[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 72 (Thursday, May 20, 2004)]
[House]
[Page H3495]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SMART SECURITY AND ABU GHRAIB SCANDAL
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, amidst all the debate about the defense
bill, we seem to have forgotten one very, very important thing, which
should be the driving force behind every decision we make with regard
to Iraq. Mr. Speaker, nearly 800 young men and women have lost their
lives as a result of the conflict. Eight hundred.
We must never forget that people are dying as a result of the
decisions of this House. Many of our brave soldiers will never again
walk this Earth because of the choices we have made. Many more will be
lame for life. Clearly, something is wrong with our Nation's policies
when 800 of our soldiers have died in Iraq, most of them after our
flight-clad President declared an end to major combat operations.
Something is most certainly wrong when events occur such as the
abuses in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, or even events like the deaths of
five Iraqi prisoners in war-torn detention camps, as the Denver Post
recently reported. The fact that these actions occurred in separate
places, under the command of different interrogators, demonstrates that
this is a systemic problem.
The Pentagon's response has been to court-martial the young soldiers
directly responsible for these instances of torture, calling them bad
apples. And what has been the response by the leaders of this country?
Two weeks ago, President Bush appeared on Arab television condemning
the abuses by American servicemembers and private American contractors.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld testified before the Senate and
House Committee on Armed Services for the same purpose. Both men in
their respective addresses tried to distance themselves from the
crimes.
Mr. Speaker, President Harry Truman made famous the quote ``The buck
stops here.'' President Bush would be well served to take notice of
this quotation, which President Truman thought was so important that he
kept it as a sign on his desk in the Oval Office.
In fact, it is becoming more apparent every day that all along both
President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld may have known more than they
were letting on and that the crimes committed at the prisons could have
originated in the Pentagon and passed through the Oval Office.
An investigation by Newsweek magazine provides evidence that
President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld, along with Attorney General John
Ashcroft, may have personally agreed to a secret system of detention
interrogation designed to circumnavigate the Geneva Conventions. This
information was substantiated by a New Yorker magazine article, which
similarly detailed a Pentagon operation known inside the intelligence
community as Copper Green, which encouraged physical coercion and
sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners in an attempt to produce
intelligence about the post-war insurgency in Iraq.
Are we really to believe that the Secretary of Defense had no
knowledge of the actions being taken by the soldiers under his command?
And if the Secretary of Defense had absolutely no knowledge of this
abuse, is that not a gigantic problem in and of itself? And if
Secretary Rumsfeld did know of Copper Green, are we really to believe
that nobody shared this information with the President? And if not, why
not?
The buck stops with the Commander in Chief, the President of the
United States. The buck does not stop with the young soldiers
interrogating Iraqi prisoners. The buck does not stop with Brigadier
General Janis Karpinski, the U.S. general in charge of running the
prisons in Iraq. The buck does not even stop with Donald Rumsfeld, the
Secretary of Defense. The buck stops with the President and only with
the President.
There has to be a better way, because the Bush doctrine of passing
the buck has been tried and it has failed. It is time for a new
national security strategy, one that emphasizes brains instead of
brawn, one that is consistent with the best American values.
I have introduced H. Con. Res. 392, legislation to create a SMART
security platform for the 21st century. SMART stands for Sensible
Multilateral American Response to Terrorism. SMART treats war as an
absolute last resort. It fights terrorism with stronger intelligence
and multilateral partnerships. It controls the spread of weapons of
mass destruction with a renewed commitment to nonproliferation. And it
aggressively invests in the development of impoverished nations with an
emphasis on women's health and education.
The buck stops with the President of the United States. No more
denials, no more passing the buck.
____________________