By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer
October 5, 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed
without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes. BadConcress.com has no affiliation
whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is BadCongress.com
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.
|
