Ashcroft: 9/11 Commission ignored facts

< Prev | 1 | 2

OLBERMANN: On that subject, and the topic also of 9/11, I’m sure you’re aware of the reaction to another new book, Bob Woodward’s “State of Denial,” specifically his claim that then NSA Adviser Rice had gotten a briefing on July 10^th, 2001 about the growing threat of al Qaeda attacks.

After some research, her office confirmed that, and as part of that confirmation from Dr. Rice’s office, her spokesman says she had then asked that you be given the same briefing that she had received at that time.

Were you given that briefing, and if so, what measures did you take?

ASHCROFT: We were given briefings all through that period of time, which was a time when a great deal was spoken of elevated risk levels. I specifically queried the individuals providing me with the briefings—and I suspect she did the same—about whether these were domestic or whether these were threat levels that were in line with the kind of damage we had received in our embassies in Eastern Africa and to the USS Cole when it had been docked in Yemen and the boat bomb came and took the lives of a number of our sailors.

Story continues below ↓

I was over and over again told upon my—in response to my inquiry that there was no evidence of domestic threat.

The real question, I guess, here is, what was the nature of the briefing? No one denies that we were getting briefings regularly through the summer, and there were indications about elevated threat levels. I just simply did not get indication, even upon specific inquiry, that there was an elevated or anticipated threat level based on any evidence that there would be attacks in the United States.

OLBERMANN: In your new book, you have defended some of the more imposing efforts to fight terror and terrorism, and this subject is particularly relevant right now, because the president is set to sign the Military Commissions Act tomorrow, which is going to codify some of those efforts into law.

I’d like to read one of the definitions in the act and ask you a hypothetical about it, if I may. “The term ‘unlawful enemy combatant’ means -- (I), a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co- belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant.”

What is there in this new law that would check the president—or any president, not in terms of tradition or in terms of common sense nor even in terms of fear of bad publicity—but in that measure itself, if a president claims that you or I materially supported hostilities against America and declares us unlawful enemy combatants and he wants to send you and I off to Guantanamo Bay, where in the law does it say the president can’t do that?

ASHCROFT: Well, let me just first indicate that I have not read this new statute in its completeness.

I do believe that the president should have the authority to designate individuals who bear arms or take up hostility against the United States as enemy combatants. I think in doing so, the president has a responsibility to have a process that is consistent with the Constitution.

We have a president; we don’t have a king. And he has to make a determination based on facts.

Holding anyone who is bearing arms against the United States pending the outcome of the conflict is—or against any country—is long recognized as something that is part of having war. And when you have a war, you’ve got to be able to take prisoners. If you don’t, the alternative is to kill all the people that you encounter, and certainly that is not what we want done.

So the ability of a president to apprehend those fighting against the country and to take them out of the stream of conflict so that they’re not fighting our own flesh and blood that is representing the country in defense of freedom is a humanitarian thing, to move them out of the stream rather than reinsert them with an ability to again assault our own people.

OLBERMANN: But to flip Archibald Cox’s old bromide on its head from the Watergate days, is there not a risk in this of this country becoming a nation of men and not laws, rather than laws and not men?

ASHCROFT: Well, I really don’t think so. It’s a risk that we’ve endured now for well over 200 years. Presidents in all kinds of conflicts have supervised the executive branch defense the United States, and when they are having encountered an enemy and they have not killed the enemy and the enemy has surrendered, we have taken them as prisoners. Or when we have captured enemy, we have taken them as prisoners and we detain them pending the outcome of the conflict.

And I believe it would be morally wrong to release them to take another shot at our team, so to speak. And it is part and parcel of the responsibility of the—of responsible war making entities, let alone terrorists, but any war making that is done in defense of a culture or society involves taking prisoners and maintaining them until the outcome has been determined.

OLBERMANN: Lastly, sir, your book is coming out almost simultaneously with that of a former staffer of yours, David Kuo. His is called “Tempting Faith,” and I don’t believe I’m putting words into his mouth when I summarize his conclusion there that he feels Mr. Bush’s administration took political advantage of conservative Christians, that the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives was referred to in scatological terms by Karl Rove, that—not Mr.

Rove but others in the administration—dismissed various religious leaders behind their backs as nuts and such.

The White House has called Mr. Kuo’s credibility into question. Which would best describe the David Kuo that you worked with—Christian, conservative, credible, fibber? Which would you say?

ASHCROFT: Well, when I authored the charitable choice portions of the law, David Kuo was on my staff and he was very helpful in helping us put together this opportunity to level the playing field, so that faith-based organizations were not excluded from the opportunity of providing on a contract basis services to the government, just like other organizations frequently do when the government turns to private contractors.

In that setting, he performed his responsibilities in assisting me in the development of that law.

I must add, however, that the kinds of things that he’s talked about in conjunction with this administration do not comport with my experience there, and as a matter of fact, I think what he—at least as it relates to the charitable choice provisions and faith-based organizations opportunities, when he left the office at the White House, it is my understanding that he commended the performance of the administration in achieving the objectives of the statute which we wrote.

OLBERMANN: The former attorney general of the United States, John Ashcroft, whose new book is called “Never Again.” Great thanks for your time and being with us, sir.

ASHCROFT: My pleasure. Thank you.

Watch 'Countdown' each weeknight at 8 p.m. ET

< Prev | 1 | 2

Discuss Story On Newsvine
Rate Story:
View popularLowHigh
Email
Instant Message
Print