John Bellinger: ‘Bush and Obama Terrorism Policies Very Similar’
Mar 16th, 2010 | 10 responses
It is my impression that, for whatever reasons, politicians and government officials (including ex-politicians—if one could ever find one of those— and ex-government officials) are more open and candid when giving interviews to foreign correspondents.
A couple of weeks ago, I commented on “one of the most interesting and candid interviews that a foreign newspaper has conducted with one of our politicians recently.”
It was an interview that Tom-Jan Meeus, Washington correspondent for the Dutch NRC Handelsblad, conducted with former Republican congressman Tom Tancredo. In it, Tancredo spoke his mind freely and not so flatteringly about John McCain and Sarah Palin.
Meeus has snapped up another frank and candid interview; this time with John Bellinger III, who spent eight years in the Bush administration as legal adviser to Condoleezza Rice and as a senior associate White House counsel and legal adviser to the National Security Council.
Considered a moderate voice in the Bush administration, Bellinger found himself often in the middle of controversy and in conflict with more conservative members of the administration because of his views on issues such as torture, presidential war powers, rights of Guantanamo prisoners, and the Guantanamo prison itself.
Bellinger also happens to be one of 19 prominent Republican lawyers who signed a letter blasting a group led by Liz Cheney that recently put out a shameless video questioning the loyalty of officials at the Department of Justice, calling the Department the “Department of Jihad,” and referring to seven of the nine lawyers as the “Al Qaeda Seven.”
Meeus starts his interview with Bellinger with a question on this issue.
Meeus: What is “shameless” about the attacks?
John Bellinger:
The U.S. has had a long-standing tradition of private lawyers representing unpopular causes, whether they agree with the causes or not. And I and the others who signed the letter believe it is utterly inappropriate to criticize those individuals, and to question their motives, now they are in government. These lawyers work in the tradition of John Adams [America’s second president] who risked his personal popularity by giving legal counsel to British soldiers who had been involved in the Boston Massacre [in which British soldiers killed U.S. citizens in 1770].
After a few more comments on this issue (”…I really wanted to stand up and condemn this terrible video: enough is enough, this has got to stop.”), the interview turns to Guantanamo.
You already favoured closing Gitmo while in the Bush administration. Do you expect the Obama administration to succeed in their plan to close it?
By about 2003, certainly 2004, I concluded that it should be closed. And in the following four years I tried to accomplish that at the state department. We got to the point that the president stated the intention. Of course no one believed him, but we were quietly doing the work necessary to get it done. We got 500 people transferred out but no European country wanted to work with us.
Bellinger then expresses hope that Obama will succeed in closing Guantanamo, “But it will be difficult.”
As to trying terrorists in civilian courts:
The possibility has been raised that Khalid Sheikh Mohamed will not be tried in a civilian court. How do you see that?
I hope it is not true. I think the administration would prefer that not to happen. It will be an embarrassing reversal of their policies. It will make their base really unhappy. And federal trials are really the right thing to do here. I don’t think it is an easy call. I don’t think you try everyone in federal court. These are people who have committed federal crimes but also attacked the U.S. And it is hard to tell at this point where the Obama administration will come out. I think the administration is still trying to do this at a safe facility, perhaps a military base. I know they have explored both the legality and the practicality of establishing a federal court, for a one-time purpose, in the middle of a military base.
The interview concludes with questions—and surprising answers—harking back to the title of Meeus’ piece, “Bellinger: ‘Obama’s terror policy identical to Bush’s'” and, in my opinion, probably the most controversial aspect of the interview.
The bottom line is that the Bush and Obama terrorism policies are very similar?
Oh, absolutely. The military commissions have been maintained. The policy of rendition has been maintained. The idea of holding people indefinitely under the laws of war and without trials has been maintained. There has been no movement on the Geneva Conventions. The president has said he affirms the conventions but the president has not announced that he holds these people as prisoners of war. So all the policies that soured U.S. relations with Europe during the Bush administration have been continued. There has been more continuity than change.
And finally,
So what you’re saying is: Secretary Rice could have easily executed Obama’s terror policies?
I think that many of the initiatives she took as secretary of state have been continued by the Obama administration. The big policy changes were implemented on her watch, in Bush’s second term. And Obama obviously has the same pragmatic and moderate approach.
Do you agree with Bellinger that Obama’s anti-terrorism policies are “very similar” to Bush’s?
To read the entire interview, please click here.
Image: Courtesy NRC Handelsblad
10 Responses to “John Bellinger: ‘Bush and Obama Terrorism Policies Very Similar’”
i think the very fact that we don't torture detainees anymore means their respective policies are NOT identical.
That's one good example.
HA HA HA HA. Right.
I guess you don't count the fact that the Obama administration continues the practices of rendition and having foreign governments that are more than willing to use 'harsh interrogation techniques' do the dirty work on our behalf.
And no one said the Obama and Bush policies were identical, so you are setting up a false straw-man to attack. The comment was, and has been, from both the Left and the Right, they that are remarkably similar, with very little difference, not that they are identical.
_Schadenfreude lives_: you're responding to me?
yes, bush/obama policies on treatment of terror suspects – outside of sanctioning torture – are very similar. it wasn't my intention to suggest otherwise. (but tell me, isn't a “straw-man” false by definition?). and “no one said”? i was literally responding to the statement: “Bellinger: ‘Obama’s terror policy identical to Bush’s”,
but you do know there's a difference between simple rendition and extraordinary rendition, right? and that there's an executive order specifying just how and and when and why prisoners are to be transported across jurisdictions (i.e., not for “special treatment” by our less savory allies)?
now, i could could go on and on about what i DON'T like about obama's policies. i'm not a knee-jerk defender of the guy. but neither do i begrudge him muddling through the mess he's inherited as best he can. the president can't be a pacifist; there are fanatics with bombs, and they aren't wearing uniforms. i'm well aware that it's tricky legal territory out there; but my own particular gripe is with the executive subverting or ignoring the laws we DO have simply because it's convenient to do so.
One place he says that in the title, but then the actual question and response is about 'similar', which is stated three times in that language.
granted: the word “identical” was used originally by the given author language (not exactly “no one”, though, now is it?), but “similar” is indeed what we're discussing here.
so, now that we've cleared up our little semantics problem, are you going to address the more substantive parts of my comment?
Yes indeed I do. Do you, or more specifically, are you aware of the Obama Administration's position on extraordinary rendition?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/us/politics/2…
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=…
well, that's why i specified *extraordinary* rendition, which involves the torture and stuff. rendition itself has been around since there were nation-states. perhaps torture is still taking place during rendition? i dunno. i tend to lend as much credence to GlobalResearch.ca as i do alex jones and Infowars, but i freely admit my bias.
and for the record, handing over suspects to the government where s/he happens to be a citizen? not torture. (at least, not usually. again, the blurry edges of international law.)
Oh, excuse the F out of me for offending your sensibilities by using a version of the article form a publication you find distasteful. Nevermind what it says, oir how factual it was, we cannot accept truth except fro those that share our views, huh?
Well, the person who wrote the actual article is Sherwood Ross, hardly a Republican apologist.
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/24694
And the Times? Are you among those that think it is a right-leaning arm of the Republican party, only a half-step above Fox News?
Same for questions about Jonathan Gurwitz of the San Antonio Express-New, who wrote the article quoted in The Deseret News?
of course there are sources i think twice about before considering them seriously, and of course i'd have to check the veracity of the stories and whatnot before discounting or accepting them. but just because “a source” claims something and a journalist accurately reports that fact, doesn't necessarily make it true, even if it is news.
but wow! i must be mellowing with age or something. you really have a nice-sized chip on your shoulder, don't you? i'll leave you to that.