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
