P
Patriot Games
Guest
http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/democrats_torture_memo/2007/10/04/38295.html
Democrats Demand to See Torture Memos
Thursday, October 4, 2007
WASHINGTON -- Senate and House Democrats demanded Thursday to see two secret
memos that reportedly authorize painful interrogation tactics against terror
suspects - despite the Bush administration's insistence that it has not
violated U.S. anti-torture laws.
White House and Justice Department press officers said legal opinions
written in 2005 did not reverse an administration policy issued in 2004 that
publicly renounced torture as "abhorrent."
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller sent a letter to the
acting attorney general saying the administration's credibility is at risk
if the documents are not turned over to Congress.
The memos are "critical to an appropriate assessment" of interrogation
tactics approved by the White House and the Justice Department, Rockefeller
wrote to Acting Attorney General Peter D. Keisler. "Why should the public
have confidence that the program is either legal or in the best interests of
the United States?" the West Virginia Democrat asked.
House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers and Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y.,
promised a congressional inquiry into the two Justice Department legal
opinions that reportedly explicitly authorized the use of painful and
psychological tactics on terrorism suspects.
"Both the alleged content of these opinions and the fact that they have been
kept secret from Congress are extremely troubling, especially in light of
the department's 2004 withdrawal of an earlier opinion similarly approving
such methods," Conyers, D-Mich., and fellow House Judiciary member Nadler
wrote in a letter Thursday. Their letter to Keisler requested copies of the
memos.
The two Democrats also asked that Steven Bradbury, the Justice Department's
acting chief of legal counsel, "be made available for prompt committee
hearings."
The memos were disclosed in Thursday's editions of The New York Times, which
reported that the first 2005 legal opinion authorized the use of head slaps,
freezing temperatures and simulated drownings, known as waterboarding, while
interrogating terror suspects, and was issued shortly after then-Attorney
General Alberto Gonzales took over the Justice Department.
That secret opinion, which explicitly allowed using the painful methods in
combination, came months after a December 2004 opinion in which the Justice
Department publicly declared torture "abhorrent" and the administration
seemed to back away from claiming authority for such practices.
A second Justice opinion was issued later in 2005, just as Congress was
working on an anti-torture bill. That opinion declared that none of the
CIA's interrogation practices would violate the rules in the legislation
banning "cruel, inhuman and degrading" treatment of detainees, The Times
said, citing interviews with unnamed current and former officials.
Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said neither of those memos
overruled the December 2004 legal opinion that he said remains in effect.
"Neither Attorney General Gonzales nor anyone else within the department
modified or withdrew that opinion," Roehrkasse said in a statement.
"Accordingly, any advice that the department would have provided in this
area would rely upon, and be fully consistent with, the legal standards
articulated in the December 2004 memorandum."
"This country does not torture," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino told
reporters. "It is a policy of the United States that we do not torture, and
we do not."
Perino would not comment on whether the 2005 opinions authorized specific
interrogation practices, such as head-slapping and simulated drowning. She
initially said the first classified opinion was dated Feb. 5, 2005, but
White House spokesman Tony Fratto corrected Perino's statement later
Thursday to say the memo was dated months after February 2005. Another
administration official later said it was dated May 2005.
The dispute may come down to how the Bush administration defines torture, or
whether it allowed U.S. interrogators to interpret anti-torture laws beyond
legal limits. CIA spokesman George Little said the agency sought guidance
from the Bush administration and Congress to make sure its program to detain
and interrogate terror suspects followed U.S. law.
"The program, which has taken account of changes in U.S. law and policy, has
produced vital information that has helped our country disrupt terrorist
plots and save innocent lives," Little said in a statement. "The agency has
always sought a clear legal framework, conducting the program in strict
accord with U.S. law, and protecting the officers who go face-to-face with
ruthless terrorists."
Congress has prohibited cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of terror
suspects. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said several extreme interrogation
techniques, including waterboarding, are specifically outlawed.
"As some may recall, there was at the time a debate over the way in which
the administration was likely to interpret these prohibitions," McCain said
in a statement. McCain added that he was "personally assured by
administration officials that at least one of the techniques allegedly used
in the past, waterboarding, was prohibited under the new law."
The American Civil Liberties Union called for an independent counsel to
investigate the Justice Department's torture opinions, calling the memos "a
cynical attempt to shield interrogators from criminal liability and to
perpetuate the administration's unlawful interrogation practices."
The issue quickly hit the presidential campaign trail.
"The secret authorization of brutal interrogations is an outrageous betrayal
of our core values, and a grave danger to our security," Democratic
presidential candidate Barack Obama said in a statement.
The 2005 opinions approved by Gonzales remain in effect despite efforts by
Congress and the courts to limit interrogation practices used by the
government in response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Gonzales
resigned last month under withering criticism from congressional Democrats
and a loss of support among members of his own party.
The authorizations came after the withdrawal of an earlier classified
Justice opinion, issued in 2002, that had allowed certain aggressive
interrogation practices so long as they stopped short of producing pain
equivalent to experiencing organ failure or death. That controversial memo
was withdrawn in June 2004.
Democrats Demand to See Torture Memos
Thursday, October 4, 2007
WASHINGTON -- Senate and House Democrats demanded Thursday to see two secret
memos that reportedly authorize painful interrogation tactics against terror
suspects - despite the Bush administration's insistence that it has not
violated U.S. anti-torture laws.
White House and Justice Department press officers said legal opinions
written in 2005 did not reverse an administration policy issued in 2004 that
publicly renounced torture as "abhorrent."
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller sent a letter to the
acting attorney general saying the administration's credibility is at risk
if the documents are not turned over to Congress.
The memos are "critical to an appropriate assessment" of interrogation
tactics approved by the White House and the Justice Department, Rockefeller
wrote to Acting Attorney General Peter D. Keisler. "Why should the public
have confidence that the program is either legal or in the best interests of
the United States?" the West Virginia Democrat asked.
House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers and Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y.,
promised a congressional inquiry into the two Justice Department legal
opinions that reportedly explicitly authorized the use of painful and
psychological tactics on terrorism suspects.
"Both the alleged content of these opinions and the fact that they have been
kept secret from Congress are extremely troubling, especially in light of
the department's 2004 withdrawal of an earlier opinion similarly approving
such methods," Conyers, D-Mich., and fellow House Judiciary member Nadler
wrote in a letter Thursday. Their letter to Keisler requested copies of the
memos.
The two Democrats also asked that Steven Bradbury, the Justice Department's
acting chief of legal counsel, "be made available for prompt committee
hearings."
The memos were disclosed in Thursday's editions of The New York Times, which
reported that the first 2005 legal opinion authorized the use of head slaps,
freezing temperatures and simulated drownings, known as waterboarding, while
interrogating terror suspects, and was issued shortly after then-Attorney
General Alberto Gonzales took over the Justice Department.
That secret opinion, which explicitly allowed using the painful methods in
combination, came months after a December 2004 opinion in which the Justice
Department publicly declared torture "abhorrent" and the administration
seemed to back away from claiming authority for such practices.
A second Justice opinion was issued later in 2005, just as Congress was
working on an anti-torture bill. That opinion declared that none of the
CIA's interrogation practices would violate the rules in the legislation
banning "cruel, inhuman and degrading" treatment of detainees, The Times
said, citing interviews with unnamed current and former officials.
Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said neither of those memos
overruled the December 2004 legal opinion that he said remains in effect.
"Neither Attorney General Gonzales nor anyone else within the department
modified or withdrew that opinion," Roehrkasse said in a statement.
"Accordingly, any advice that the department would have provided in this
area would rely upon, and be fully consistent with, the legal standards
articulated in the December 2004 memorandum."
"This country does not torture," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino told
reporters. "It is a policy of the United States that we do not torture, and
we do not."
Perino would not comment on whether the 2005 opinions authorized specific
interrogation practices, such as head-slapping and simulated drowning. She
initially said the first classified opinion was dated Feb. 5, 2005, but
White House spokesman Tony Fratto corrected Perino's statement later
Thursday to say the memo was dated months after February 2005. Another
administration official later said it was dated May 2005.
The dispute may come down to how the Bush administration defines torture, or
whether it allowed U.S. interrogators to interpret anti-torture laws beyond
legal limits. CIA spokesman George Little said the agency sought guidance
from the Bush administration and Congress to make sure its program to detain
and interrogate terror suspects followed U.S. law.
"The program, which has taken account of changes in U.S. law and policy, has
produced vital information that has helped our country disrupt terrorist
plots and save innocent lives," Little said in a statement. "The agency has
always sought a clear legal framework, conducting the program in strict
accord with U.S. law, and protecting the officers who go face-to-face with
ruthless terrorists."
Congress has prohibited cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of terror
suspects. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said several extreme interrogation
techniques, including waterboarding, are specifically outlawed.
"As some may recall, there was at the time a debate over the way in which
the administration was likely to interpret these prohibitions," McCain said
in a statement. McCain added that he was "personally assured by
administration officials that at least one of the techniques allegedly used
in the past, waterboarding, was prohibited under the new law."
The American Civil Liberties Union called for an independent counsel to
investigate the Justice Department's torture opinions, calling the memos "a
cynical attempt to shield interrogators from criminal liability and to
perpetuate the administration's unlawful interrogation practices."
The issue quickly hit the presidential campaign trail.
"The secret authorization of brutal interrogations is an outrageous betrayal
of our core values, and a grave danger to our security," Democratic
presidential candidate Barack Obama said in a statement.
The 2005 opinions approved by Gonzales remain in effect despite efforts by
Congress and the courts to limit interrogation practices used by the
government in response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Gonzales
resigned last month under withering criticism from congressional Democrats
and a loss of support among members of his own party.
The authorizations came after the withdrawal of an earlier classified
Justice opinion, issued in 2002, that had allowed certain aggressive
interrogation practices so long as they stopped short of producing pain
equivalent to experiencing organ failure or death. That controversial memo
was withdrawn in June 2004.
