|
U.S. SENATOR PATRICK
LEAHY
|
CONTACT: Office of Senator
Leahy, 202-224-4242 |
VERMONT |
Opening
Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy
Ranking Democratic Member
Business Meeting Of The Committee On The Judiciary
June 24, 2004
Importance of Investigating the Prisoner Abuse Scandal
I wish to say only a few more words about the issues
that concerned us at our most recent meetings—the need for this Committee
to fulfill its duties to the Senate and the American people and
investigate the facts and circumstances that led to the international
prisoner abuse scandal.
Last week this Committee had the opportunity to act
and did not. We came to the Committee with a proposal to begin a
thoroughgoing inquiry. We were flexible and in the course of last week’s
discussion limited our subpoena request to a few documents, we clarified
exceptions for current investigations, we invited compromise, we offered a
delayed trigger on the subpoena, and we offered many other accommodations.
We were rebuffed on a party-line vote. All Republican Senators voted
against authorizing a subpoena to even a limited number of documents on a
delayed basis.
Last night the Senate had the opportunity to act and
did not. The Senate cleared its throat but did not speak. The cough came
when a bipartisan Senate majority rejected the Hatch motion to table an
amendment to direct the Attorney General to cooperate with this Committee
and produce to us the relevant documents. I want to acknowledge that
Senator McCain, the only POW serving in the Senate; Senator Hagel, a
distinguished combat veteran; Senator Graham, who is not only a Member of
the Armed Services Committee but an officer in the reserves; and Senators
Specter and DeWine all voted in a way that appeared consistent with their
wanting to get to work and get to the bottom of these matters.
Unfortunately, when the subsequent vote was tallied on the amendment
itself, they all switched sides and voted against the amendment, against
putting the Senate on record as seeking documents from the Executive.
Perhaps they were sending a message to the Bush Administration -- only they
can say. In the end, all Republican Senators voted in a party-line vote
against the Senate directing the Attorney General to cooperate with this
Committee and furnish relevant documents to an investigation of the
widespread prisoner abuses. Our efforts to investigate this matter have
been delayed yet again.
I have been seeking the straight story on torture for
more than a year. Two weeks ago the Attorney General refused Members’
requests for information and documents and would not answer our questions.
Over the past two weeks the Attorney General has failed to produce
information, despite his chats with the Chairman. I noted during the
Senate debate that we each had a choice, either to circle the wagons in
defense of the Administration or act as a co-equal branch of our national
government to obtain the needed information or to begin to act as a check
on the Executive. The White House and the Republican leadership circled
the wagons to block the Senate and this Committee from doing the right
thing and investigating what contributed to the misconduct that has sparked
criticism around the world and a propaganda bonanza for terrorist
organizations.
I do want to thank the Chairman for his efforts at
cajoling the Administration into releasing a small subset of memoranda. Two
days ago, with much fanfare, the White House make public a limited set of
documents relating to the treatment of al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners
captured in Afghanistan. The White House chose what documents to release
to try to tell the story they wanted to tell.
Those documents serve to confirm what we have been
reading in press accounts. They do not, however, provide a complete
picture of what happened and why, who did what and when, and who knew what
and when. They do not even come close. For example, this morning’s
Washington Post describes the tense discussions that took place between
the State Department and the White House over the application of the Geneva
Conventions to suspected terrorists. The Post article is based on a
memo from State Department legal counsel William Taft—a memo that was not
released by the White House. In fact, no State Department memos were
released by the White House.
I compliment the press and the American people for not
falling victim to the Administration’s public relations campaign. The
American people continue to seek the truth about the facts and
circumstances that led to the prisoner abuse scandal. So should many of us
but we have yet to engage in anything approaching effective action or
oversight.
More
Disturbing Facts Emerge About Prisoner Abuse
Since the last executive meeting of this Committee,
this scandal has continued to unfold:
- After extensive investigation, The Guardian
newspaper uncovered widespread evidence of violent abuse and sexual
humiliation of prisoners in Bagram and other U.S. detention centers
around Afghanistan.
- A Federal grand jury indicted a CIA contractor for
brutally assaulting a detainee in Afghanistan in June 2003.
- Defense Secretary Rumsfeld admitted that in
November 2003, he ordered a prisoner held incommunicado, off the prison
rolls and out of sight of the International Committee of the Red Cross.
This “ghost detainee” then got lost in the system and, despite his high
intelligence value, received only a cursory initial interview while in
detention. Major General Taguba later criticized the practice of
holding ghost detainees as “deceptive, contrary to Army doctrine, and in
violation of international law.”
- The New York Times reported that military
lawyers and some colonels received memos citing complaints of abuse at
Abu Ghraib in November 2003 – two months before photographic evidence of
abuse prompted the military to launch an investigation.
- Evidence is mounting that the majority of
detainees at Guantanamo Bay are not “the worst of the worst,” as the
Administration has asserted, but rather low-level recruits or even
innocent men swept up in the chaos of war.
That is some of what we learned last week, mostly
through the press. Meantime, we have not begun to do real oversight on
these issues.
Unanswered Questions
The small subset of documents finally released by the
White House under mounting public pressure offers only glimpses into the
genesis of this scandal. All of these documents could and should have been
provided earlier to Congress, and much more remains held back and hidden
away from public view. For the Judiciary Committee, the Senate and the
American people to find the whole truth, we will need much more cooperation
and extensive hearings.
The limited group of select documents that the White
House chose to release raise more questions than they answer. For example:
- Did the President sign any orders or directives
regarding prisoners’ detention and interrogation after January 2002?
Did he sign any with regard to prisoners in Iraq? Why won’t Judge
Gonzales comment on what the President said or ordered? Why won’t
Attorney General Ashcroft give a complete and accurate answer to my
question with regard to presidential directives?
The Attorney General refused to answer what was
perhaps the single most important question I put to him at our hearing on
June 8. I asked whether, in addition to the Attorney General’s reference
to the February 2002 presidential memorandum, has
there been any other order or directive from the president with respect to
interrogation of detainees, prisoners or combatants?” The
Attorney
General’s non-answer was: “I’m unable to tell you more . . . at this
time.” If other presidential memoranda, orders,
authorizations or directives exist, then they are being hidden from us and
from the American people. The Administration will not even confirm what
other orders exist.
Chairman Hatch referred last week to what he called
the “reluctance” of the Attorney General to agree to provide documents and
answers at the early June hearing. Maybe we were at different hearings
because it was not “reluctance” that I observed. It was stonewalling. I
have said that I have not seen that kind of an appearance by a high-ranking
government official since the days of Watergate. I agree with Senator
Feinstein: The Attorney General essentially thumbed his nose at us.
We know that certain high-level al Qaeda suspects are
being held in detention in secret locations and subjected to coercive
interrogation. Where are the documents to and from the CIA that describe
what actions intelligence agents have taken and provide a legal
justification for those actions? The press has reported that in the
briefing Judge Gonzales gave the press on Tuesday—not to us mind you, but a
briefing to the press to try to sell a story—he would not answer questions
about the CIA and whether other orders governed its detention and
interrogation practices.
Just last week, a Federal grand jury indicted a CIA
contractor for brutally beating a prisoner in Afghanistan in June 2003.
That prisoner died the next day. Yet the White House still refused to
produce documents and information involving the CIA.
Some Administration defenders keep recycling the same discredited
talking points about this being only a few “bad apples” in Iraq. The facts
ferreted out by the press have exposed the fallacy in that assertion. For
example, for some time there have been reports about a U.S. soldier who
posed as an uncooperative detainee during a training exercise with military
police at Guantanamo. That soldier suffered traumatic brain injury at the
hands of a reaction force. After its initial explanations were
discredited, the Army has now opened a criminal investigation into this
matter, as well. That was at Guantanamo, not Abu Ghraib, and it was an
American soldier who was gravely injured, not a suspected terrorist or
member of the Iraqi resistance.
I have many more questions regarding what the Administration has
released and held back:
- Why didn’t the White House release the State
Department memos that reportedly argue strongly against the DOJ and
White House desire to flout the Geneva Conventions? Where are the JAG
objections for the professional military attorneys that we have heard
and read about? Why were these materials not produced?
- Where are the documents that led to the memoranda
that were generated before January 22, 2002, and the documents generated
after April 16, 2003? The latter would be documents most relevant to
activities in Iraq. No documents from the Iraqi occupation period were
provided at all. None.
- Now that the press has released the August 2002
Justice Department memorandum, the White House has chosen to provide a
copy of that which was already posted on many public web sites. The
production serves to authenticate the document, which includes many
chilling arguments about unlimited power in the Presidency unchecked by
treaties, laws, the Congress or the courts. That memorandum took the
stunning position that the President and those acting under his
authority are not bound by U.S. laws and international treaties
prohibiting torture. Apparently Judge Gonzales is now disavowing the
memorandum. Because we have not had the opportunity to question him and
the Attorney General would not answer our questions, we do not know if
the reports of the Administration’s disaffection with these arguments
made by Mr. Bybee and Mr. Yoo amounts to one of tone or substance. Is
it like the pictures of prisoner abuse for this Administration? That
is, now that the report has been made public, do they simply abhor it
being public, or do they actually now reject the overreaching arguments
advanced by the Department of Justice?
- Does anyone seriously doubt that the Justice
Department memo of August 2002, which attempts to justify the use of
torture, will be Defense Exhibit Number 1 at any trial of any U.S.
personnel charged in connection with this prisoner abuse scandal? John
Yoo, one of the authors of the memo, said in a television interview this
week that he expected defense attorneys to try to use the memo as part
of their defense. You bet they will. It is not often that the Justice
Department provides future defendants with a roadmap for violating U.S.
law and escaping punishment.
- Did the Administration rely on the opinions of the
Justice Department as the President’s February 7, 2002 memorandum says
they did and the Defense Department indicates that it did? If there is
a change in policy, what was the policy before and what is it now?
- Apparently Judge Gonzales wants the memo
rewritten. When will we see that new memo? Would anyone venture a
guess when, if ever, this Administration will finally open a dialogue
with the people’s duly elected representatives in the Congress of the
United States over what our government’s policy is and should be?
- The August 2002 legal memorandum also seeks to
redefine the meaning of “torture” for purposes of international law and
our government’s policies and practices.
- If the Administration now views the Justice
Department positions as “irrelevant,” what is the Administration’s
policy and on what does that policy rest? What exactly is the
definition of “torture” that the President uses when he says he rejects
torture? Are this Administration’s high-sounding declarations merely
self-serving conclusions based on sophistry and their own internal,
secret redefinitions?
-
There also remain the questions about
why Secretary Rumsfeld issued and later rescinded tough interrogation
techniques? And how did these interrogation techniques come to be used
in Iraq, where the Administration maintains that it has followed the
Geneva Conventions?
- Why did Secretary Rumsfeld
exclude Iraq detainees in his April 2003 memo on approved techniques?
Why is the White House withholding relevant documents issued after U.S.
military occupation of Abu Ghraib? What tone and direction did
the White House with respect to that combat zone and its prisoners, who
we know were abused in places likes at Abu Ghraib?
- Where is the remaining
material requested by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee in our
limited partial request last week of 23 documents? When is the
Chairman going to work with us in a bipartisan way get all the
materials we need?
The
American People Need Answers
This Committee found time this week to hold yet
another hearing on gay marriage – our fourth in 10 months -- but we cannot
find the time to consider this Administration’s policies on torture, which
appear to have set the stage for the abuse of prisoners in U.S. custody.
Last night Senator Hatch said many things. I choose
to ignore the ad hominem attacks, and note that he agreed with me that
water flows downhill, and so does government policy. Somewhere in the
upper reaches of this Administration, a process was set in motion that
seeped forward and led to this scandal. To put this scandal behind us,
first we need to understand what happened. And we cannot get to the bottom
of this until there is a clear picture of what happened at the top.
Under Chairman Hatch’s leadership, this Committee
issued more than 50 subpoenas to Administration officials during President
Clinton’s second term in office. I believe that the only subpoena this
Committee has authorized during President Bush’s entire presidential term
was that requested by Senator Specter to allow witnesses to participate in
a field hearing he wished to hold but who insisted on a friendly subpoena
on advice of counsel. We have not issued a single subpoena to the Bush
Administration even though it has consistently rebuffed our requests for
information and documents.
Before Republican Senators begin to wax eloquently
about the sanctity of the Executive Branch and its powers, I remind them of
the numerous hearings they held and other Republicans held in 1999 and on
into 2001 regarding the presidential pardon and clemency powers granted to
the Executive exclusively in the Constitution. They demanded not only
documents and correspondence with high government officials but testimony
in open session of the actions and deliberations of the pardon attorney and
the former Deputy Attorney General of the United States.
Along with other Democrats, I criticized the Clinton
Administration in those days, and also when I disagreed with what the
President had done. I sense that there are, likewise, Republican Senators,
some may even be on this Committee, who know that we should be doing more
and know that we need to join together to get to the bottom of these
matters. Perhaps they will decide to break the circle of partisan wagons
that are being used to shield the Administration from effective oversight,
and join us in our nation’s interest.
When are we going to stop sitting on our hands and
quit acting like a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Executive Branch. We
have the legal right, the constitutional obligation, and the moral
authority to ask questions and demand answers today.
We need to do our job and keep at it until we get the
facts, honesty and answers.
# # # # #
|