Bellinger: 'Obama's terror policy identical to Bush's'

Former Bush official John Bellinger feels Obama’s terror policies are little different to his former chief’s.

President Obama’s new approach to fighting terrorism is still very much a work in progress. He has banned torture. But Guantanamo Bay remains open. The practice of ‘rendition’ by the CIA continues to be part of U.S. policy. And Republican Senator Lindsay Graham confirmed over the weekend that he is having talks with the administration to try the suspected mastermind of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohamed, in a military tribunal, not a civilian court as the administration had previously announced.

Meanwhile, the Cheney family is pushing hard to spread the perception that Obama is weak on terror. A group led by Liz Cheney, daughter of former vice president Dick Cheney, recently put out a video that questions the loyalty of nine officials of the department of justice.

The nine lawyers gave legal council to suspected terrorists before they attained their current position in the Obama administration. In the video, it is suggested that Obama’s justice department is in fact a “ministry of jihad”, while supporters of Cheney have referred to the officials as the “Al-Qaeda nine”.

Prominent Republican lawyers responded last week with a fierce statement that claims Cheney’s advocacy group, Keep America Safe, is conducting “shameless attacks” with a “destructive” impact on the debate over legal proceedings to fight terrorism.

The statement was co-signed by Kenn Starr (the conservative special prosecutor who almost brought down Bill Clinton over the Lewinsky scandal), David Rivkin (a former Justice department official in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush) and John Bellinger, who was the legal counsel of secretary of state Condoleezza Rice in George W. Bush’s second term.

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].”

But isn’t this simply politically smart?

“I suspect they see some political advantage here. We have seen an increasing politicisation of terrorism issues over the last eight years. That is terribly sad. These are very serious issues. The underlying problem is of course that the country cannot bind together on this issue. We have not seen a group in Congress that tries to find common ground. Of course we have already seen this inside the Bush administration. It is well known that we had great battles about this. So I really wanted to stand up and condemn this terrible video: enough is enough, this has got to stop.”

And do you expect that to happen?

“No, I don’t. But I do believe that if you have so many serious people condemning this it can help.”

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.”

“I hope Obama succeeds. But it will be difficult. It is nearly impossible to get it closed in an election year, which means it won’t happen in 2010 or 2012. They have a narrow window in 2011. It will require the administration to convince the Democratic majority – if there still is one – to support them. So I don’t think it will happen this year, and it may not happen in the next three years.”

“There is certainly a bit of chortling among some former colleagues in the Bush administration: you guys thought this was easy, huh? But I personally take no pleasure in it. I would like to see Gitmo closed. I would like to see trials for the 9/11 planners in federal court. The approach of the Obama administration is pragmatic and middle of the road and I have no problem supporting it.”

Did the president make mistakes?

“They failed to understand the political opposition. They didn’t realise the American people don’t feel about Gitmo as Europeans do. The stunning thing about this is that huge Democratic majorities in the Congress rejected the signature foreign policy initiative the president announced on his first day in office. They obviously didn’t see it coming. They should have built up the support they needed.”

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.”

People say that closing Gitmo is probably going to be easier if they shift to a military tribunal.

“That is obviously something the Obama administration is looking at.”

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.”

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.”