of it. But you're defining it in a way that does not address "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating --

MR. SNOW: Sure, it does.

Q -- and degrading treatment" because you find that to be vague?

MR. SNOW: No, all of it is vague, and therefore, what you do is you try to provide some clarity by saying, here are the subset of behaviors that we think fall under those terms.

I think we're talking past each other here --

Q You claim -- all right, I'll restate the question. You claim that you are not redefining --

MR. SNOW: Right. Look at this --

Q -- Article III. Everyone who opposes you on this, from Secretary Powell, to Senator Warner, to Senator Graham, to Senator McCain, says, in effect, you are trying to redefine it by excluding language you consider vague that they think is actually important.

MR. SNOW: No, no, no -- oh, thank you, thank you. No, no, that's -- okay, thank you. No, we're not excluding it. We're defining what that language means, so, heart be still. No, the fact is the language is vague, and so nobody knows exactly what would be prohibited or not prohibited under it.

And we're saying, no, here are the things that ought to be prohibited under it. And that's an important point, and I'm glad you asked, because I didn't quite understand. We're saying that the language is vague, and therefore you define it by putting together the proper framework for saying, I'm sorry, if you do this, you're guilty of cruel and inhumane treatment -- or cruel and degrading treatment. You are in violation of Common Article III if you do the following, and the following are the things that are specified in the Detainee Treatment Act. ...

Q I'm asking you if you want to replace the --

MR. SNOW: Okay, well, that's what we're trying to do -- we're not trying to replace. The fact is these terms for the purposes of enactment and implementation, for the purposes of the people who are out in the field trying to do interrogation, it has absolutely no meat on the bones. There is no specification of which methods are legal and which are not, which approaches are, which are not, what activities would constitute cruel and inhumane or degrading treatment and which would not. What we're trying to say is, no, guys, we'll tell you what is, and we'll do it in the context of a law that you've already passed and is already operative.

Q Does that not invite other countries to do the same, to have other interpretations of Article III?

MR. SNOW: What it allows every country to do is to have an interpretation. Our European allies don't have an interpretation.

Q And your critics say that's bad for U.S. troops if you allow those kinds of interpretations.

MR. SNOW: No, I think just the opposite. As a matter of fact, the five guys who are Judge Advocates General right now say we need it. The people who interpret the law, the people who serve as the chief legal officers within the Pentagon themselves say we need it. ..

Q Tony, I'm confused. Everybody I talked to today on the Hill says, look, you've had the Geneva Conventions in place since 1947. This isn't the Migratory Birds Treaty we're talking about. This is the Geneva Conventions.

MR. SNOW: Right.

Q And it's a very simple argument. We don't want to talk about the definition of amend or change, but that it stands on its own as written, hasn't been tinkered with since 1947, doesn't need to be tinkered with now. So if that seems to be the position from a former JAG and a former POW and a former Secretary of the Navy, where's the room to work anything out?

MR. SNOW: Well, I think there is. For instance, in 1987, we didn't know what the Genocide Convention said, so we passed a law to deal with it.

Q Not the Geneva Conventions.

MR. SNOW: It appears. Yes, the Geneva Convention.

Q But not Article -- it has nothing with this specific article --

MR. SNOW: Well, that's because Common Article III had never been construed as applying to any conflict in which the United States had ever been a party. And furthermore, it has not been construed as applying to conflicts for the most part that afflicted any of our allies, to which they've been a party. It is something that they had never had to think about, and for which there was not a substantial and settled body of law that would define what the terms mean. And this is a key point. Nobody has defined in law what the terms mean. And we think it's important not only that we define what the terms mean, but that our -- the people who are working for us, either as soldiers in the field, or those who are doing the questioning for the CIA, they have to know that it passes constitutional muster, and it is defined and approved as abiding by our international treaty obligations.

The reason nobody talked about this from 1948 is, it hadn't come up. And there are times -- you'll be surprised to know --

Q There's been a lot of wars.

MR. SNOW: But, you know what, Helen, it didn't apply to most of those wars. It didn't apply to most of those wars which is why people have not asked the questions.

Q This seems -- hang on a second -- this seems to be --

MR. SNOW: Well, and let me just make the point here, the predicate of your question was, it had been sitting around and everybody knew what the meaning was, and the fact is, nobody knew what the meaning was.

Q That's not my reading of it. That's what's coming off of the Hill, so if this sounds eminently reasonable, what you're explaining --

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q And so you have these guys with a little bit of experience and certainly their own perspectives that have been developed by very direct experience with this stuff, they're saying, you know what, not so reasonable; we don't need to do this.

MR. SNOW: Well, again, I think it will be interesting to see how this plays out. I think people are still talking about it.

***

Q Why use U.S. law when this is an international convention, international document --

MR. SNOW: Because -- precisely because you do -- I think if you put before the American public: do you want international tribunals that do not acknowledge U.S. law and are not answerable to U.S. citizens to define what may happen to U.S. citizens, I think they would find that unreasonable and unjust. What we do try to do is take a look in observing our treaty obligations where there is settled law, and in this particular case there is no settled law. And I would refer you, for the more nuanced portions of your questions, to the lawyers who can go through chapter and verse.

Q But I find it kind of odd that you keep talking about you're following international law, but you want to interject where it comes -- where it suits you to follow your own law?

MR. SNOW: No, no. There is no clarity on these phrases. We're not interjecting --

Q But you have the people to go through --

MR. SNOW: Will you please -- so what you're saying is, at a time like this -- will you please show me the statute that lays out precisely what these terms mean? I'd be interested in seeing it?

***

Q What are other countries to make of the U.S., as you put it, adding definition to the Geneva Convention? Is the U.S., in effect, saying, all the rest of you do this, too -- adversaries and friends, alike?

MR. SNOW: Look, I think this is something that we'd be -- we would not be frightened if adversaries did this. We would not be at all frightened if they did this.

I think there's a perception going around that this is going to condone and counsel all sorts of horrible treatment. It's not. And therefore, if we allow -- if we set a standard to treaty obligations that in the past have been vague -- and again, we did it with genocide; we did it with other things. This is not unusual. And I think what we're doing is setting a standard for clarity and transparency, because we do want people to know what the rules are, and the people we especially want to know what the rules are are our people going out in the field who are going to be charged with trying to bring back information and save American lives. We want it to be legal. We want it to be constitutional. We want it to be consistent with Common Article III.

[Marc and Olga 0]

By E&P Staff

Published: September 14, 2006 9:30 PM ET

NEW YORK Tony Snow conducted one of his most fascinating briefings today in his relatively short time as White House press secretary.

Most of it had to do with the administration's attempt to redefine -- or as it claims, simply make clearer -- certain key parts of the Geneva Convention's rules on torture and interrogation. In the course of it, Snow charged that former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who had just written a letter critical of this move, was "confused" about the matter, and several key GOP senators, including John McCain, similarly not on the right path.

It seemed reasonable enough -- if one can ignore the fact that the Geneva prohibitions have lasted almost 60 years without others feeling a crying need to clarify or re-define them, perhaps because doing so, critics charge, opens it up for everyone else, including some really bad guys, to come up with their own standards, endangering our captured soldiers.

Snow said the issue had never "come up" before. Does this mean we never tried to raise the questions before because we had never felt an urge to torture previously? Or what?

Here are some excerpts.

*

Q The critics of this, Republicans that you've talked about, think that you are seeking to alter Article III, because you are, in effect, lowering the standards of Article III by the elimination of this language.

MR. SNOW: No, it's a straw man. As a matter of fact, what we're trying to do is we're trying to reach out and work with them to come up with the issues. ...

Q Right. But in your attempt to redefine it --

MR. SNOW: No, it's to define it.

Q Well, right, but that's your interpretation of it. But you're defining it in a way that does not address "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating --

MR. SNOW: Sure, it does.

Q -- and degrading treatment" because you find that to be vague?

MR. SNOW: No, all of it is vague, and therefore, what you do is you try to provide some clarity by saying, here are the subset of behaviors that we think fall under those terms.

I think we're talking past each other here --

Q You claim -- all right, I'll restate the question. You claim that you are not redefining --

MR. SNOW: Right. Look at this --

Q -- Article III. Everyone who opposes you on this, from Secretary Powell, to Senator Warner, to Senator Graham, to Senator McCain, says, in effect, you are trying to redefine it by excluding language you consider vague that they think is actually important.

MR. SNOW: No, no, no -- oh, thank you, thank you. No, no, that's -- okay, thank you. No, we're not excluding it. We're defining what that language means, so, heart be still. No, the fact is the language is vague, and so nobody knows exactly what would be prohibited or not prohibited under it.

And we're saying, no, here are the things that ought to be prohibited under it. And that's an important point, and I'm glad you asked, because I didn't quite understand. We're saying that the language is vague, and therefore you define it by putting together the proper framework for saying, I'm sorry, if you do this, you're guilty of cruel and inhumane treatment -- or cruel and degrading treatment. You are in violation of Common Article III if you do the following, and the following are the things that are specified in the Detainee Treatment Act. ...

Q I'm asking you if you want to replace the --

MR. SNOW: Okay, well, that's what we're trying to do -- we're not trying to replace. The fact is these terms for the purposes of enactment and implementation, for the purposes of the people who are out in the field trying to do interrogation, it has absolutely no meat on the bones. There is no specification of which methods are legal and which are not, which approaches are, which are not, what activities would constitute cruel and inhumane or degrading treatment and which would not. What we're trying to say is, no, guys, we'll tell you what is, and we'll do it in the context of a law that you've already passed and is already operative.

Q Does that not invite other countries to do the same, to have other interpretations of Article III?

MR. SNOW: What it allows every country to do is to have an interpretation. Our European allies don't have an interpretation.

Q And your critics say that's bad for U.S. troops if you allow those kinds of interpretations.

MR. SNOW: No, I think just the opposite. As a matter of fact, the five guys who are Judge Advocates General right now say we need it. The people who interpret the law, the people who serve as the chief legal officers within the Pentagon themselves say we need it. ..

Q Tony, I'm confused. Everybody I talked to today on the Hill says, look, you've had the Geneva Conventions in place since 1947. This isn't the Migratory Birds Treaty we're talking about. This is the Geneva Conventions.

MR. SNOW: Right.

Q And it's a very simple argument. We don't want to talk about the definition of amend or change, but that it stands on its own as written, hasn't been tinkered with since 1947, doesn't need to be tinkered with now. So if that seems to be the position from a former JAG and a former POW and a former Secretary of the Navy, where's the room to work anything out?

MR. SNOW: Well, I think there is. For instance, in 1987, we didn't know what the Genocide Convention said, so we passed a law to deal with it.

Q Not the Geneva Conventions.

MR. SNOW: It appears. Yes, the Geneva Convention.

Q But not Article -- it has nothing with this specific article --

MR. SNOW: Well, that's because Common Article III had never been construed as applying to any conflict in which the United States had ever been a party. And furthermore, it has not been construed as applying to conflicts for the most part that afflicted any of our allies, to which they've been a party. It is something that they had never had to think about, and for which there was not a substantial and settled body of law that would define what the terms mean. And this is a key point. Nobody has defined in law what the terms mean. And we think it's important not only that we define what the terms mean, but that our -- the people who are working for us, either as soldiers in the field, or those who are doing the questioning for the CIA, they have to know that it passes constitutional muster, and it is defined and approved as abiding by our international treaty obligations.

The reason nobody talked about this from 1948 is, it hadn't come up. And there are times -- you'll be surprised to know --

Q There's been a lot of wars.

MR. SNOW: But, you know what, Helen, it didn't apply to most of those wars. It didn't apply to most of those wars which is why people have not asked the questions.

Q This seems -- hang on a second -- this seems to be --

MR. SNOW: Well, and let me just make the point here, the predicate of your question was, it had been sitting around and everybody knew what the meaning was, and the fact is, nobody knew what the meaning was.

Q That's not my reading of it. That's what's coming off of the Hill, so if this sounds eminently reasonable, what you're explaining --

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q And so you have these guys with a little bit of experience and certainly their own perspectives that have been developed by very direct experience with this stuff, they're saying, you know what, not so reasonable; we don't need to do this.

MR. SNOW: Well, again, I think it will be interesting to see how this plays out. I think people are still talking about it.

***

Q Why use U.S. law when this is an international convention, international document --

MR. SNOW: Because -- precisely because you do -- I think if you put before the American public: do you want international tribunals that do not acknowledge U.S. law and are not answerable to U.S. citizens to define what may happen to U.S. citizens, I think they would find that unreasonable and unjust. What we do try to do is take a look in observing our treaty obligations where there is settled law, and in this particular case there is no settled law. And I would refer you, for the more nuanced portions of your questions, to the lawyers who can go through chapter and verse.

Q But I find it kind of odd that you keep talking about you're following international law, but you want to interject where it comes -- where it suits you to follow your own law?

MR. SNOW: No, no. There is no clarity on these phrases. We're not interjecting --

Q But you have the people to go through --

MR. SNOW: Will you please -- so what you're saying is, at a time like this -- will you please show me the statute that lays out precisely what these terms mean? I'd be interested in seeing it?

***

Q What are other countries to make of the U.S., as you put it, adding definition to the Geneva Convention? Is the U.S., in effect, saying, all the rest of you do this, too -- adversaries and friends, alike?

MR. SNOW: Look, I think this is something that we'd be -- we would not be frightened if adversaries did this. We would not be at all frightened if they did this.

I think there's a perception going around that this is going to condone and counsel all sorts of horrible treatment. It's not. And therefore, if we allow -- if we set a standard to treaty obligations that in the past have been vague -- and again, we did it with genocide; we did it with other things. This is not unusual. And I think what we're doing is setting a standard for clarity and transparency, because we do want people to know what the rules are, and the people we especially want to know what the rules are are our people going out in the field who are going to be charged with trying to bring back information and save American lives. We want it to be legal. We want it to be constitutional. We want it to be consistent with Common Article III.

Um I have a BAAAAAAAAD feeling about this?

Edited September 15, 2006 by Marc and Olga

[GaryC 7]

I don't see a problem with this. What's wrong with a clearly defined set a rules? It would eliminate any ambiguity and then we would not have this "this is wrong-no it's not" argument. The geneva convention is totaly vauge and does not defign the rules.

[Marc and Olga 0]

I don't see a problem with this. What's wrong with a clearly defined set a rules? It would eliminate any ambiguity and then we would not have this "this is wrong-no it's not" argument. The geneva convention is totaly vauge and does not defign the rules.

I was referring to the use of the word Genocide, not once but twice.

Since you mention that it is vague, fair enough, who are we to decide what the intentions were, why do we feel WE are the ones to decide. Should we not, in order to clarify call for a meeting of the signators and confer with them and listen to their ideas on what the intentions were/should be?

Or again are we saying it WILL be OUR way and no one else has any say? The American New World Order.

[GaryC 7]

I was referring to the use of the word Genocide, not once but twice.

Since you mention that it is vague, fair enough, who are we to decide what the intentions were, why do we feel WE are the ones to decide. Should we not, in order to clarify call for a meeting of the signators and confer with them and listen to their ideas on what the intentions were/should be?

Or again are we saying it WILL be OUR way and no one else has any say? The American New World Order.

Since there is such a brouhaha about what is inhumane treatment when questioning prisoners and what isn't there needs to be a well defined set of rules. I don't think anyone is acting unilatterally here. Bush just wants to know what is allowed and what isn't. The Geneva Convention doesn't define them. Can you imagine what would happen if we tried to get all the signatories together and define it? It would take decades!

Edited September 15, 2006 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever

[Marc and Olga 0]

I was referring to the use of the word Genocide, not once but twice.

Since you mention that it is vague, fair enough, who are we to decide what the intentions were, why do we feel WE are the ones to decide. Should we not, in order to clarify call for a meeting of the signators and confer with them and listen to their ideas on what the intentions were/should be?

Or again are we saying it WILL be OUR way and no one else has any say? The American New World Order.

Since there is such a brouhaha about what is inhumane treatment when questioning prisoners and what isn't there needs to be a well defined set of rules. I don't think anyone is acting unilatterally here. Bush just wants to know what is allowed and what isn't. The Geneva Convention doesn't define them. Can you imagine what would happen if we tried to get all the signatories together and define it? It would take decades!

Actually, Bush wants to dictate what is allowed and what isn't but this is NOT US law but international law and I do not believe the USA or President Bush should decide international law but that the international community should interpret international law. By that I mean the USA should not be the SOLE interpreter of the international law.

For him to do such would set a terrible precident allowing Iran or North Korea (both signators) to set their own definitions of the international law which may include tactics and practices that we would deem as torture.

[Heracles 417]

What happens if one side is playing by the rules while the other is not?

What happens when the other side just does not give a ###### about the UN or conventions and their main aim is to kill people?

[Marc and Olga 0]

What happens if one side is playing by the rules while the other is not?

What happens when the other side just does not give a ###### about the UN or conventions and their main aim is to kill people?

Are you saying that because they don't follow the "rules" we don't have to?

Again a country such as Iran or North Korea will then be able to say the US did not follow the laws so we don't have to either!

[GaryC 7]

You also have to remember that the Geneva Convention refers to POW's. Terrorists are not POW's when we catch them. They are not under the rules of the Geneva Convention so this whole thing is really moot. They are not associated with any particular government. They are not a part of any organized army and they do not wear a uniform. They are really illegal combatants. While I don't condone pulling their fingernails out or using a branding iron on them I see no reason to treat them with the same respect a POW would get. After all, when they catch one of our people they saw their heads off with a knife!!

[Marc and Olga 0]

You also have to remember that the Geneva Convention refers to POW's. Terrorists are not POW's when we catch them. They are not under the rules of the Geneva Convention so this whole thing is really moot. They are not associated with any particular government. They are not a part of any organized army and they do not wear a uniform. They are really illegal combatants. While I don't condone pulling their fingernails out or using a branding iron on them I see no reason to treat them with the same respect a POW would get. After all, when they catch one of our people they saw their heads off with a knife!!

I understand what you are sayin, particularly about them NOT being classified as POWs.

Consider this though, we treat them as POWs until such time as the international community has created the "definitions" requested by Bush.

"When they catch one of our people they saw their heads off with a knife", we then can approach the international community and we can then say this is how they treat us while we have treated captives in a far more humane way. I would put money that support and respect for the US would increase, we would no longer appear the bully.

We also have followed the laws as they are understood and therefore other potential enemies cannot use our disregard of the laws against us!

[mmmbop1976 1]

steve, your post topic could have just as easily said "torture for none of them". that is possible, right, that congress and the senate could have made legislation that the president asked for in which it unequivocally stated no water-boarding, sleep deprivation, or anything else that you might define as torture. but your disdain and distrust for this president, and your glass half empty outlook on life in general, precludes you from doing so.

now, several weeks back i called you an idiot in a post, and i immediately edited/reposted to retract that comment, as i understand we all can have differing opinions on political, moral, and social issues. but i've been looking over your posts here lately and i see that you have a very condescending attitude towards people that don't agree with your posts here, and in fact have called several idiots. well, i'm not surprised, liberals in general have a very condescending attitude towards anyone that does not share their liberal aka socialist aka communist views. (yes, i purposely put that line in from another post, i'm sure you know where it came from).

anyway, i also remember in another post where someone had posted a link to a video about torture and in their post they had wording insinuating that the president of the united states condones torture of children, even in front of their parents, even sexually. and you posted back agreeing with it. i have made it my mission here to expose you for the lunatic you are, and i won't retract this time. unless you want to retract your support for that statement, each time i see one of your posts i will post to show people who you really are, a left wing lunatic, not worth debating with....

Here is an interesting video in which the first part discuss how the Bush administration decided to "stop calling it torture and start calling it pressure and if someone died in custody that is even better!"

and "even torture small children in front of their parents, even sexually".

"bush even claimed having 'executive authority' to ignore ANY federal law he wished."

Time to phone Olga.

enjoy.

Important video, Marc! Thanks!

this person, Steven_and_Jinky, believes that president bush advocates torturing children, even in front of their parents, even sexually......

Here is an interesting video in which the first part discuss how the Bush administration decided to "stop calling it torture and start calling it pressure and if someone died in custody that is even better!"

and "even torture small children in front of their parents, even sexually".

"bush even claimed having 'executive authority' to ignore ANY federal law he wished."

Time to phone Olga.

enjoy.

Important video, Marc! Thanks!

[tomrein 0]

ok, heres the scariest part, I dont want to touch this topic even i have strong feelings because i am afraid of our leader having spies on this site to decide who get their visa or not.

Im generally outspoken to friend and neighbors, but be a cold day in hell before I do it here in public.

[Heracles 417]

What happens if one side is playing by the rules while the other is not? What happens when the other side just does not give a ###### about the UN or conventions and their main aim is to kill people?

Are you saying that because they don't follow the "rules" we don't have to? Again a country such as Iran or North Korea will then be able to say the US did not follow the laws so we don't have to either!

War is a matter of life of death. Therefore when someone does not play by the rules or even have any rules it has a major impact on the outcome.. The vietnamese certainly did no play fair in that war.

I do see your point. Why have any rules at all because country B could simply bluff and say they did play by the rules and actually country A did not play by the rules, vice versa.

[mawilson 2,133]

It seemed reasonable enough -- if one can ignore the fact that the Geneva prohibitions have lasted almost 60 years without others feeling a crying need to clarify or re-define them, perhaps because doing so, critics charge, opens it up for everyone else, including some really bad guys, to come up with their own standards, endangering our captured soldiers.

Riiight....because "the bad guys" currently abide by the Geneva Convention.

[Ban Hammer 12,901]

It seemed reasonable enough -- if one can ignore the fact that the Geneva prohibitions have lasted almost 60 years without others feeling a crying need to clarify or re-define them, perhaps because doing so, critics charge, opens it up for everyone else, including some really bad guys, to come up with their own standards, endangering our captured soldiers.

Riiight....because "the bad guys" currently abide by the Geneva Convention.

are you sure? i'm still looking for the part where they can cut off the heads of living captives.