Text 3443, 781 rader
Skriven 2006-10-17 23:31:18 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (0610173) for Tue, 2006 Oct 17
====================================================

===========================================================================
Press Briefing by Tony Snow
===========================================================================

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
October 17, 2006

Press Briefing by Tony Snow
White House Conference Center Briefing Room

Press Briefing view


1:05 P.M. EDT

MR. SNOW: Quickly, the President had a drop-by meeting today with the new
U.N. Secretary General-designate Ban Ki-moon, the Foreign Minister of the
Republic of Korea. The President congratulated the Foreign Minister on his
election. The Foreign Minister thanked him for U.S. support. The President
urged the Foreign Minister to address U.N. management and reform issues,
and promised U.S. help during his tenure in making the U.N. more effective.
The President said he was very much looking forward to working with Mr. Ban
when he becomes Secretary General.

The two discussed the North Korean nuclear test and the United Nations
Security Council resolution. The President noted his determination not to
let Kim Jong-il threaten peace in the region. The President said Secretary
Rice is visiting the region to discuss implementation of the Security
Council resolution and the Foreign Minister said he was leaving for Seoul
tonight and would meet her there. The President said, we want the U.N. and
its new Secretary General to succeed and we'll do all we can to assist him.

Terry.

Q Now that the President has signed the Military Commissions bill, how many
-- what happens next? How quickly before the suspects at Guantanamo are
brought to trial?

MR. SNOW: It's still -- as I was explaining yesterday, it's going to take
some time. You now have a procedure in place; you still have all the
preliminaries involved in putting together court operations. Not only do
you have to assemble the commissions and get the people for them, you also
have to allow prosecution and defense to prepare for any upcoming
commissions. My understanding is weeks perhaps months, month or two. I
don't think there's any formal determination. Obviously we want the wheels
of justice to start moving as quickly as possible, but you also have to be
cognizant of the fact that the defendants do have their rights and they
need to be able to prepare, as well.

Q So you think it will be a month or two at the outside?

MR. SNOW: I think it's a month or two at least.

Q And the interpretations that were required by the law, that are to be
published in an executive order --

MR. SNOW: What it says is the President is authorized to do an executive
order. I'll read you the language in a moment. The President's senior
advisors are going to make recommendations as to the appropriate steps.
Once you have a law passed, then you have the people in the executive
branch try to interpret how to make it happen. So there will be further
consultations with Congress and consideration of additional legal
guidelines in issuance of an executive order. So they're going to try to
walk through all the --

Q It says the executive order is published in the Federal Register, right?
Your intention is --

MR. SNOW: Let me just -- let me read to you, because -- I'll just read you
the language. It sort of speaks for itself, but it's worth going through,
with your forbearance. It says: "As provided by the Constitution in this
section, the President has the authority for the United States to interpret
the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and to promulgate
higher standards and administrative regulations for violations of treaty
obligations which are not grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions.

"The President shall issue interpretations described by Sub-paragraph A" --
which I just read to you -- "by executive order published in the Federal
Register. Any executive order published in this paragraph shall be
authoritative except as to grave breaches under Common Article III," and so
on. So that's the language.

Q So he does have to, then, publish an executive order, isn't that right?

MR. SNOW: Well, again -- well, we'll see. This says he's authorized to do
so.

Q On the signing, there have been a flurry of press releases from prominent
Democrats who voted against this, including Senator Feingold who said,
"We'll look back on this day as a stain on our nation's history." Would you
like to respond to any of those?

MR. SNOW: Senator Feingold thinks it is a stain to detain people who have
killed thousands of Americans, to question them, to put together -- on the
basis of that questioning, to intervene in a number of terrorist plots that
could have killed many more Americans, and now have a process that's not
only consistent with international law, but with our statutes; to bring
people to justice, to question them -- to detain them, to question them,
and to try them? That hardly seems a stain on our national honor. As a
matter of fact, it's an example of the way in which the United States does
care for the rights of people who don't care for ours.

Q Senator Feingold, in his release, said, "This law allows the government
to seize individuals on American soil, detain them indefinitely, with no
opportunity to challenge their detention in court, and permits an
individual to be convicted on the basis of coerced testimony -- convicted
under these rules to be put to --

MR. SNOW: Again, Senator Feingold has been saying this for some time. As
you know, the CIA program that the President alluded to deals with people
who have been seized elsewhere. This is where you're basically trying to --
if I had to parse each and every bit of that statement, it would keep me
quite busy. Let me just give you the basics here.

What we have is a Military Commissions Act that, in response to the United
States Supreme Court's decision in the Hamdan case, involves congressional
authorization for military commissions, which have been a factor of
American justice in times of war since the founding era. What we have done
is put together with -- again, in consultation with Congress, ways in which
we can, in keeping with our treaty obligations and laws, question enemy
combatants, bring them to justice, or in many cases, what we've been trying
to do at Guantanamo, try to repatriate them either to home nations or
nations under which they have been charged with criminal offenses, and who,
upon receiving them, will observe and honor their human rights.

Q Tony, can you tell us how quickly the CIA interrogators will begin
resuming their questioning?

MR. SNOW: No. Let me explain -- go ahead.

Q -- references to the CIA program.

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q That mean you're going to continue secret prisons and torture?

MR. SNOW: Number one -- first --

Q Torture as we know it, not as you interpret it --

MR. SNOW: No, I don't think --

Q -- which is water-boarding, deprivation of sleep and so forth.

MR. SNOW: First, as you know, torture is illegal. Furthermore --

Q I didn't say that. But we've seen photographs, we've seen the horror of
it all.

MR. SNOW: What photograph have you seen of --

Q Abu Ghraib and so forth.

MR. SNOW: Abu Ghraib is something that was a criminal -- was, in fact, a
criminal infraction for which people were charged.

Q How do we know it doesn't go on above --

MR. SNOW: Are you saying that the people -- the U.S. servicemen --

Q I'm saying to you that there have been allegations all the way through
that we don't treat -- that we coerce testimony.

MR. SNOW: On the other hand, the International Committee of the Red Cross
regularly visits Guantanamo and talks to everyone there, and has, in fact,
seen the high-value detainees. The United States has made it possible --
interestingly, many of the people making these particular allegations have
refused to go to Guantanamo and assess for themselves what's going on;
instead, they've based it on hearsay testimony.

The United States has set up a system -- and General Hayden talked about
this -- that goes through extraordinary lengths to make sure that the
questioning is done in a way that is effective and also humane.

Q Well, how do we know that? What kind of checks do the American people
have?

MR. SNOW: Well, Helen, I'm not sure that you're going to trust anything
that people tell you in good faith. It's the law. And the people who engage
in this are very proud of their professionalism and the steps they take.
For instance -- I'll go back through it again, because it's probably worth
reminding people. You have folks who have to have demonstrated maturity
before they're even allowed to get into the questioning program. There are
250 hours of original training, plus you have to have 40 hours working with
somebody who has already been authorized to do training before you can
engage in an interrogation. Also, in any interrogation, there is an outside
observer who, at any point, for any reason, can interrupt the questioning,
saying that they think that it's inappropriate and it can --

Q Can we know what the guidelines are in terms of how they're enforced or
interrogated --

MR. SNOW: No, the government will not tell you the precise questioning
techniques, for the reasons that have been outlined many times before,
which is that you do not want to give those who are apprehended, or
terrorists, the ability to plan in advance for techniques that might be
used. However, there are pretty extensive guidelines not only in this
particular legislation, but also in U.S. law and international treaty
obligations, that not only -- torture is completely out of the question,
but also so-called grave offenses that have been outlined in the Geneva
Conventions, and in fact, are mentioned in this law, as well.

For instance, cruel or inhumane treatment; performing biological
experiments; murder and mutilation and intentionally causing serious bodily
injury; rape, sexual assault or abuse; taking hostages. Those are obviously
the gravest infractions, but there are also -- within the law, in Section 6
of the law, that govern ways in which people may conduct these things.

Q But you're not suggesting this is an easy question-and-answer session?

MR. SNOW: No, I'm not suggesting anything. You may have seen one of the
stories where one of the most effective interrogators was described as a
grandmotherly person who made people friends. Keep in mind that ultimately
you want to have the condition where they are going to be cooperative. And
beyond that, I'm simply not going to --

Q You would need special legislation for that?

MR. SNOW: Don't know.

Q You said that it's classified on whether we believe in water-boarding.

MR. SNOW: No, I said I'm not going to talk about water-boarding, nor am I
going to talk about any other technique, real or imagined. That's been our
position from the start.

Q So how will the President convince Americans that the kind of
interrogation and the kind of pursuit of terrorists is something they can
be proud of?

MR. SNOW: Well, the question is -- it's interesting, if you live in an
atmosphere where people are automatically going to assume that people who
are serving their nation are doing so dishonorably -- and that would have
to be the assumption here, the people doing the questioning, in fact, are
rogue actors and not people acting scrupulously within the law and proud of
what they do -- then there's absolutely no way to persuade somebody. People
are not going to be able to see this. However, we have tried to make it as
transparent as possible by inviting in regularly the International
Committee of the Red Cross. You guys can go to Guantanamo any time you
want; many of you have been there.

Q What will be published in the Federal Register?

MR. SNOW: Well, again, that is one of the things that is going to be --
we're now at the stage where, in consultation with the Department of
Justice, you figure out the proper way to enact the law, and I can't tell
you.

Q But what is it? It's not lists of behavior, it's rough guidelines? What
will be --

MR. SNOW: Well, again, I would refer you to the language I just read to
you, because that is the language that determines what would be published
in the Federal Register.

Q What would be the consequences of a second North Korea nuclear test?

MR. SNOW: I think the consequences of a second North Korean nuclear test
would be the further isolation of North Korea. What you've seen already in
the case of the first test is that the United States and the Chinese are
working more closely together than ever before. And I daresay that they
would become even closer as strategic partners in trying to guarantee
safety in the Korean Peninsula.

Also, if the North Koreans think that in doing such a thing, in testing the
cooperation of the parties of the five-party talks, they're going to be
disappointed, because they're going to find out that the parties, in fact,
are resolved to make sure that the North Koreans renounce nuclear testing
and renounce nuclear weapons. And we've offered a whole series of positive
inducements and hope they'll take advantage.

Q What do you see --

MR. SNOW: You know we don't share that, Jim.

Q North Korea is calling the sanctions a declaration of war. Would you
pursue tougher sanctions if they go ahead with a second test?

MR. SNOW: I think at this point you just -- you go ahead and allow the
sanctions regime that has been adopted by the U.N. Security Council to
begin to work. Good heavens, you've got the Secretary of State right now
just making her way to the region; she's taking off today so that she can
consult with allies in terms of the enactment of those resolutions. I think
it would be premature to talk about any further steps.

Q Tony, to follow on Steve's question a little bit. What do you -- I've
seen the President asked several times about Kim Jong-il and he sort of
doesn't go there, necessarily. But I think it's a fair question now, as
Americans are beginning to hear there may be a second test, a third test,
in the face -- this guy, in the face of opposition that includes his
biggest trading partners, people he can usually count on, is continuing to
go down this road. So what is the impression that you're working under
about Kim Jong-il's sanity?

MR. SNOW: Well, one of the things you do is, in a situation like this,
we're just not going to get involved in the business of trying to do a
psychological evaluation of "Dear Leader." What we do is we take a look at
his actions and will respond with actions which we think are going to be
louder than words or psychological profiles.

Q But isn't it germane, as you're determining how to respond to him -- you
have to ask what do we got here?

MR. SNOW: Yes, we do.

Q And what kind of answers do you come up with?

MR. SNOW: Well, those are answers that people within the intelligence
community and the President share, but those are not things that I think
are particularly constructive to share publicly.

Q Let me ask you one on Iraq, because a lot came out yesterday about the
confidence the government may have in Maliki, or the questions they may
have. Does the Prime Minister have a functioning government, in your
opinion?

MR. SNOW: Yes. I mean, it's a government -- and, again, I'll go back to the
meeting we had when he brought most of his cabinet here to the states. I
think if you take a look at the security situation, there are clearly
difficulties in Baghdad and some of the other areas, and that is --

Q It's almost reached the point it's beyond "difficulties," hasn't it?

MR. SNOW: Well, I want to be careful because if I use too colorful a word
then, all of a sudden, that becomes a headline, so I'm trying to give you a
thoughtful and precise answer. And it is this: The security situation is
the most -- the biggest challenge facing the Maliki government right now.
You do have ongoing successes when it comes to developing an economic
infrastructure with energy and other things. So some of those metrics that
we've talked about in the past are improving. On the other hand, you've got
a security situation that you really have to deal with.

So what he told the President yesterday, and it appears in some places in
the USA Today interview, is that he's got three different -- he's
approaching the business of trying to create peace in three areas. Number
one, you've got to deal with the security stuff -- using force against bad
guys. Number two, you also have to have the political solution, which is
persuading some of the bad guys to come off the sidelines and join the
political process. And, number three, for those who have been fighters on
the other side, at some point you want them to lay down arms under the
rubric of reconciliation and, at the same time, you've got to have
something for them. And that means jobs, economic opportunities. So he's
talking about all those.

In addition, as we've said a lot of times, Jim, one of the real challenges
is getting the police right, because the police have been a problem.
General Casey said it, I've said it many times. And that is one of the
things that the Prime Minister is focusing on. He's already mentioned that
there have been shakeups at the interior ministry. He's determined to get
that piece right. There have been ongoing talks with Sunni tribal leaders
-- there are about a hundred tribal leaders who had a meeting with the
government about a week ago. You have seen some positive statements out of
some of the Shia leaders.

There's an understanding on both sides that people who are trying to foment
sectarian violence are doing their very best to pull -- now, what we do
have, and our assessment is that you still have an intact, functioning
government; you've got a military that becomes more capable; and you've got
to work on some of the other issues.

Q But in terms of these metrics that you talk about, if you're making the
case, this guy is really making it happen there, what do you throw out as
the single biggest success for Maliki right now? Let's leave the security
situation aside right now, because it's kind of hard to point to success.

MR. SNOW: Well, then, I'll tell you what, I'll go back and get my charts
and graphs and I'll send you something. But, I mean, I get a briefing --

Q -- Americans are asking the question right now. What's the big --

MR. SNOW: Well, again -- well, you expect "big" -- it's a war. And in a
time of war you have acts of violence, either concentrated or sporadic,
intended to capture people's attention. And I think what Americans want to
know is, are we in it to win and is this guy serious? And the answer to
both are, yes. That's maybe the most important thing. If you want to know
the biggest success, Maliki hasn't backed down. The Prime Minister is
saying to the forces that want to commit violence: You're not going to win.
And in the face of all else, that is not only an act of courage, but an act
of leadership.

Q Do you think that's enough for Americans right now, Maliki hasn't backed
down, as the biggest success?

MR. SNOW: People have to decide. I mean, that's -- you know what, his job
is to do what's right for the Iraqis. He's not sitting around reading
American polls. His job is to make sure that the forces of violence,
interior and those who are coming in from the outside, don't win. And we're
determined to help him succeed.

Q Tony, what about insurgents --

MR. SNOW: Okay, I'll tell you what. We'll do this, and then we've had some
problems in getting to the back rows, so I'm going to make sure that we get
to the others, too.

Q What's the administration's policy when it comes to talking to insurgents
in Iraq?

MR. SNOW: Well, there have been a number of conversations with people who
have said that they're willing to negotiate and talk about a peaceful path,
and we're willing to do that. But again, the lead player in all this is the
government of Prime Minister Maliki, and that is also something that is
involved in his reconciliation process. He has had a number of meetings and
some of the meetings with tribal leaders were designed to achieve that
goal. And he talks about the effect --

Q So not --

MR. SNOW: Well, again, it's not as if you've got a headquarters that says,
"Insurgency Central," and you've got this guy who is the CEO of the
insurgency. It doesn't quite work that way. As you know, what you have are
sometimes very loosely affiliated groups, and so, therefore, you rely not
only on the expertise, but also the motivation of the Iraqis to be dealing
with the people who may have the most influence. That, again, is why you
look to tribal leaders. It's why you look to important Shia religious and
political leaders, and we'll continue to do that.

Q So back channel it sounds like right now, but nothing direct with the
U.S. necessarily having military --

MR. SNOW: I don't even know -- again, what you're posing here is a
situation that doesn't quite make sense because, again, there are two
things insurgent leaders don't want -- they don't want you to know who they
are, and they don't want you to know where they live. Under such
circumstances, it's very difficult to have regular meetings with them. So
what you really have here is a situation in which the Iraqis have their own
way of communicating, sometimes through third parties. But let's reiterate,
reconciliation is a key part of what the Prime Minister is trying to do,
and it's very important -- and he is trying to be as creative and also as
exhaustive as possible.

Q Does the U.S. have a strong voice, though, in helping to determine who is
a terrorist, who is an insurgent? What if someone has American -- the blood
of American soldiers on his hands? Is that someone the U.S. would be okay
with the Iraqi government sitting down with?

MR. SNOW: Again, we are really -- I think we've been through this before.
The Prime Minister is the person who will make the determinations on how to
proceed. What we're doing is we're operating in a support role, but we're
certainly not going to dictate orders to him. It would be inappropriate.

Q Tony, what are the accountability measures within this act as far as the
secret prisons?

MR. SNOW: Again, we don't talk about that program, so what I will tell you
is that people -- but what happens here, if you look at the law, it says
that anybody who deals -- who violates the law with anybody who is within
American jurisdiction or administration are going to be punished. And it
outlines a series of punishments and it also outlines the acts for which
they could be punished.

Q So you're saying there are accountability measures --

MR. SNOW: Of course. For anybody who is under American jurisdiction.

Q The ICRC can't visit these places, though, can they? What you said
earlier --

MR. SNOW: So far they haven't, but again, I'm not --

Q The secret prisons?

MR. SNOW: Again, we're not going to -- what you're trying to do is to
question me about something that we don't talk about. So --

Q That's the point. If it's secret, you're going to keep it secret.

MR. SNOW: That is correct.

Q And some are questioning the accountability -- who's checking to make
sure you're following this law.

MR. SNOW: Well, again, if you take a look at the techniques that have been
laid out -- let me put it this way: I think, for any of you who have been
out working with, dealing with the men and women who are in the American
military, you're impressed by the professionalism. The people who are
involved in these programs are the most mature of folks involved in this
kind of activity, and they take very seriously their professional charge. I
think it is reasonable to assume that if something bad happens, you'd find
out about it.

Q Tony, do you have anything on the government stopping the Guantanamo Bay
detainees' suits from going forward?

MR. SNOW: I'm sorry, what?

Q The government stopping Guantanamo detainees' suits today, I believe --

MR. SNOW: I don't know anything about -- call me back later and I'll -- I'm
not sure I know what you're talking about.

Q Tony, it seems like we can't ask a question about this without impugning
the integrity of the people conducting the --

MR. SNOW: Well, that would be correct, because what you're -- now what
you're --

Q But that's not fair.

MR. SNOW: Sure it is. I mean, what you're saying is -- what you're -- the
insinuation is -- perhaps I'm wrong, Jim, but you're asking, what happens
if they break the law or commit torture, correct?

Q Which has, what, never happened before in the history of the government?

MR. SNOW: Well, I'll tell you what, I think what you do have are people --
there's a record within -- not only within this administration, but also
within military circles, where when people misbehave, they take it very
seriously. They see it as a blemish upon their honor and their
responsibility. So there are, written into this law, real punishments for
people who get involved -- who break the law. And so what you're saying is,
even if we can't see them, how can we trust them? Isn't that your question?

Q The question is, how do you allow people -- how do you impart any degree
of transparency, which I think has been a sort of underpinning of all parts
of our legal system?

MR. SNOW: Well, but on the other hand, you're dealing with an unusual
situation here. Transparency has never been part of the bargain when you
are dealing with --

Q How about accountability, then?

MR. SNOW: Accountability is there. It is written into the law. And the only
way accountability doesn't exist is if you believe that the military is not
committed to it, and that the people involved in the program are not
committed to it.

Q Is Congress impugning the military by writing this law in the first
place?

MR. SNOW: No --

Q -- to write laws regulating this behavior. Isn't that also impugning the
--

MR. SNOW: No, as a matter of fact, we got to this point because of a
Supreme Court decision.

Q But Congress still wrote the law and they wrote --

MR. SNOW: Well, of course, because --

Q -- infractions and punishment in the law.

MR. SNOW: Exactly.

Q They must not be presuming that everybody in the military is going to be
100 percent --

MR. SNOW: No, I think they wanted to make sure -- no, if you recall, the
debate was, first under Hamdan, the Supreme Court said, Congress, you do
it. So that's why Congress did it.

Secondly, Congress also had to figure out a way to incorporate Common
Article III which does, in fact, deal with infractions of this sort. So as
part of the regular process of doing this definition, it's not impugning,
it's, in fact, giving specificity to the items in Common Article III. And
you can't do that without laying out the conditions that would fall under
--

Q I'm sorry. The logic of what you're saying is that the military should
not be subject to laws --

MR. SNOW: No, no, that's not what I'm saying.

Q To do so is to presuppose that they may do --

MR. SNOW: No, no, no.

Q -- and we can't do that, is what you're saying.

MR. SNOW: No, it's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that they are
subject to laws. What you're saying is, if we can't look over their
shoulders, how do we know the law applies.

Q Exactly. How do you -- how can you enforce the law if you --

MR. SNOW: Well, again, because you do have accountability. You have outside
actors looking in on every juncture. It is built in. And therefore, there
are measures that are taken within this.

Q Who are the outside actors?

MR. SNOW: They are independent of the questioning that's going on. But
they've also been trained in taking a look at what the proper guidelines
are for interrogation under the law, trying to make sure that people do not
go beyond the boundaries of a proper interrogation.

Q You won't say who they are --

MR. SNOW: These are people who work for the federal government who are
charged with doing it.

Q They're not independent if they're working for the federal government.

MR. SNOW: They're independent of the questioning. Let me -- well, never
mind. Go ahead.

Q No, what were you going to say?

MR. SNOW: No, it's -- it would be snarky, and that's not worthy of me.

Q Oh, come on.

Q Do you expect this law to end up back in the Supreme Court --

MR. SNOW: No. I mean, our legal team spent a great deal of time working
hard on this. One of the reasons you didn't have, for instance, a signing
statement is that we think it all passed constitutional muster. And the
people who worked on it have worked very hard. So we'll see.

Q It was already under challenge even before it's been signed.

MR. SNOW: Well, then, in that case, it will end up before a court, but
we'll see what the courts say.

Q Do you think -- this has been described as a compromise. The President
basically got everything he wanted, didn't he?

MR. SNOW: Pretty much, yes.

Q Tony? Two questions. Does the President believe that the American
Revolution, led by George Washington, should be compared to Hamas, with
their charters Article 15, which calls for the destruction of Israel, and
Article 7, which calls for the killing of Jews?

MR. SNOW: No.

Q Good. In Secretary Condoleezza Rice's speech last week to the American
Task Force on Palestine, she said, "I believe that there could be no
greater legacy for America than to help bring into being a Palestinian
state for a people who have been been humiliated too long." My question,
since the Palestinian Authority's President, Mahmoud Abbas, co-founded
Fatah with Arafat and funded the Munich massacre of the Israeli Olympic
team, and wrote his Ph.D. thesis denying the existence of the Holocaust,
how can the President agree with Secretary Rice that it would be a great
legacy to have a Palestinian state run by Abbas and Hamas?

MR. SNOW: I believe he did not say, run by Abbas and Hamas. But on the
other hand, Prime Minister Abbas has also demonstrated a willingness to
pursue democracy and work directly with Israel. And he stands absolutely
behind what the Secretary of State said.

Q He said he's ready to recognize Israel, are you saying?

MR. SNOW: I think we've long since recognized Israel.

Q No, beg your pardon?

MR. SNOW: You're talking about Abbas, I'm sorry. Yes, they talked about
recognizing Israel within the context of the settlement.

Q I can't recall that.

MR. SNOW: Okay. Victoria.

Q Tony, when the high-profile prisoners were transferred to Guantanamo, we
were told that the CIA prisons were empty.

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q Are they still empty?

MR. SNOW: That I will not answer.

Q We were told that they were empty. So you're --

MR. SNOW: They were empty. Well, that's what --

Q You told us something about them, so they weren't entirely secret.

MR. SNOW: That is correct, but I'm not at liberty to make any further
announcements about --

Q Initially, you told us that they didn't exist, and then the President
told us all about them.

MR. SNOW: No, what the President said is that there were --these were
people who were detained. I don't believe anybody has ever talked about
secret prisons. That is a -- they've talked about detention facilities.
Whether they qualify as secret prisons, or not, I don't know.

Q So then it's just language --

MR. SNOW: No, no, it's not just language. Well, in any event, I'm not at
liberty to go any further into what may or may not be happening, and I will
leave that to the CIA Director.

Q Why is it not possible to know if -- not necessarily who, but just to
know if there's anybody there?

MR. SNOW: Because that's just the way it is.

Q You said "dormant" yesterday. Do you stick by that comment?

MR. SNOW: I said it was -- no, I said it was dormant during the period --
what happened was, when there was no law it was described as being dormant.
This was a program that could no longer go forward. And I am not at liberty
to divulge any further details about what may have happened in the last two
hours since the law was signed -- or hour and a half.

Q Can I just go back one more time --

MR. SNOW: Yes, sure.

Q I'm trying to develop some sense of a way to get my arms around this. If
you have a police department in the United States conducting
interrogations, and they police themselves, and the public never has any
idea about what's going on behind their closed doors -- of interrogation
techniques, there probably wouldn't -- it doesn't smack of something that's
American. It probably runs -- and to question those police officers is not
an un-American thing, is it, to question --

MR. SNOW: Well, as you know, there are within police departments internal
affairs departments which take a look at things, and there are analogous
departments within the military that take a look at these things. But
again, if you have run-of-the-mill prisoners, these things may apply. Jim,
these people are so bad that their host governments don't want them back. I
mean, so the point is you're dealing with very dangerous characters. It's a
very small group of people we're talking about. And they have not
traditionally been accorded exactly the same level of transparency.
However, what they have been guaranteed are their full rights. They have
legal representation, they have the ability to appeal in court, they have
the ability to appeal about the admissibility of evidence. They have all
these rights. I mean, all of this is in the law. And furthermore, if
somebody is construed to have gone over the line in the questioning, that
is something that also can be adjudicated.

Q But that's the difference here, is the quality of the detainee we're
talking about?

MR. SNOW: It's the unique nature of the detainees.

Q -- that allows for a different procedure --

MR. SNOW: It's a different procedure, but it is the same effort to
guarantee representation and human rights.

Q You said you would follow up on a question yesterday related to common
law marriage --

MR. SNOW: Oh, and I forgot to. I apologize, I'll do that. So what again --
it's common law marriage, whether that --

Q Well, it's the legal reasoning the administration uses for gay marriage
bans -- repeatedly says that the President believes in the sanctity of
marriage and that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Well, my
question is that this legal status is -- protection under the law is given
to unmarried men and women as long as they live together --

MR. SNOW: I guess -- the reason it hasn't come up is that I'm not sure
there have been any shacking up bans. But when they arise, it might be time
for an official opinion.

Q Well, if I may ask one other question --

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q -- with respect to domestic partners. Is there any reason or -- why is
that not discriminatory if a man and woman who are unmarried get the same
protections under the law as a married man and woman, but domestic partners
aren't given the same --

MR. SNOW: That is something -- again, this gets you into federalism issues
and I would refer that to the several states which have different ways of
treating it.

Q Thank you.

MR. SNOW: Okay, thank you.

END 1:38 P.M. EDT

===========================================================================
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061017-3.html

 * Origin: (1:3634/12)