The House Judiciary Committee is taking testimony today from three witnesses regarding the DOJ and its approval of interrogation techniques and procedures in Gitmo and beyond. Witnesses today include:
– John D. Ashcroft, former Attorney General of the United States
– Walter Dellinger, former Assistant Attorney General and Solicitor General
– Ben Wittes, Brookings Institution
The hearing began at 10 am ET, and is covered on C-Span3. Should be some interesting testimony today on how DOJ attorneys in the OLC could come up with a theory that "it’s only torture if I say I thought it was torture before I tortured you."
Hearing being gavelled to order at 10:08 am ET.
Chairman Conyers laying out the fact that this is the fifth hearing in a series on these issues. They have been prevously held before the Constitution subcommittee — today’s is held before the committee as a whole. The subject today is a narrow one, about interrogation rules — but the overall inquiry is about the rule of law. In prior hearings, we heard testimony including claims of executive power that said that no claim or act was out of bounds if the president thought it necessary. We heard how dissenting views were dealt with in this administration — I have great concerns about this, especially when it results in the firing of the lawyer who provided the dissenting view.
Wants to speak with the witnesses today about the rule of law, how to strengthen it, and how to move forward. We hope that we can restore meaning and significance to the promise that America does not torture and that we respect the rule of law.
LAMAR SMITH OPENING: Says this is the ninth hearing, and like in baseball, this should be the end of the innings. Says no one raised objections to the interrogation program at the time the briefings were given to Congressional members briefed on it. [CHS notes: I have yet to see him or anyone provide documentary proof of this assertion. Anyone know of any? He sure throws it around a lot, though...]
Goes through various assertions about information obtained via "special interrogation methods that do not amount to torture." Lamar Smith, not so great at terrorist name pronunciation — but he’s going through a litany of potential "actionable" intel pulled from people subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques" which allowed disruption of maybe dozens of attacks. [CHS notes: Again, providing no foundation for this assertion, either.] Any conduct which might save hundreds of thousands of American lives does not shock the conscience.
Talks about the Schlesinger report. Goes into Al Kitani’s information — witness from the Brookings Institution today is a promoter of these policies, and will testify later. There should be debates about limits, but we shouldn’t persecute anyone whose efforts allow us to sleep better at night.
Oath being administered to witnesses.
ASHCROFT OPENING: Happy to be here today. After 7 years with no attack, itis perhaps easy to forget how perilous the time was. We were confronted with any number of threats and the knowledge that even the slightest mistake could result in more deaths. We were to keep the nation safe within everything in our power and within the limits of the requirements of the law. As we turn to re-evaluate what was done, we would do well to remember the dangers we faced and still face, and the catastrophic implications of error. Second, review of OLC opinions reflects this Administration’s commitment to the rule of law — there is no room for the DOJ to think that it’s opinions are perfect, or that they should not be re-visited. DOJ opinions uniformly prevailed in courts of appeals, cases where SCOTUS cases are binding. We did not do so well in SCOTUS, where the justices can depart from precedent. [CHS notes: Ahhhh, I was wondering what the excuse talking point would be for getting roundly smacked down by SCOTUS.]
It follows where OLC is presented with a close administration position and debatable question, it is required that the OLC provide all positions to the president for his consideration. It is difficult to imagine a more important task during a time when the US had been attacked.
Ashcroft reviewed testimony from prior hearings, and documents and other accounts to refresh his recollection.
In March, 2002, we captured Abu Zabaydah. The administration turned to OLC for guidance as to the standard of interrogation of al qaeda detainees held outside the US under the anti-torture statute and the convention against torture. OLC issued its opinion Aug. 1, 2002. In Dec. 2002, DOD requested an opinion on the scope of federal and international law standards governing military interrogation of al qaeda detainees held outside the US. Resulting opinion issued March 14, 2003. Yoo has testified about his opinion issuance, including a fairly detailed account of the issuance of this. Ashcroft does generally recall an OLC opinion was provided — a draft or drafts were sent to his office — and that he approved its issuance.
He doesn’t recall the process specifically the March 2003 memo, but he has no reason to doubt the process as described by Yoo in testimony. Goldsmith’s withdrawal of the memo occurrd at Ashcroft’s approval. He directed DOJ professionals to re-examine the work and to make adjustments as required by the law. Deleted unnecessary discussions regarding the scope of Presidential power and the discussions of potential defense arguments for interrogators and others. Did not make changes to prior thoughts on interrogation techniques — redefined the outer boundaries, not the base conduct approved. When he was informed about concerns of overly-broad advice — the outer limits of which were never tested — he made certain those questions were better defined and answered.
WITTES OPENING STATEMENT: Thank you for asking me to testify. I do not intend today to focus on the past but on the future – that is on the contours of the interrogation laws we need for the future that are at once effective and consistent with American values. The McCAin Amendment successfully addressed the military requirements — that the military publish and follow its rules, and the new Army Field Manual is a more specific version of this. The policy Congress adapted in that statute is relatively easily adaptable to the CIA — though not by simply adopting the amendment wholesale. Relatively small number of CIA-held detainees — represents the outer limits of what the US will do in terms of conduct. The laws are inherently absolute injunctions not to do anything "too mean," but leaves open the questions of how far is too far and how much of it is too much. We want these people to be aggressive. We want them to walk up to the line of legality to stop the next attack. On the other side is illegal conduct — but we have not defined it precisely, so we are asking these men and women to walk up to the line of legal responsibility without having the courage ourselves to define what the responsibility is.
Think of this as a CIA field manual. Congress should permit the agency the use of any technique to which it would willingly attach its name. This should be openly disclosed. This may not be possible for the CIA, but Congress should require as much transparency as possible.
The tiny subset of high value detainees will stress the rules. [CHS notes: he invokes the ticking time bomb mindset here.] We should be honest that sometimes there is a breach of the rules, and we should ask that the rules do something extraordinary — which is contemplate a breach of the rules where it might be required. Wittes does not approve of interrogators being subjected to a felony for conduct — the president should stand alone accountable, assuming legal and political responsibility, for those interrogations he orders. This would require regular briefings to Congress and that they have the opportunity to object. Law should forbid president to order any deviations from CIA policy except for written notification to intel committees, identifying the need for enhanced techniques in the specific case and the techniques being ordered in that instance. There should not be violation of international law on these. And should require the president’s personal signature. Should also require annual release of how many of these are done, so that some tracking of whether these are exceptional circumstances or becoming the norm, to allow for public discussion of the policy.
DELLINGER OPENING STATEMENT: On 9/12/01, the NYTimes had a single sentence paragraph: "It was a moment that split history." Because I disagree with a number of things the witnesses have said, I think we should try and recall the pressures that the government faced after the attacks on 9/11 and under those extraordinary pressures. Compliments Ashcroft and Wittes on work. Nonetheless, he fears that we have not had an adequate defense of the torture memos, which more than anything else are the source of these hearings. Doesn’t think it is a process that worked well in the end. These memos were not close questions — as Goldsmith said, they were deeply flawed, sloppily-reasoned. Ashcroft refered us to the fact that federal courts were closely divided in Hamdan, Hamdi, Boumidiene, and others — a lot of these were extraodinary cases of unusual circumstances. But that is away from theseparate issue of the torture memos, where is is hard to defend the extraordinary reasoning of these memos which approved even the worst techniques of Saddam Hussein if they were intended to get information and not simply to inflict pain.
The assertion of a presidential authority to disregard criminal statutes enacted by Congress, signed into law by the president — the ability to disregard those statutes was a shocking assertion of presidential authority. I think one of the things that led the SCOTUS to push for assertion of habeas is because the court felt that it did not have confidence that the processes in the absence of judicial oversight — after overreach in torture, in FISA, in other areas where there was disregard for the rule of law — and because of that they required judicial oversight. Wittes offers very thoughtful approach, but it seems that giving the CIA a gap between what is cruelty and what is torture between the Army Field Manual, I’m not sure we want to be a nation who approves of cruelty as a matter of government policy.
President cannot give pardon in advance to facilitate the commission of a crime. So doesn’t think that proposal from Wittes would be workable. Need exception for extraordinary circumstances — the law should not make an exception, though — what we would expect the president to do is to authorize what was needed and then to face sanction afterward if any were needed.
CONYERS QUESTION: Notion we haven’t been attacked means that we are doing things right — is that safe to assume? Ashcroft says he believes we’ve disrupted plots, so that something we have done is right enough to disrupt some dangers. But that doesn’t mean that we are doing everything right. We need to constantly look at what we are doing — look at things intelligently. We should always be looking at how we can improve our performance — how can we make changes so that we don’t have to be awakened by something that costs Americans lives. Wittes says it isn’t an argument he’s ever made. There have obviously been some successes, but there is room for course correction. Dellinger says the threat assessments that come in daily must be extraordinary, and that credit is due the administration where we have been successful. At the end of the day, the long-range national security is best served by our adherence to fundamental constitutional values that should make us more respected.
SMITH QUESTIONS: Thanks for being nice to Mr. Dellinger. Says that he thinks that it is traditional for Gang of 8 to be informed of techniques. Ashcroft says that he wasn’t involved in any decision-making on that and assumes that these were classified and he declines to comment on that. Asks Wittes about whether enhanced interrogation techniques areuseful? Wittes says that he’s somewhat agnostic about this — he’s spoken to a number of interrogators in the past who are emphatic about the best information coming from non-coercive methods. Where there isn’t time to develop these, we really don’t know what works according to the academic data. They get into a back and forth on what "works and doesn’t work" means. [CHS notes: I'm gonna need more tea...] Unless you know that it does not work, in the highest stake situations and there is time pressure, there will be enormous pressure on you to ratchet it up. Asks Ashcroft, what are disadvantages to taking a criminal law approach to combat terrorism — Ashcroft says that he believes that sometimes it is the right approach. Depends on the facts. [CHS notes: well, there goes that talking point, too.]
NADLER QUESTIONS: You mentioned Abu Zubaydah — his interogation was done in March 2002. If the Bybee memo was issued in August 2002, was that done without DOJ sign-off? One FBI agent described the interrogation as "borderline torture" as comperable to SERE techniques. Was waterboarding used prior to DOJ sign-off? Ashcroft doesn’t know. Ashcrot says that it is possible that there were changes in practices both before and subsequent to the issuance of those memos. Goes into prior testimony by Levin regarding changes in practices — required changes in interrogation policies — as a result of the OLC memo issuance. Going back and forth on whether the memo change behavior or not. Ashcroft says that Levin may have better information on what was actual practice than Ashcroft does, but the DOJ’s position on the conclusions is that there wasn’t a big difference in terms of what was approved.
COBLE QUESTIONS: Not going to insert his oars into the waterboarding waters because it’s classified. Do you think it has served a beneficial purpose, even though it’s controversial? Ashcroft says that it was very valuable, according to reports he has seen, and he has no reason to disbelieve them. Refers to Tenet information. Asks Wittes about whether waterboarding is torture? Wittes says that it is difficult for him to reconcile it with the torture statute — because waterboarding is supposed to induce the fear of drowning, and the statute says that anything which induces the fear of death. Asks Dellinger if President can order assassination of Osama Bin Laden? Yes, he can. Might require revision of executive order. If Congress enacted order? Then, no, he couldn’t. Asks if Clinton administration argued about following Congressional law? Yes — all presidents have fought those laws which were felt to be unconstitutional, but should not and cannot lawfully refuse to follow a constitutional law.
SCOTT QUESTIONS: Torture is illegal. There is no exception if it is done in the time of a crisis. If you got good info from torture, is that an exception? Ashcroft says no, the product or outcome is not an exception either. Go through a back and forth about what is or is not torture. Ashcroft says ultimate definition of torture will be decided in the courts. And then a back and forth on waterboarding. Dellinger — is US is generally believed to be a nation which inflicts torture on detainees, what ipact would that have on our troops? Puts our own troops at serious risk if we take the position that such techniques are lawful. Then a back and forth about who legally is responsible where an OLC memo exempts behavior that is clearly problematic — Delinger says responsibility lies in OLC, but if employees are acting on memo’s conclusions, tough to hold them legally responsible for those actions with that reliance.
GALLEGLY QUESTIONS: Success of being able to avoid attack since 9/11. Many, many attacks that we are aware of that have been foiled by our interrogation techniques. He’s going on a soliloquy here. Asks Ashcroft about the Administration asking for legal opinions — Ashcroft says that shows a sensitivity to staying within the letter of the law. [CHS notes: Because, apparently, it's never occurred to him that the administration was using he and the DOJ as their fig leaf to cover their actions after the fact and otherwise.] Asks Wittes about rapport building. If you are trying to protect something, you ahve a lot of incentive to resist whatever interrogation techniques are being used — that’s true in the criminal justice system as well, with non-cooperative suspects. Whenever you are an in-custody detainee from an official trying to prevent you from doing something, including in some cases high intelligence and deep-seated convictions.
LOFGREN QUESTIONS: Troubling subject — as I think about the various issues we have faced in this country, certainly we need to be vigilent. Surely, that isn’t greater, though, than the threat posed by the USSR during the Cold War or the nazis during WWII. We have always been able to face off against a threat to this nation within the bounds of our rule of law. When we give up who we are, then we have already lost. That is the seriousness of what we are doing here today. Goldsmith wrote that you were fully supportive of his decision to withdraw and amend OLC memos. Can you discuss this? Notes that Yoo is an expert in national security and intelligence and wanted to serve in good faith. When it became apparent during further examination that there were matters of concern brought to Ashcroft’s attention — my philosophy is that if we’ve done something that we can improve, then why would we not? Where there were questions about appropriateness of the analysis and the scope of the opinions, he wanted those questions addressed. Asks about the FBI’s concerns at Gitmo, and whether the FBI’s lack of participation has made things less safe because we are missing their expertise in interrogations. Ashcroft says different cultures in different bureaucracies. [CHS notes: so, in other words, the FBI's culture of following the law is just their thing?] We don’t want to pull someone in from the battlefield to try them, we want to get intel from them and detain them until the battle is over.
GOODLATTE QUESTIONS: Yet another discussion of what constitutes torture and what doesn’t. Ashcroft says amendments enacted since he left office have made things more clear, which is a good thing. Do you believe that any memo contained advice that was inaccurate? The conclusions were accurate, but some of the reasoning in some of them was dubious and that is why it was withdrawn. And why Bradbury and others have continued to go back over it. Ask Dellinger whether it is easy to define torture. No, except that the definitions reached in the 2003 memo seem to be clearly within the category of torture. Doesn’t agree with a "shocks the conscience" standard, because there are examples that go beyond that — the 2002 memo says if it’s not explicitly intended to inflict pain then it would exempt almost all instances. Same with the "organ failure or death" standard — no one would believe this was what Congress intended with the anti-torture statutes.
WATERS QUESTIONS: Believe that information you received about waterboarding was not in a setting where you were being advised. Ashcroft says that a report of waterboarding would be serious, but it wouldn’t define torture. According to Ashcroft, if the CIA said it wasn’t waterboarding, even though others might describe it as waterboarding, then it wasn’t really waterboarding under the definition of waterboarding as a violation of law. Do you think that advice was good advice and an accurate description of what went on? Ashcroft believes that the conclusions of the memoranda as described by the CIA’s descriptions were good definitions. Can’t say under oath he hasn’t had a second thought about it, but the DOJ has gone back over this numerous times as well since his time there. If these practices were applied to American soldiers under this opinion, would these techniqus be totally unacceptable and even criminal? Ashcroft says that his belief in these memos being good persisted even with his son serving two tours of duty overseas, including his having to deal with "evil chemistry" and the like. Says that the statutes have consistently been interpreted to say that waterboarding as the CIA requested it is not torture.
CHABOT QUESTIONS: Is waterboarding routine? How many times has it actually occurred? Ashcroft says he doesn’t know precisely, but his understanding is 3 times during interrogation processes through what he’s read in the news, although also done for military SERE training. Now bringing up the child rape death penalty issue — which has so much to do with interrogation techniques on overseas detainees. [CHS rolls eyes at the political theater.] Ashcroft says when you are trying to figure out what the law is, you look at precedents and the written laws. Of course there are disputes over areas of uncertainty, which is where arguments on the law occur. Chabot says he had the honor of visiting Gitmo, and witnesses an interrogation that was going on there and saw the type of medical care they were receiving…gosh, it’s sure is swell at Gitmo for those folks held there, they’ve even gained weight! A back and forth discussion between detainee and interrogator is what they saw, is that typical? I suppose. Ashcroft says a warm and fuzzy approach to everyone is not appropriate — there need to be rules that provide the right parameters, because its unrealistic to think we will only be up against a single kind of people. We had 3000 people who died in the streets of America on the first day of the war on terror — a small grou of individuals could pose a huge threat to America, and it shouldn’t limit our actions.
WEXLER QUESTIONS: Going back over some of Nadler’s questions. Did you provide the WH or anyone in the Administration, DOD, CIA, that hypothermia, waterboarding or other actions were outside the anti-torture statute before the Bybee memo was issued? Ashcroft says that if he had a recollection about that, it would be classified, so he can’t say — that is true for any opinion given by another attorney other than him. Ashcroft won’t comment on meetings at WH on interrogation techniques, because they were in a classified setting. Wexler says that there are reports via ABC news and Jane Mayer and others. Ashcroft says that he’s appalled how much information is available from classified settings, says that he would be breaking the law to do so. Wexler says reports indicate that you were uncomfortable, to your credit — and Ashcroft says he’s not going ot break the law, even if it’s to his credit.
LUNGREN QUESTIONS: Asks Dellinger about Truman in WWII ordering dropping of the Atomic bomb on two occasions? Dellinger says he doesn’t know that it was unlawful at that time. Lungren is going off on a WWII blah-bity-blah on mustard gas now. Cue the history channel marathon music. Blah blah blah [CHS notes: Sorry, Lungren's need for attention by being obnoxious bores me. Am getting some water...]
DELAHUNT QUESTIONS: This is as much about the constitutional order and the relationship between the branches and what is acceptable under our law and what is not. Delahunt now saying that information Lungren put on the record contradicted by information Delahunt has. Discussing Goldsmith’s criticisms of the OLC memo — and questions on people acting in good faith in reliance on these memos, but that could be an open question. Delahunt says he’s concerned if reliance on any OLC opinion gets asserted, then you have a "get out of jail free" card on auto. Dellinger says it can also work in reverse, if the President orders an opinion specifically to cover something, reversing a prior opinion on the law.
KELLER QUESTIONS: Tries to trip Dellinger up on a question which is legally vapid. Dellinger tries to explain it slowly. And failing to make headway on the vapid question, Keller moves on to the Chebacca Defense, and rbings up death penalty for child rape. And then Keller gets snipey with Dellinger by reading a "Clinton did it" moment from the 9/11 Commission report on the Bin Laden assassination order. [CHS notes: So, let me get this straight -- Keller would not have approved assassinating Bin Laden prior to the 9/11 attacks? Really?!? This Keller?!? Oh puh-lease! Can you say political theater and selective outrage? I sure as hell can.]
SANCHEZ QUESTIONS: Did the president order either of the OLC memos? Ashcrofts says he doesn’t think so, but even if he remembered he did, he wouldn’t reveal that as a matter of privilege. Can’t answer whether the president would have spoken to OLC lawyers about this. Did president approve of tactics in OLC memos? Can’t answer because that is classified information in that area. Did president approve waterboarding as a technique or as applied to specific detainee? See previous answer. Hypothermia or stress positions? See previous answer. Did Vice President approve? See previous answer. Did you ever advise on these tactics being crimes under War Crimes Act or the Anti-Torture Act? Privileged communications. UCMJ crimes? Privileged communications. General federal criminal laws of the US? Privileged communications. In March 2004, Comey refused to sign FISA extension — Comey testified that WH tried to force you to sign FISA law and it may have led to conflict with WH when you refused, and Iglesias suggested that you were asked to step down as a result? Ashcroft takes a shot at Iglesias ("not a book writer like some people"), but says whatever conversations with the President or anyone else are confidential. Says he hasn’t read the IG report on politicized hiring.
Related posts:
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
Zed?
Zed it is
“We should be honest that sometimes there is a breach of the rules, and we should ask that the rules do something extraordinary — which is contemplate a breach of the rules where it might be required. . .”
Here we go.
Christy, anyone? Who were the Congressional members briefed on this? I imagine this is old info, but I can’t remember.
Thanks for this live blogging, CHS.
HJC Dems need to NOT treat Ashcroft w/kid gloves, & defer to him. I notice just now Jerry Nadler isn’t. Good.
hearing on
CSPAN 3
or through the HJC here
Nadler zeroing in on w/n a detainee was “tortured” between the capture in March 2002, and the Yoo/Bybee memo of August 2002. Asscroft – “I dunno”.
Waterboarding again – why do our representatives evidently think that the only “torture” we’ve engaged in is waterboarding?
Why do they call him General?
He’s not a fucking General..
Because their tiny little minds can only hold one concept at a time. These are not all the brightest bulbs on the tree.
DO you mean these guys?
Asscroft – “Waterboarding, according to all reports I’ve heard, was *very* valuable.”
Now bringing up the stinking carcass of 9-11 again.
I don’t see how these things ever get anywhere. Congress critters ask questions and Asscraft et al give the answers one would expect “it was really scary- we had to protect the american people-etc” and in the end- nothing happens- nothing at all- or so it seems.
Dellinger – “I believe that every president has the authority to disobey laws that *the president* considers to be unconstitutional.
Who’s this hack?
I’m behind a bit on the liveblogging. Am battling stomach flu — so I’m having to go back and forth on the TIVO a bit as I type. WIll catch it up as I go. Sorry for the delay, gang…
take your time Redd- this all makes us sick to our stomachs too.
The honorific title for addressing an Attorney General (or former Attorney General) is “General.” Same with the Solicitor General. And that includes the various state level Attorneys General.
Dems are proving that congress is unable or unwilling to do their part in the balance of power and control a runaway president..
That’s about half of the intellectual power of the constitution out the fucking window…
Asscroft claims that he is not now, nor was he at the time he was AG, an expert as to what constitutes “torture”.
yeah, those annoying *little* questions that eternally bug the shit of poor, uninformed Attorneys General, and are apparently thus ignored or kicked down the road…
If you have a prez who refuses to tell congress what he’s doing- and then refuses to allow his administration to testify about it- and then refuses to allow the DOJ to issue indictments- and then pardons those who have committed crimes- and lies about what it does, etc.
Then congress is simply an extra wheel. Without a police force they are screwed.
There are no “experts” on the use of the english word “torture”. Ashcroft is acting as if the subject was nuclear physics.
Please take care of yr self, Christy.
What’s sickening (besides the justifications for cruelty now being voiced by these chowderheads), is the insider chuckling of the people (JA’s lawyers, minders?) in the 2nd row.
Yes indeed, this topic is chuckle worthy, you well-heeled morons.
Asscroft now saying that there was “an obsession” that the administration both stop attacks, and do so “within the law”
I guess that would be the law that Asscroft just claimed to not know much about, despite said “obsession”.
Don’t forget “Postmaster General”.
So, Harman, Jello Jay, and Pelosi. And another (a fourth, a Republican?) These were the gate-keepers? The same Pelosi who has taken you-know-what off the you-know-what? I really want to get to the bottom of who these people are and what compelled them to bypass rule of law and Geneva Conventions. Oh, wait. If I ask politely, I’m sure they’ll just tell me.
All of this extraneous bullshit about “why” they broke the law needs to be put aside. Who gives a fuck.. the issue is WHO broke the law, how many times, which laws were broken, and at who’s direction.
If the other pile of shit wants to say that this all occured at the president’s direction- I’d like chapter, verse, and signed documents.
He probably means the law as determined by Cheney and the Decider.
I got here late – has anyone brought up the International Red Cross report which states that the U.S., via its interrogation techniques, is guilty of war crimes?
OT: Not sure if this was linked earlier, but just saw Ms. Hamsher quoted in the NYTimes with a nice link to this neck of the woods:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07…..WiL9BkH63Q
Asscroft – “John Yoo is a brilliant, patriotic man, so of course we listened to him. Would I be out of line here, Mr. Chairman, to hereby nominate him for sainthood?”
Wished I had CSPAN-3 but my cable company (Comcast) took out CSPAN-2.
Inorder to prevent these breaches in our rights we need to send some of these people to jail to have their rights (or is that rears) violated.
I’m suspicious of this Bush plan to open up a diplomatic presence in Tehran. Are they trying to set up another US embassy hostage crisis for Obama. Bush couldn’t possible care about diplomacy.
Enough with that common sense..
Next thing we know, rwcole will be typing jus cogens! /s
War crimes, shmore crimes. We were only doing what most red-blooded conservatives consider a great night of fraternity hazing. Forced sodomy and all.
-Rush Beck
Ashcroft: Waterboarding OK, claims that detentions and torture and such prevented many attacks but doesn’t give any specific instances. John Yoo a great lawyer. If so, why did Ashcroft not pick him to head the OLC? Says concerns were raised and these were addressed. I would like to know what concerns.
BTW Wittes is a well known idiot, one of those supposed Brookings liberals who just happen to support the most heinous aspects of the Bush Administration.
Hi, Christy. Ashcroft actually seems to be showing some respect for Congress, unlike the way that Addington was agreed to have behaved. This is probably because he was a member of that body. Not that he doesn’t appear to be passive as AG.
Nazis, fascism, situation ethics vs the rule of law!! Congress makes the laws and the OLC irrationally rationalized torture as legal and acceptable? Is this not what Hitler did while consolidating power? Nazis where charged with war crimes! This intellectual horse shit reeks/putrid!!!
Buy the digital package pay more to have access!! SCUMCAST SUCKS
Ashcroft is so damn greasy I can only assume he anointed himself with crisco this morning.
Going to radio silence now to help the servers.
Thanks again for yr. live blogging in spite of being ill, Christy. Do they ever describe you @ home as “a toughy”? They should ;->
TTFN
I was profoundly glad when Ashcroft no longer was said to represent me, but then the rest of the country got stuck with him.
oh, good Christ – Asscroft – “People we took off the battlefield are people we never really intended to try. We just anticipated keeping them locked up until ‘the war’ is over.”
Well, sir, I think y’all have made pretty damned sure that no detainee is never gonna be tried in a United States court. And btw, ya got any estimate as to when this ‘war’ might end – and how are we gonna know?
AMEN.
What “shocks the conscience” is so malleable to these awful people.
“until the war is over”
What fuckin war? There IS no war! Just because Clusterfuck CALLS it a war on terror doesn’t make it one.
Surely they would be “prisoners of war” and come under the Geneva Conventions? Of course there has to be a “legal” war to have prisoners of war.
Wittes -
um, excuse me but such a mechanism is already in place
Attorney General’s obligations under current law
POTUS’ obligations under current law
man, how bad is their sh*t for an old waitress* to point that out
* I blame that Hardin-Smith woman *g*
Folks, if we could keep comment numbers down then I won’t have to start a fresh thread so quicly. Thanks.
Oops. That’s an admission they were prisoners of war, so entitled to Geneva Convention protection.
President declares perpetual war which gives him wartime powers. The war on cockroaches!
Possible Republican strategy to bog down the witnesses in the definition of torture.
Ashcroft’s role is important because all of Bush’s lawless programs began under his tenure as Attorney General at the DOJ. Remember too he was one of the principals at the White House meetings deciding on specific torture techniques on specific detainees. (You know the ones where Condi Rice said, “Go for it.”
Of course he’s being respectful. He’s a lobbyist now. These folks are his bread and butter.
Osama bin Laden declared war on us first, in 1996. Whether we want to give him the dignity of being a belligerent or an uncommon sort of criminal is something else.
THAT shocks the conscience
Presupposes a conscience, a fact not in evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding
“Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing a person on their back with the head inclined downward and pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages.[1][2] Through forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences the process of drowning and is made to believe that death is imminent.[3] In contrast to merely submerging the head face-forward, waterboarding almost immediately elicits the gag reflex.[4] Although waterboarding does not always cause lasting physical damage, it carries the risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries (including broken bones) due to struggling against restraints, and even death.[5] The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last for years after the procedure.[6]”
Shorter Ashcroft: How could it be wrong? Our own quack lawyers told us it was OK.
CIA says its not torture?
Waterboarding ‘used to be a crime’
old WaPo article
In other words, HJC is asking him questions about what happened below his level instead of what happened at his level.
Mantra for the day.
“Waterboarding as described by the CIA is not torture”
Well that’s an issue not under discussion- since Clusterfuck can’t find him- he can’t waterboard him can he?
I notice that not one Dem has objected to that statement. I think the leadersheep was informed and they signed off on it. Hence FISA, etc.
Boxturtle (Anybody ever asked Pelosi if she raised objections?)
If his son was waterboarded in the same manner that the CIA waterboarded, it would not be torture.
Maybe the CIA did “waterboarding Lite”?
Why are the Repukes so quick to refer to child rape as an example to condone torture?
Yes, it is a modified Feith weave. Bottomline: It’s not his fault.
Ashcroft just gave another rationale for torture, i.e. the need not to be “warm and fuzzy”.
Random thoughts: Waterboarding, stress positions, sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation aren’t torture and we made them legal. Ergo we don’t do anything illegal and we don’t torture.
Anyone ever notice how many men covering 9/11 news cried about it? They’re still trying to prove their brute masculinity that was so threatened by that event. Torture restores their sense of toughness.
Torture breaks people. It’s effective that way. That’s really the point of it. That’s all the torture apologists want to accomplish… breaking people.
Ashcroft should tell the truth: people being tortured makes Cheney and Bush feel “warm and fuzzy”.
If Ashcroft is saying that there are circumstances in which waterboarding is legal- and other circumstances in which it is not- then has he been asked to define the circumstances?
recollect this you piece of crap “1″
Stonewall!
I’m just arriving — which Repubs are up there today?
Wish Wexler would modulate his voice a little.
I’ve got an idea. Let’s encourage the Republicans to call Pelosi and Harman up before the committee. Pelosi and Harman haven’t been helpful to the progressive interests. Let them suffer some potential public embarrassment for their complacency.
Issa has suggested he’d like to do just that. I must now go get brain bleach, as I agree with Issa.
Boxturtle (I’ll pass it your way when I’m done)
Oh I hate these WWII comparisons. As the Dalai Lama says: things change, that was then, now is now. The world dynamic is different. Nuking is no longer acceptable to many of us (I hope). Nagasaki/Hiroshima tragedies should never happen again. The comparisons to the war on Terra is null and void in my view.
Well, it is. The people planning terrorist operations think they are in a war. The “war on terror” buys into their frame, and their grandiloquent beliefs that we are against Islam. This would be true even if no one was tortured.
Mr. Dillinger you just described Nazi Germany!!!!!!!!
Ahem…ANTHRAX! The DOMESTIC terrorist action using Anthrax in the mail was AFTER 9/11.
That just needs to be said whenever some asshat says “hasn’t been an attack since 9/11″.
Also, the entire premise of the “ticking time bomb” needs to be disassembled clearly in these waste-of-time hearings (because nothing will come of it, same as ALL past hearings). There is no such thing as a “ticking time bomb” scenario and never has been (except on 24 which, inconveniently for the torturer/perverts, isn’t real in any way, shape, or form).
Interesting. Torture is okay…pres should violate the law and accept “the consequences” if someone has a WMD in NYC…
But, what they’ve done is not that…they have tortured for info only on logistics of AQ, etc., they have broken the law over and over as a general policy.
Now, the Pres and his minions should accept the consequences. There has not been a “24″ scenario, but they’ve tortured anyway.
Impeach.
War crimes.
I wonder if Ashcroft was as scared of Cheney/Addington as Jane Mayer said James Comey was.
PLEASE call Harmon and Pelosi! PLEASE! I want those criminals under oath to answer which of them (probably both) were gung-ho on ramping up the “pressure” when they visited the torture (sex) rooms at Gitmo.
Not really an “attack” more likely a few shots across the bow by the OVP operatives.
Oh yeah, Goldsmith *and* Comey were supposedly scared of Addington/Cheney.
Try reading Christopher Hitchens writing about waterboarding. Now that’s torture — drowning in his ego.
I think Christy asked for not so many comments to help her out.
They deny the prisoner bathroom breaks and run a faucet in the background.
Take THAT water torture!
If only it were simply that prank rather than outright torture committed in our name. The actual people that DID the torture need to go to jail. They are monsters and are likely sociopaths with no compunction on breaking ANY law for ANY reason (like Nixon’s Plumbers). Of course, everyone who ordered (or passed along orders) also needs to go to jail.
Indicting them would bring this thing to a head, but who’s gonna do the indicting? Not DOJ- and the pardon man is ready to act.
christy,
Only traitors torture.
Here we go with child rape to condone torture and the death penalty again.
There is a way around that: officially declare that the actions were war crimes. Even if (after) Bush pardons everyone, that doesn’t make them immune from international law. ANY country with a conscience could bring War Crimes charges against those declared as having committed war crimes. NONE of the members of the Bush Admin would be able to leave the country ever again.
The line of questioning about Osama is interesting is because it highlights the fact that Clinton was concerned about Osama and took steps to stop him. Many Repubs still refuse to accept this, hence the billboard in Florida.
This Keller a**wipe is such a tool.
He can’t see the difference between killing in battle and torture?
Where do they find these people?
Bin Lauden is not a citizen but got plenty of US Money and US paid for weapons to defeat Soviets in Afghanistan? No that’s real standing!
I wanted to discuss the bogus “Would you torture, if you could save Daniel Pearl” hypothetical brought up a few minutes ago. It is a classic example of begging the question. It starts off asking us that we assume that torture is effective. It goes on to conclude that Daniel Pearl could have been saved and therefore torture was effective and should be used.
How is Kalidh sheikh Mohammed a “ticking time bomb”? How did torture become “agressive questioning.” Congresscritter barbarity.
They refuse to accept the undeniable fact that 9/11 and the anthrax attacks occurred under a Republican President and a Republican Congress…in spite of the August 6th PDB warning directly to Bush….who did nothing other than continue his vacation. LIHOP
Phillipe Sands has given the most cogent arguments to all of this including the observation that maltreatment of captured IRA set actions against it back by 10 years. Maybe our great Republican warriors just want endless conflict – so why not go Chinese on those terrorists?
The descriptions in that hypothetical are always vague as well:
Do you KNOW that the person being tortured HAS the information that would stop the crime- or do you just suspect it? for example.
Christy, the priority is not you posting but taking care of yourself; without your health you got ‘nuthin’. And this continuing sage of kabuki theater by Conyers isn’t worth your health.
Fascists hiding behind EP and SS??
Sanchez’s questioning doesn’t seem fruitful. Ashcroft: priveleged.
I assume that his answer that his communications with the POTUS are privileged….rather than saying…no, I never advised him or had such conversations…must be yes.
and you know, I doubt Daniel Pearl would want us to violate our sacred principles even to save his own life.
Shorter Ashcroft: “Communications between me and my fellow war criminals about our war crimes are privileged.”
Ashcroft doesn’t know of screening applicants at DOJ for political affiliation? Sorry, but that seems like total BS.
I guess the premise here is that congress is holding this hearing to determine what laws they should pass about torture….
That’s rich- pass a law saying that the president has to obey the laws!
Average American who acted in Mid flight unlike you clowns, Pence!!!
Again, folks, please keep comments — especially one-liners — to a minimum so I can keep this as much as possible on one thread. Thanks!
I disagree about Sanchez. Ashcroft asserted privileged communications on it all and it is under oath. Reminded me of the Mafia trials where they always pled the fifth.*g
Shorter Pence: I was here and I was scared on 9/11. Therefore it’s okay to hurt anyone I think was a bad guy.
Hey guys, we all get scared, mad, humiliated, and frantic. So we have laws to follow so we don’t lose control of our higher thinking skills, because we need those higher thinking skills to solve problems, including how to defeat terrorists.
Why doesn’t someone call Ashcroft on his inconsistency? He keeps repeating the shibboleth that he was privileged to serve the United States while at the same time asserting that he can’t answer due to the fact that he was the president’s attorney? I’m no legal expert but the dissonance is striking to me. One of the biggest problems during his tenure, and the subsequent tenures of AGs under this administration, has been their loyalty to the executive branch to the exclusion of the rule of law.
Also, all this 9/11 posturing is sickening. I was there too, in Manhattan, and I lost people I cared about and I am sickened by the Republican representatives continually using this as a an emotional ploy. If we had known about the terrorists, under their circular logical reasoning over speculation, we could’ve nuked all the Muslim countries and forced their mothers to have abortions. This is beyond disgusting and our side is not being clear and focused enough in shooting them down.
A fruitful line of questioning might be walking Ashcroft through some of the poor legal analysis in the Yoo memos. This would have to be coordinated.
The very idea that we’re discussing torture – and condoning it – shows that we are truly at a low-water ebb in this country. It is sad beyond description.
Didn’t Dellinger(?) just say the preznit can break that law during “war.”
Ashcroft seems to be saying “aggressive” techniques “within the law” are okay if “rapport” building doesn’t work. “We oughta think about the ticking time bomb (scenario)”.
Logic is not a Rethuglican speciality. Seems the “law” under Chimpy is totally elastic.
This dialogue brutalizes all of us.
Cohen: Did “plots” include Card and Abu coming to your hospital room?
Ashcroft: Ah geez, sometimes there are disagreements.
From my scandals list:
Ashcroft helped set up the system of political hires at the DOJ. So I agree that his lack of awareness now is just false.
I agree with rwcole too. The whole “ticking timebomb” argument simply doesn’t correspond to reality. We never know with certainty that someone knows something crucial about a terrorist attack, and even if we do know with certainty then we should also know all the other aspects as well. And a point I never tire of making, it is precisely in such a scenario that a would be terrorist as the most reason to lie. If some bastard was torturing me and I knew there was a bomb set to go off in two hours at a big football game, I would definitely say it was going to go off in three hours at the airport. The “ticking timebomb” case defies logic on all levels.
Sorry Christy, my last comment. Why on earth did Conyers seems so pissed off at Cohen? That in my view was a worthy dig on Cohen’s part.
The law is plastic if congress decides not to exercise their required constitutional authority: impeachment.!!
Congress will not act, so BushCo goes right on being illegal, in oh-so- many ways.
Last comment. I wish Sanchez had confronted Ashcroft, the lying sack of %^&( with that.
DOJ’s “Night of the Long Knives” Hence gutted and compromised!
sTEVE kING (R – Iowa) “The moving target of the law…” wtf?
umm, not so much there, Steve.
But if King *is* right, how does that reflect upon Asscroft’s performance as A.G.?
I didn’t know you guys were over here. I checked when the hearing came on and didn’t see a post so I’ve been posting at emptywheel. Drat.
Steve King epitomizes the knuckle-dragging nature of the GOP. He’s arguing that anyone questioning torture is, ipso facto, a Bush hater and therefore, their arguments have no merit.
wow… just joining now. looks like i’ve been missing a lot.
Hey: didn’t Ashcroft lose an election to a dead guy?
Has John-boy belted out a tune yet?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..re=related
Hope to have him and buddies singing Jailhouse Rock one of these daze.
Congress comes across as impotent in all of these investigations. Someone needs to do a think tank study on strategies for congress to deal with an out of control president- including both impeachment and methods short of impeachment- or else we have serial kings- not presidents.
pmorlan, you and I were writing our deathless prose all by our lonesomes over there. Thanks for coming back to save me.
Delliinger…no to special prosecutor generally…but bring in when there is contempt of Congress.
He did say just a few minutes ago that he felt like singing the national anthem.
Glad to do it.
We need someone to flush again so we don’t have to listen to Issa.
Switched over to watch McCain. I didn’t hear him say it but the CNN banner said “McCain:No Constitutional Rights for Child Pornogrophers”…not pornogrophy…pornogrophers
Switched back to the idiocy of Issa.
That was such a strange exchange with Sheila Jackson Lee, and it ended oddly, too, with Ashcroft holding his head between his fists and looking down. His way of responding to questions about Comey’s testimony is also odd — he’s not going to characterize anyone else’s recounting — ? He says that of one of the few people who has made him look good?
“Risk of disclosure?” Yes a certain risk, especially if the actions taken are “illegal?”
JayT, King is the Repub from Iowa who, during the MClellan hearings stated ‘this country is not a democracy and I pray that it never becomes one’; Did such a statement gain any widespread dissemination(even though we ARE a ‘representative republic)? It is the attitude that needs widespread dissemination in Iowa and around the nation as it truly reflects most republican legislator perspectives, including McCAin’s.
Issa wants more people in Congress to be informed instead of just the gang of 8 (I agree) but he wants it to start in the NEXT administration. NICE.
Issa is continuing his threats against (mostly) Harman and (also) Pelosi. “If you keep having hearings, I will do all I can to blame some Democrats.” He started this a few days ago. It’s an interesting move.
Impeachment is pretty much it. What Congress (and many people) don’t seem to get is that impeachment is NOT just for Presidents. Impeachment is a nice tool to remove any number of different empty suits from government (including judges).
The BEST way to get actual cooperation from the Exec is to NOT subpoena individuals so they can ignore them with impunity (or claim “executive privilege” which shows up NO WHERE in the Constitution) and then throw up their hands and declaim “What can ya do?” The PROPER procedure would be to ask for documents, testimony, etc. When that fails, subpoena them (quickly, not a year later). When THAT fails to produce the requested information for whatever reason, START IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS! Proceed to impeach and AG or an OLC roboton, etc. Not only does “executive privilege” (which doesn’t appear ANYWHERE in the Constitution) disappear as a valid means of avoiding answering questions, but you also get the attention of the ENTIRE Executive Branch (and its cooperation).
Impeachment. It isn’t just for Presidents!
That is the slogan to live and act by.
Delurking. Harman, Rockefeller, Pelosi. Gatekeepers for Congress on this issue. They must speak to this, under oath. They owe that to the American people. Period.
It is GOOD move and I think I will now go to his website and send him encouraging emails in this regard.
I thought it was classified. How can they speak to the public without first having it declassified?
Yes, and I can now see why.
They are now yukking it up that Ashcroft was not given anything to eat or drink for 13 days. It was “torture”. He had gallstone pancreatitis. Eating and drinking would have aggravated his condition and been murderously painful to boot. He was on IV fluids that whole time. In the normal course of events, the point of making him what in medical parlance is called NPO (Latin abbreviation for nothing by mouth) was to let his system to cool off and so that his inflammation would decrease sufficiently to allow surgery. He was also almost certainly on a morphine drip. So this is about as far from torture as you could get. But by all means yuk it up, total complete idiots.
Am going to start another thread. Please try and restrain yourselves from the one-liners so this is the last one I have to begin. Thanks!
Hank Johnson’s questions: Ashcroft has answered that the AG has no authority over war crimes, only over laws enacted by U.S. Congress. That is surely wrong. That is a denial of the fact that international treaties signed by the U.S. become U.S. law, as is true for the rest of us.
Yes, ma’am.
Impeachment is Congress’ tool to enforce the rule of law by removing unlawful Executive Branch members. There is plenty of documented illegality by the Chief Exec. and his minions.
Why does congress not act? They should all be fired by the electorate.
Well, see? That makes this yet another mobius situation. End result: No accountability. Congress wins, the people lose. Well, the people and the victims of torture, of domestic spying, of censure and any or all of those who have a naive belief in the Constitution. Congress blames everyone else for their failures. Hello?
I say go for it. We need a major housecleaning.
Those international treaties are ratified by Congress, which is when they become US law. So, I don’t see a problem with what Ashcroft said, only with what he didn’t include.
I just finished sending an email to Issa’s office almost BEGGING him to REALLY call Pelosi and Harmon in to testify under oath. I suggest others do the same. This needs to be strongly encouraged.
FYI: They’re voting on ‘use it or lose it’ in the House.
Thank you again for your valuable service Christy.
Are the good congresscritters asking the questions you want answered in the way they should be asked? I always expect them to be dodged, but are they making any points?
No president has ever been removed by impeachment. Impeachment is not a practical remedy- takes 2/3 of the senate to remove- will never happen. We need to find a better remedy.
At what point should have Pelosi, Rockefeller, et al recused themselves from the FISA machinations?
Doesn’t matter. What matters is that executive privilege cannot be claimed in impeachment hearings.
Also, Nixon WOULD have been impeached AND removed. He bailed out early because this was clear.
Again, the important fact is impeachment hearings cut through ALL legal games and ploys.
And his face was very red as he shook his head while Jackson Lee made the point that that hospital visit was an example of an abuse of power. Loved it.
I keeping asking myself, didn’t these shapers of our torture policies have access to the best data on the effectiveness of same? Now the answer has dawned on me. They’re Republicans – they’re anti-science. They would naturally trend toward Inquisition style logic and behavior: if we throw you in the water and you float you are a witch and if you drown you are innocent. AG Torquemada Ashcroft and the true believers would think that’s just fine.
Yes, the subpoena powers of impeachment hearings are much stronger than “standard” subpoena powers of Congress … but what makes you think that that would make any difference to the current administration (which Mukasey)?
Yeah, I said that I agreed with his idea but I found it funny that he wanted to start it in the NEXT administration.
Actually, I was referring to calling Pelosi and Harman to testify.
Mukasey can himself be impeached. No executive branch member is safe from impeachment.
Many have the opinion that executive privilege would not obtain in an impeachment hearing- but this has never been ruled on by a court that I know of-
So what might happen is that there is a hearing and a witness is subpoened and the White House tells em not to show up because of executive privilege- so then we have the same impasse we have today…
The congress needs access to a judicial remedy on executive privilege claims.
Not the point . There is no time limit on hearings but a strict limit on Ex. Priv. during those hearings. That’s the point, lance the boil and let the puss be seen to all. Run those damn hearings through the elections. Any objection by Repub’s is just sand in the gears. Start with a full accounting of PAT TILLMAN and the three bullet holes in a two inch circle in his forehead. Go on from there…
The White House is taking advantage of an innate weakness in congress- no mechanism outside the executive to require comliance. The courts can issue orders that must be complied with- the executive has the power to indict- congress is handcuffed when faced by a recalcitrant executive…this needs to be fixed.
Way to not answer the question, Ashcroft. Unless he’s saying the memos are law.
Interesting Cohen refers to our torture laws.
You say that there is a strict limit on ex priv in impeachment hearings- but this is a mere legal opinion not worth the paper it’s written on until ruled on by a court. Are you familiar with any court rulings on the subject?
As per wiki:
This was not connected with an impeachment hearing correct?
That sums it up.
Hugh
Jaworski was a special prosecutor. He was not representing congress but rather was a defacto member of the justice department investigating a criminal matter–the court ruling says that executive privilege does not apply when the information is needed for the investigation of a criminal case..
Has nothing to do with impeachment that I can see.
Leon Jaworski was the Special Prosecutor for H2Ogate who replaced Archibald Cox after the “Saturday Night Massacre.” His investigations ran concurrently with the Impeachment Hearings conducted by the HJC, then headed by Peter Rodino, (D-NJ).
Yes- I know that- which is why I don’t think the decision is relevent to an impeachment hearing.
Wonder if Clusterfuck would be willing to ignore a court decision on executive privelege? That would really assert the imperial executive. The court also relies on DOJ to enforce their rulings.
Sorry, I thought the subject was on limits to executive privilege in an impeachment setting. You are correct about Jaworski but the decision was made within and with knowledge of the larger process. I have to say though that an impeachment inquiry by the House would be on a lot stronger legal ground than that of a Special Prosecutor.
Yes- it is about that- and whether there are any court decisions dealing explicitly with that question. I am not aware of any- are you?
We have learned in the course of this administration that it is not enough for congress to be legally in the right- as they certainly are in the current executive privelege battles- they must also have the power of the judiciary behind them in order to accomplish anything.
I thought Adam Schiff asked an excellent question until I heard the answers which I did not understand.
Ashcroft and Dellinger are giving us their ”lawyers’ view” of the facts, not an objective assessment. Their job is to put themselves, their actions and those of the CheneyBush administration in the best possible light.
An objective assessment would require, say, not just listening to Al Capone tell us about the taxes he paid. It would require comparing his actual tax returns with a list of his assets and actual expenses, and a search through his books and the mind of his bookkeeper.
Listening to Al is likely to tell us what he hopes will keep him out of jail. Critically assessing the facts is likely to put him there.
Why is it acceptable politically, much less legally, to call torture techniques merely, “controversial” rather than illegal, against our laws, our traditions, our aspirations and our interests? What do our journalists make of such statements?
The harm, including at least a hundred deaths, done to hundreds of prisoners within our control is well-documented. The politically useful claims that their torture saved “hundreds of thousands” of lives, or might have done, are undocumented and unproven. I might have won the lottery, too, but the odds are somewhat against it. About 175 million to one. Are those odds worth risking my life, my honor and my sacred treasure? Perhaps I might think so if it avoided Karl or Dick yelling at me or campaigning aga.
This has probably already been said above but I’m going to say it again:
ASHCROFT IS AN ARROGANT ASSHOLE! Wow. I couldn’t believe how he acted like he was being picked on and said a couple of times, “I am no longer Attorney General and this happened years ago”, like it’s no big deal!
Asswipe. I wished [Moderator: this portion was taken out for advocating violence.].