the Judiciary Committee, possibly setting himself up for a citation of
Contempt of Congress. Here's the Washington Post article in today's paper
about it:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24867-2004Jun8.html
Ashcroft Refuses to Release '02 Memo
Document Details Suffering Allowed In Interrogations
By Susan Schmidt, Washington Post Staff Writer, Wednesday, June 9, 2004;
Page A01
Attorney General John D. Ashcroft told Congress yesterday that he would not
release a 2002 policy memo on the degree of pain and suffering legally
permitted during enemy interrogations, but said he knows of no presidential
order that would allow al Qaeda suspects to be tortured by U.S. personnel.
Angry Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee called on Ashcroft to
provide the document. They said portions that have appeared in news reports
suggest the Bush administration is reinterpreting U.S. law and the Geneva
Conventions prohibiting torture.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said the memo on interrogation techniques
permissible for the CIA to use on suspected al Qaeda operatives "appears to
be an effort to redefine torture and narrow prohibitions against it." The
document was prepared by the Justice Department's office of legal counsel
for the CIA and addressed to White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales.
The 50-page Justice Department memo said inflicting physical or
psychological pain might be justified in the war on terrorism "to prevent
further attacks on the United States by the al Qaeda terrorist network." It
added that "necessity and self defense could provide justifications that
would eliminate any criminal liability."
The Bush administration has said that the discussion in the memo
notwithstanding, al Qaeda and Taliban detainees, including those held at
Guantanamo Bay, have been treated in accord with international conventions
prohibiting torture.
The memo and a second written by Pentagon lawyers surfaced in news reports
this week amid the ongoing abuse scandal at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison. The
documents reflect discussions on the legality of softening prohibitions
against inflicting pain on al Qaeda suspects abroad, saying the practice may
sometimes be justified.
Ashcroft's hard-line approach to the war on terrorism has drawn criticism
from civil libertarians. This time, he came under fire during a scheduled
oversight hearing on a day that brought news of the memos.
"There is no presidential order immunizing torture," Ashcroft told the
Judiciary panel. He cited President Bush's statement that al Qaeda captives
should be treated in a manner consistent with the Geneva Conventions, even
though the administration chose not to designate detainees as prisoners of
war.
Under questioning, Ashcroft said he could not discuss whether the president
issued any orders on the interrogation of detainees, but said: "I want to
confirm that the president has not directed or ordered any conduct that
would violate any one of those enactments of the United States Congress or
that would violate the provisions of any of the treaties as they have been
entered into by the United States."
Ashcroft said he would not discuss the contents of the Justice and Pentagon
memos, and would not turn over the Justice memo to the committee. "I believe
it is essential to the operation of the executive branch that the president
have the opportunity to get information from the attorney general that is
confidential," he said.
Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) and Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) warned
Ashcroft that his refusal might place him in contempt of Congress.
"If such a memo existed, would that -- is that good law? . . . Do you think
that torture might be justified?" Biden demanded.
Ashcroft responded, "I condemn torture. I don't think it's productive, let
alone justified."
Biden told Ashcroft that prohibitions against torture are intended to
"protect my son in the military. That's why we have these treaties. So when
Americans are captured, they are not tortured. That's the reason, in case
anybody forgets it."
Ashcroft said he needed no reminder, because his own son has been on active
military duty in the Persian Gulf.
Ashcroft added that although he would not comment on the contents of the
memo, "it is not the job of the Justice Department or this administration to
define torture."
That, he said, has been done in explicit fashion by Congress in enacting law
that bars intentional infliction of "severe physical or mental pain or
suffering." Ashcroft said he would not be drawn into a discussion of the
legal boundaries of aggressive interrogation.
Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), who has taken a tough line against
terrorism suspects, alluded to the "high dudgeon" of his Democratic
colleagues, saying he wanted to "interject a note of balance here.
"We ought to be reasonable about this," he told the crowded committee room.
"I think there are very few people in this room or in America who would say
that torture should never, ever be used, particularly if thousands of lives
are at stake."
Bush, Schumer told Ashcroft, "can hardly be blamed for asking you or his
White House counsel or the Department of Defense to figure out when it comes
to torture, what the law allows." But, Schumer said, the debate and
decisions should be public.
Ranking Democrat Patrick Leahy (Vt.) , angry that Ashcroft had not been
before the panel in 15 months, released a fusillade of criticism about his
handling of the war on terrorism.
"Mr. Attorney General, your statement lists accomplishments of the
Department of Justice since 9/11. But you leave out a number of things. For
example, of course, the obvious: Osama bin Laden remains at large," Leahy
said. He said that Ashcroft's "practices seem to be built on secret
detentions and overblown press releases."
But Republicans, particularly committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch (Utah),
lauded the Justice Department's efforts. Ashcroft was unapologetic about his
department's efforts to jail or deport suspected terrorist sympathizers.
"We have been criticized for these tough tactics, but we will continue to
use every means within the department and its reach and within the
Constitution and the statutes to deter, to disrupt, destroy terrorist
threats," he said.
(c) 2004 The Washington Post Company
This electronic communication, together with any attachments, may contain
information that is legally privileged, confidential or otherwise private.
The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to
which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please be
aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of
this communication or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please immediately notify the original
sender and delete the received information from your system. Thank you.
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
