Ashcroft Defends Waterboarding in Front of Judiciary Committee

Former Attorney General John Ashcroft testified in front of the House Judiciary Committee at a hearing this morning about the Justice Department and the Guantánamo Bay detainees.

During his testimony, Ashcroft defended the use of some interrogation techniques that have come under fire, including waterboarding, as sometimes necessary for gathering information from “those who wish to do harm to America.”

“The reports I have heard, and I have no reason to disbelieve them, these techniques are very valuable,” Ashcroft said. “I was told the value of information gathered through the use of enhanced interrogation techniques was across the board more valuable than other information.”

He continued, “When you’re defending the country, you should have the full range of options open to you, and that carries over to interrogation.”

Despite the benefits that he says can come from using enhanced interrogation techniques, Ashcroft says it wasn't hard to withdraw Justice Department legal opinions that approved the use of harsh interrogation methods which critics say amount to torture.

"It became apparent in the further examination of those opinions, when made in another timeframe, that there were matters of concerns that were brought to my opinion,'' Ashcroft told lawmakers. "It was not a hard decision for me.''

Ashcroft, who was joined on the panel by Walter Dellinger, chair of the appellate practice at O'Melveny & Myers, and Benjamin Wittes, a fellow and research director in public law and governance studies at the Brookings Institution, said several times that at the time he was serving as attorney general, waterboarding was not designated as torture under the law.

He continued to say that President George Bush’s administration and the Department of Justice wanted to stay within the limits of the law, but within those limits the government should  act as “aggressively as possible to keep Americans safe.”

Ashcroft says the Central Intelligence Agency should not be required to follow the Army field manual’s guidelines for interrogations because the nature of the two organizations are different, and the CIA may need latitude in their guidelines to allow for those differences.

Dellinger disagreed with Ashcroft sharply, telling members of the committee, “Having guidelines for the CIA that differ from the Army field manual on how to interrogate opens up a gap on what torture is, and what is acceptable.” He went on to say that even in a hypothetical situation where a bomb was hidden in Manhattan and the only way to find out where it was located would be to waterboard a suspect, the practice would be illegal.

“Of course the president should do whatever is necessary to address the situation, but then he must turn himself over to the law and accept punishment for any laws he might have broken. We ask greater sacrifices of our military every day,” Dellinger says.

Wittes says it is hard to determine whether so-called enhanced interrogation techniques are more effective than the rapport-building approach that is the generally accepted technique of federal interrogators.

“The best academic work I have seen that evaluated the data, came to the conclusion that we don’t know what works. Everybody believes that the technique that they used successfully is the best way,” Wittes says. “Unless you know a technique doesn’t work and you find yourself under enormous time pressure, you’re going to be under a great deal of pressure to ratchet your interrogations up.” Wittes did say, however, that it is “hard to reconcile” waterboarding with the torture statute.

Comments

[Old Warrior]

This is the same guy whose Justice Department would not let Zacarias Moussaoui's computer hard drive looked at because it would violate his civil rights. That act could have prevented 911 and he’s for water boarding because you can get valuable information. How screwed up in that?

[Dave]

During the Vietnam War, our country trained those most likely to become POW's by using techniques which are now classified by Mr. Dellinger -- and those he represents -- as torture. I went through some of this training over the period of several weeks (including nights and weekends, just like a real POW). The techniques were admittedly unpleasant, but they did not rise to the level of torture. Ironically, we knew as we were enduring them that the enemy was actually using REAL torture. What a difference a generation makes; now nearly everything is torture. Orwell would have looked at this status quo and defined the word "torture" (as the critics dysphemize it) as "anything that works for our side."

Waterboarding is unpleasant. I would not like to have it performed on me. It is not torture, and no amount of name-calling or labeling can make it such.

The real problem -- and it is a serious one -- is that we are at war and yet we have people within our own country who seek to hamper our ability to conduct that war through to a victory. I'll chip in to finance a trip for Mr. Dellinger (and those who agree with him) to visit those on the other side of this conflict so that he can criticize their methods in like fashion. He can explain the Geneva Convention to them; they apparently know nothing about it. I'll await with great interest to hear his results.

Dave
Military Intelligence, 1968-72

[David Kronenberg]

Euphemisms are used to hide truth and manipulate a listening audience. If your intention is to reduce outrage, use an innocuous-sounding euphemism -- say "accelerated lifespan diminishment" instead of murder.

The euphemism "waterboarding" which Mr. Ashcroft uses and which we have allowed to permeate the discussion sounds more like an amusement park ride than it does like a torture technique -- which it simply and unequivocally is.

The term is deliberately misleading and deceptively reassuring -- like using the term "wet work" to describe assassination. "Waterboarding" is partial drowning; the torture victim is made to believe he is being murdered by asphyxiation.

"Waterboarding" entails fixing a water-saturated cloth over the mouth and nose of a bound victim. The torture victim feels that he is being asphyxiated -- because he is. The victim believes he is being killed. He struggles to breathe but cannot get air into his lungs because his airway is obstructed by fabric and water. The torture victim believes he is being killed by the torturers. The euphemism hides the truth of the technique and all but surrenders the argument. It's a simulated murder by drowning.

With all respect due to his former position, I believe Mr. Ashcroft deluded himself regarding both the legality and the efficacy of the technique of simulated murder by drowning. The highest-ranking attorneys in all four military branches stated without reservation that this technique violated Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions (letter from Senator Durban to Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales).
American officials should never have allowed simulated murder to be used as an interrogation technique. It violated the Geneva Conventions, which we depend on to keep our own military personnel safe in times of conflict. And now that we know it was done, with official permission, those officials should admit their mistakes and take responsibility for them.

[Richard Feeney]

Waterboarding does no permanent harm to terrorists and should be permitted under selected circumstances.

Richard L Feeney
Former US Army Ranger
US Army [Retired]