Addington, Yoo Offer Little In House Torture Hearing

Scott Horton, New York attorney specializing in international law and human rights. He is also a legal affairs contributor to Harper’s magazine, where he writes the blog No Comment. He served as chair of the Committee on International Law at the New York City Bar Association.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, the War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman with Juan Gonzalez. Juan?

JUAN GONZALEZ: The American Civil Liberties Union and the National Lawyers Guild are calling on the U.S. Government to appoint an independent prosecutor to investigate the military and CIA’s use of torture. The calls were made yesterday on International Day in support of Victims of Torture. Meanwhile on Capitol Hill, a House subcommittee heard the testimony of Vice President Dick Cheney’s Chief of Staff David Addington and former Justice Department Attorney General John Yoo. Addington and Yoo are said to have been instrumental in developing the administration’s torture policy. Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz of Florida questioned David Addington about his role at Guantanamo.

DEBBIE WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ: A JAG attorney in Guantanamo, Diane Beaver, is quoted in a Vanity Fair article as saying that the message from you and the other visitors was “do whatever needed to be done”. And just weeks after that visit interrogators at Guantanamo Bay began developing a far harsher interrogation program than they have never used before. Did you visit Guantanamo Bay in September of 2002 as has been reported?

DAVID ADDINGTON: I don’t remember the exact date, but I went there a number of times.

DEBBIE WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ: Well, do you recall going to Guantanamo Bay around that time?

DAVID ADDINGTON: I really don’t remember the dates, ma’am, but I remember going in –

DEBBIE WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ: How many times did you go to Guantanamo Bay during that period?

DAVID ADDINGTON: I’m not sure what period you’re describing. I would say I’ve probably been to Guantanamo maybe 5 times? The first time would have been years ago, which isn’t relevant to this, when I worked at the Department of Defense and then I’ve probably been, I would guess three or-

DEBBIE WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ: On one of those trips, did you meet with JAG attorneys?

DAVID ADDINGTON: I didn’t recall it. I remember when Colonel Beaver, who was referenced I think in Mr. Sands’ Vanity Fair article. I did not remember meeting her there. The only time I remember meeting her was at the Department of Defense many years later.

DEBBIE WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ: What generally prompted your trips?

DAVID ADDINGTON: I was invited to go and accepted. I thought it would be good to go and see what they were doing.

DEBBIE WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ: Did you of any discussions on those trips about interrogation methods?

DAVID ADDINGTON: I do not know about methods. I was it would probably did. Only in the sense I can remember—I’m not sure about this particular trip–

DEBBIE WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ: On any of the trips?

DAVID ADDINGTON: Yes. They would show us an interrogation room with no one in it so you could see what the room looked like and then separately look through like a one-way mirror. You could see into it. Having done that, I am sure they must have discussed—

DEBBIE WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ: Did you discuss interrogation methods that were directly referenced in the memo that we’ve been discussing here at this hearing?

DAVID ADDINGTON: I am not sure I remember this memo having methods.

DEBBIE WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ: Did you discuss the specific types of interrogation methods that interrogators should use while at Guantanamo Bay?

DAVID ADDINGTON: I do not recall.

DEBBIE WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ: Does that mean you did not do it?

DAVID ADDINGTON: That means I did not recall it.

DEBBIE WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ: It is hard to fathom that you would not have a recollection on specific conversations about types of interrogation methods.

DAVID ADDINGTON: Is there a question pending, ma’am?

DEBBIE WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ: The question is, I do not believe that you do not recall whether you discussed the interrogation methods. I will ask you again, did you discuss specific interrogation methods on any of your trips to Guantanamo Bay with people who would be administering the interrogation?

DAVID ADDINGTON: As I said to you, I do not recall. Let me be clear to you. There are two things that may be helpful to you in asking your questions.

DEBBIE WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ: I do not need help in asking my questions.

DAVID ADDINGTON: You’ll find, when you question me with respect to the CIA program, it is more extensive than the DOD program. You would not find is so unusual that I do not recall.

DEBBIE WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ: There’s an accusation that interrogation methods went far beyond, and up to, and passed torture following your visits to Guantanamo Bay. I’m trying to get a sense of whether you actually went there, encouraged the specific interrogation methods and whether they crossed the line. I am pretty clear on why am asking the questions and which ones.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is questioning Vice President Cheney’s Chief of Staff David Addington during a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee subcommittee on the constitution’s civil rights and civil liberties. This is John Conyers questioning former Justice Department Attorney John Yoo.

JOHN CONYERS: During a public debate, it was reported you were asked if the President could order that a suspect be tortured in gruesome fashion and you responded—I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that. Is that accurate?

JOHN YOO: Mr. Chairman, I do not believe is accurate because it took what I said out of context. The quote stopped right before I continue to explain a number of things, which I appreciate the opportunity to do.

JOHN CONYERS: So far, what I read was accurate, but there was more?

JOHN YOO: Is stops like mids entence. I finished the sentence during the debate—

JOHN CONYERS: OK, thank you. Is there anything that the President cannot order to be done to a suspect if you believed it necessary for national defense?

JOHN YOO: Mr. Chairman, I think that goes back to the quote you just read.

JOHN CONYERS: No, I’m just asking you the question. What do you think?

JOHN YOO: I think it is the same question.

JOHN CONYERS: What is the answer?

JOHN YOO: Can I make clear I’m not talking about—

JOHN CONYERS: You do not have to make anything clear, just answer the question. You do not have to worry about not saying—just answer the question.

JOHN YOO: My thinking right now—

JOHN CONYERS: Yes, right now at this moment.

JOHN YOO: At this moment, Mr. Chairman, is that first the question you’re posing—

JOHN CONYERS: What is the answer?

JOHN YOO: Mr. Chairman, I am trying to make you—

JOHN CONYERS: Oh, I get it. You are wasting my time. Look, counsel, could the President order a suspect buried alive?

JOHN YOO: Mr. Chairman, I do not think I have ever—

JOHN CONYERS: I am asking you that.

JOHN YOO: I did not give him advice.

JOHN CONYERS: That is not what I’m asking you. I said, do you think the president could order a suspect buried alive?

JOHN YOO: I do not think a president—no American President would ever order that or feel it necessary to order that.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Near the end of Thursday’s hearing, Congressman William Delahunt questioned John Yoo on whether waterboarding violated the convention against torture that the US ratified in 1994.

WILLIAM DELAHUNT: It would appear to be a question as to whether the use of—on the three occasions, that have been acknowledged by the CIA and reported in the media, as to the technique that was used as to whether it was a violation of the convention against torture or not. Would you agree with me?

JOHN YOO: You’re saying there’s an open question whether waterboarding in the way used by the CIA violated the convention against torture?

WILLIAM DELAHUNT: That is what i’m saying. It’s an open question.

JOHN YOO: I just wanted to make sure. I think one of the problems is that the convention against torture is interpreted different ways by different countries. If your question is, does waterboarding as the way it has been described by the director of the CIA Mr. Hayden, violates the treaty, it may violate the treaty as understood by some countries. Our understanding of the treaty is defined by the criminal statute and the torture victims—

MAN: With that objection, he has yielded his minute to—

WILLIAM DELAHUNT: I would oppose this. The techniques, whatever was utilized on those occasions, and I think we agree it is an open question, if they were used on American military personnel, it would still be an open question as to whether they violated the convention against torture then?

JOHN YOO: So you’re asking me?

WILLIAM DELAHUNT: I am asking you.

JOHN YOO: My understanding of the testimony that was given before the committee was that it was his view that if we were using it as part of the training on our own servicemen and officials who might be captured, I thought it was his view and testimony, that that would not be a violation of the statute.

WILLIAM DELAHUNT: But if it was used by an enemy, because we consider that it did not constitute torture, then the enemy that utilized that on American military personnel would not be in violation of the convention against torture?

MAN: The time has expired, the witness will answer the question.

JOHN YOO: Sir, I do not remember whether Mr. Bradbury went that far and reached that conclusion. That could be an implication of what his statement was.

WILLIAM DELAHUNT: The question was of you, not of Mr. Bradbury.

JOHN YOO: I know, but I wanted to make sure that it is clear what the administration’s position is. They directly answer the question to the committee.

WILLIAM DELAHUNT: Would you answer the question? If some enemy interrogator used that technique on an American prisoner of war, would that be—

JOHN YOO: Now it would depend on circumstances.

AMY GOODMAN: John Yoo, being questioned by New York Congress Member Jerrold Nadler. To talk more about the torture hearing, Scott Horton joins us, New York Attorney specializing in international law and human rights. Legal affairs contributor to Harpers magazine. Welcome to Democracy Now! You were there, you watched the whole hearing. Your thoughts?

SCOTT HORTON: It was an interesting spectacle. But it was interesting because we got a good, close-up look at David Addington. This was his first public appearance in seven years in this administration, in which he’s played a potent role behind the scenes. I think the David Addington we saw is exactly the David Addington that Jerrold Goldsmith described. Smug, arrogant, aloof, a classic put down artist and someone who understood very well how to answer questions without really answering them at all.

JUAN GONZALEZ: When it came to the issue of one of the clips we played about his trip to Guantanamo, he could not recall meetings the Senate has said he has since participated in as well.

SCOTT HORTON: I think that exchange was one of his least credible appearances. He knew going into this hearing that that celebrated trip described Michael Smith and others, was going to be at the focus of questions, and indeed it was. It is certainly been described a number of times, and a number of documents came out relating to it before the Senate Armed Services committee. We know he was there, we know he was playing a key role, we know he was playing an advocacy role, pushing forward the use of the tough stuff by interrogators. We know it as an immediate affect on the ground. What was his response? It was a lapse of memory.

AMY GOODMAN: What about the fact both of them have been forced to testify under subpoena. John Yoo, the law professor, at one point asked if he had—if anyone had ever asked to weigh in on the legality of water boarding and he said he could not answer without revealing classified information.

SCOTT HORTON: That was ridiculous response. In fact, Miguel Estrada, partner at Gibson Dunn, failed Bush administration appointee to the D.C. circuit was sitting behind him whispering in his ear throughout the hearings, as his lawyer, basically, helping him dodge questions. One of the favorite dodges was to rely on instructions that the Justice Department gave. On this particular point, the current acting head of the Office of Legal Counsel, Stephen Bradbury, had already appeared before Congress and had testified about these issues, had talked about the fact these things were derived from training and had given a good deal of detail about the water boarding proceeding. So his blanket refusal to enter into the territory to talk about it was absurd. There really was no basis for that.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Yoo, being the primary author of some of the most infamous memos, permitting some of the torture to go forward, he seemed almost weark in terms of being able to defend himself. He seemed at times clinching over the fact was even there.

SCOTT HORTON: That is right. I think we’ve seen publicly two different John Yoo’s. We see the one writes in The Wall Street Journal,who appears on talk shows come and gives lectures around the country, he’s boisterous, he’s argumentative, he’s assertive. However, when John Yoo raises his hand and swears to tell the truth subject to perjury – suddenly he becomes extremely quiet. He did not really want to enter a single question. He didn’t really even want to go into things he’s discussed in public repeatedly.

AMY GOODMAN: It is interesting he teaches at U.C. Berkeley Law school, that the students actually let him teach there.

SCOTT HORTON: In fact, there’s a big controversy right now and the dean has spoken out in support of John Yoo, saying that he is a tenured professor after all, and there’s no evidence, certainly he is not been convicted of a crime yet, therefore, he is entitled to continue to teach. They’re setting a very high standard for the faculty at Berkley.

AMY GOODMAN: So what came of yesterday’s hearing?

SCOTT HORTON: We saw some progress on just a couple of fonts. By and large, it was an exercise in dodge ball with the two witnesses avoiding the questions. But where we saw little bit of a breakthrough, we’ve David Addington very closely tied to the evolutiong of these new techniques at the C.I.A., he acknowledged that. That confirms prior reports. I think the second thing, the role of a group that was called the war council. He acknowledged that and talk about that to some extent, in a sort of laughing way, but very clear that David Addington, John Yoo, and jim haynes from the department of defense were playing the key roles, fixing policy all along the way. Where we saw the dodges that had to do David Addington’s bonds Dick Cheney, if you notice is in hardly appeared drought—David Addington’s boss Dick Cheney—any notices now hardly appeared throughout the questions. We see that Addington had a failure of memory.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to ask you what appears to have been a call for news coverage about the hearing in the commercial media. The n.y. Times had an article way back in the paper today, given the enormous increasing attention to the u.s. Participation and involvement in torture, these principles will come to testify and is so little attention. Your reaction?

SCOTT HORTON: No, I agree with that. The major broadcast really downplayed this hearing. I think I heard many reporters were curious, room was filled with press, which was to compare with the coverage. They wanted to see Addington, but i think there’s a sense there was relatively little news value that came out of it because most of the story they feel they have already covered and developed, but they really have not. \u8232

AMY GOODMAN: Scott Horton, it is good to have you with this. We will continue to follow this. Scott Horton, news professor, writes the blog No Comment. Also interesting that John Yoo is married to the former cnn reporter. This is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. I’m Amy Goodman. We’ll be back in a moment.

The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.