Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

White House Hit With More Memo Questions

By Michael D. Shear
White House officials today confronted more questions about President Obama's position on prosecution of former Bush lawyers who drafted memos legalizing harsh interrogation methods used on terrorism suspects.

In appearances on Sunday morning talk shows, Obama advisers sought to portray the president as constitutionally removed from the question of whether anyone should be prosecuted for breaking the law.

"What he has said is that anyone who followed the advice of the Justice Department and did any kind of acts that were within the confines of that advice, he doesn't think we should prosecute," adviser Valerie Jarrett said on CNN's "State of the Union."

"The rest of it," she added, "he leaves up to the U.S. attorney general. That is who is supposed to make decisions about prosecution. So I think the president has been very clear and what he said is, we need to be a nation of laws, we need to be consistent, and he leaves it to the attorney general to figure out who should be prosecuted for what."

Press secretary Robert Gibbs used the same argument on NBC's "Meet the Press" this morning.

"The president doesn't open or close the door on criminal prosecutions of anybody in this country because the legal determination about who knowingly breaks the law in any instance is not one that's made by the president of the United States," Gibbs said.

The administration's defense came as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Obama's former adversary in the presidential contest and a victim of torture during the Vietnam war, urged the White House not to pursue prosecutions.

"Maybe, there's an element of settling old political scores here," McCain said on CBS's "Face the Nation." "We need to put this behind us, we need to move forward."

And other Republicans continued to vent their anger over the release of the memos, saying that the president has made the country less safe and made it more difficult for American troops.

Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.) said on Fox's program that the memo release was a "stab in the back" to the CIA.

"I think he has already demoralized the CIA, put them in a CYA mode," Bond said. "And what's worse, now the terrorists know that nothing can be done to them that wasn't done to our voluntary military enlistees in the Marines, the SEALs and pilots who went through these same techniques, and that is -- has absolutely destroyed our ability to get further information from terrorists."

Three days before Obama hits the 100-day mark, advisers also sought to portray his efforts to repair the economy as gaining some traction despite the continuing torrent of bad financial news.

National Economic Council Chairman Larry Summers said the current economic picture no longer feels like it did two months ago, when there were no positive signs and the "economy felt like it was falling vertically."

Today, he said, "the picture is much more mixed. There are some negative indicators, to be sure. There are also some positive indicators. And no one knows what the next turn will be."

Two big economic stories are likely to emerge in the next two weeks: the results of "stress tests" for the nation's banks, which will reveal whether they are healthy or need more government aid; and the results of negotiations at Chrysler to determine whether it needs
bankruptcy protection.

Summers said on Fox that the administration is not desperate to help Chrysler avoid bankruptcy, saying the process does not necessarily lead to the kind of liquidation that people often think of.

"It's really about change in legal -- change in legal form that actually protects the company and enables it to function more effectively," he said. "Really, the focus of our efforts is a focus on the American economy. It's a focus on jobs. It's a focus on communities. It's a focus on the economy being able to move forward, and that's what we want to see, and that obviously is going to require a whole set of decisions and judgments by the Chrysler company and by a range of its stakeholders."

Asked about the banks, Jarrett raised the prospect that the White House would force more changes in the management of banks, but she declined to be specific before the results of the tests are made public on May 4.

"In order to have a healthy economy, we need to have strong banks," she said. "They need to be well-capitalized. They need to be able to lend dollars and help support our economy. And so at the end of the stress test, we want to make sure that those are -- that the banks are in a position to do that. And so whether management changes occur, whether banks are asked to raise more capital, all of that is going to come forth in the coming week."

By Patricia E. Gaston  |  April 26, 2009; 12:10 PM ET
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama's Suggestion Box Already in Business
Next: POTUS Events: Science and Basketball


There needs to be the same standard applied to the financial institutions, as the auto companies. As to the country "needing" strong banks to survive, the country really needs good manufacturing jobs to survive. If people have decent paying job, then they can pay their bills, along with being able to save some, and spend some. Without these type of jobs, it won't matter at all on how "strong" the banks are. The whole approach to this, making the people who earn the least, pay the most for this "recovery" plan, which is what will happen with bankruptcy to the auto companies, is nothing different from the policies we had before, and the ones that got us into the mess we are now.

Posted by: thomascannon | April 29, 2009 12:09 PM | Report abuse

America needs to own up to her mistake.

Until then- NO ONE in the WORLD will listen.

What don't you understand about that?

For eight years, we were the ultimate decider- Here in America- for the last 8 years- have had a ‘C’ mentality- which now has us ranked below the top 25 countries in the worldwide ranking for education. Is it a wonder why Fox # 1 Cable---Rush # 1 Radio?

Surely- a country that has declined in educating themselves- will now re-define what torture is.

When to torture- when not to torture- who cannot torture- who can torture-?

All for the USA to decide- after all WE ARE THE DECIDER!

Isn't that what the world heard for the last 8 years?

Worldwide-Americans do not even rank in the top 25 for education – yet we will define what torture is and isn't.

Posted by: sasha2008 | April 27, 2009 1:40 PM | Report abuse

re: "100 Days" press conference


Mr. President:

The Senate Armed Services Committee report on "enhanced interrogation techniques" used at Guantanamo stated at least twice that detainees were subject to "induced physical weakness and exhaustion."

The report also stated that detainees were subject to "physiological and psychological pressures" and "environmental manipulation."

Has your administration inquired as to what "induced" these effects...

...and whether detainees were exposed to microwave radiation devices such as so-called "directed energy weapon" discharges... or any other type of radiation, including X-rays, gamma rays, sonic waves, or laser "dazzlers"?

If detainees were exposed to radiation, does that not constitute "torture" and "cruel and unusual punishment" in and of itself?

OR (if links are corrupted):

Posted by: scrivener50 | April 26, 2009 11:37 PM | Report abuse

Obama and the government need to stop interfering with business and taking over companies or banks. There was and is a plan in place it is called bankruptcy court. Show AIG, the car companies, failed banks and any other business to the bankruptcy court. Stop pouring our money down a rat hole.

Instead the government is trying to protect the interest of the banks owners (who own the Federal Reserve), unions and other interests to pass their debt on to the back of We the People.

The next scam is going to be the toxic assets. The amount of debt shuffled off to the taxpayers when it becomes known will be breath taking. Obama and Geithner will try and argue they could not have known, but these toxic debts should be eaten by the companies that profited on the front end by issuing ill-conceived or predatory loans.

Posted by: Bubbette1 | April 26, 2009 8:52 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company