Committee Examines Administration Torture Policies, Many Questions Left Unanswered

Subcommittee Authorizes Subpoena for Addington

May 6, 2008 -- (Washington, DC)- Today, the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties heard testimony from a panel of witnesses who agreed that there is no "ticking time bomb" that justifies harsh interrogation techniques that were approved in Bush Administration legal memos.

Article continues below...

Protest sign, Washington, D.C.: Photo by Giovanni Variottinelli (CC)

The subcommittee also voted to authorize House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) to issue a subpoena for David Addington, chief of staff to the vice president, for a future hearing on the administration's interrogation rules. The subpoena was approved by voice vote.

"Radio silence was the response when today's witnesses were asked to identify a single example of a true 'ticking bomb' scenario ever occurring, even though such scenarios are often invoked to justify torture," Conyers said. "These scholars, who have studied this issue extensively and have intimate knowledge of the legal authority the administration sought, could not identify a single example. I hope that the administration officials who have agreed to testify will shed some light on this and many other questions raised in today's hearing."

Further testimony included the following highlights:

* Professor Phillipe Sands described the impact of US interrogation policies and legal opinions on our standing around the world, recounting how a foreign president had pulled out a copy of a John Yoo legal opinion as evidence that US law permitted torture.

* Georgetown Professor David Luban testified that the John Yoo interrogation opinions were so flawed – full of “hot air” in his words – that US agents were “misled” into believing their actions were lawful and people in US custody “may have suffered cruel and illegal treatment because of these memos.”

* Professor Sands described an important visit by senior administration lawyers to Guantanamo Bay in 2002 – vice presidential aide David Addington was on this trip and Sands described him as the “leader of the pack.” Former Defense Department general counsel Jim Haynes was also on this trip, and Sands testified at length about how Mr. Haynes and the administration had improperly blamed junior personnel at Guantanamo for initiating and legally approving aggressive interrogation techniques when in fact, Professor Sands testified, those techniques were pushed from the top of the administration and based on legal approval from the John Yoo August 2002 memorandum.

* Professor Sands powerfully described his experiences living in Great Britain during the peak of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) threat and how the British experience had led to a national and nonpartisan consensus in that country that torture was ineffective, counterproductive, and wrong.

* All witnesses agreed that it is critical for the committee to continue to explore this issue and to document the facts and circumstances of the development an legal approval of US interrogation policy. Repeatedly, witnesses emphasized the need to hear from Mr. Addington, Mr. Yoo, and others.

"In future hearings we plan to hear from other key players in this process – including the vice president’s chief of staff David Addington, former Attorney General Ashcroft, and the author of several key legal memos, Professor John Yoo," Conyers added. "The subpoena that the subcommittee has just authorized for David Addington is thus a very welcome step and I look forward to hearing further testimony in this very disturbing matter."

Source: House Judiciary Committee