[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 85 (Friday, June 18, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H4568-H4573]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE PROBLEM WITH U.S. POLICY IN THE MIDDLE EAST
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Garrett of New Jersey). Under the
Speaker's announced policy of January 7, 2003, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Meek) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the
minority leader.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, once again, as I always say, it is
a pleasure to address the House of Representatives and the American
people. Tonight I will be joined by some of my colleagues who will this
evening be talking about the issue that is facing not only our military
but our future as we start to deal with this effort against terrorism.
First of all, I would like to give my condolences to the family that
lost their loved one that was held hostage. Our thoughts and prayers
are with you and your family and your local community. Unfortunately,
all too often now, violence has played such a very strong role in the
way not only Americans live but also how individuals live abroad.
I just would like to make some opening comments. When we start
talking about how we entered Iraq, claiming we were better than the
dictator Saddam Hussein, which I do believe very strongly we are still,
there are some decisions that are being made that are putting into
jeopardy how the world feels about the United States of America and
also how the world views our moral high ground, or what is left of it
as it relates to abuse.
I think it is important for us to remember that Iraqis at the
beginning gave us a great deal of credit. They were believing that we
would deliver on our promise of providing security, safety and
democracy that they could believe in and live under. Now revelations of
prisoner mistreatment have really clouded the minds of many Iraqis that
had hoped.
Some Iraqis saw us as being a part of holding out the flag of
hypocrisy in the region due to the fact of the Abu Ghraib issue. The
scandalous impact of opinions, especially of Iraqis and other members
of the world, of photographs that have been made public throughout the
Muslim world, is deeply repugnant to most Muslims.
I think it is also, Mr. Speaker, important for us to remember that as
we start to look at what is taking place in Iraq, at the top of the
week we thought it would be a good week for coalition forces as it
pertains to the new Iraqi
[[Page H4569]]
government taking over by June 30. We thought the topic of the week
would be Iraqi's soccer team joining the Olympics. But it was
overshadowed by tales of a gentleman by the name of al-Dory, a 39-year-
old father of three, imprisoned by coalition forces on August 6 of last
year and was held until February 17 of this year.
al-Dory was arrested in his office in the oil ministry and initially
interrogated at one of Saddam Hussein's palaces in the capital city.
Suspected of being a member of an anti-U.S. insurgency, he was battered
with the butt of a gun and hung from the ceiling in a way that injured
his right arm. Last fall he was moved to Abu Ghraib prison on the
outskirts of Baghdad, where humiliation of those in photographs was
open and no longer secret.
By that time, he was released without explanation. al-Dory had lost
100 pounds of his 260 pounds. For the coalition forces, the
mistreatment of this prisoner also may have transformed places like Abu
Ghraib into insurgency recruitment stations.
Coalition forces told the Red Cross that 70 percent to 90 percent of
the individuals arrested in the past year were mistakenly jailed,
according to the Red Cross report in February. The United States also
tried to remedy the issue by releasing several thousand of these young
men, many of whom emerged bitter towards Americans in uniform.
This is what al-Dory said: ``Based on my experiences in prison, most
of the guys who were released will go to join insurgents immediately
because of the unjust treatment and the lack of response by the U.S.
Government.''
But tactics like these, really, Mr. Speaker, do not work towards the
safety of troops, and I will tell you that the culture that has been
set in the Department of Defense and the blocking of giving information
to this Congress to be able to respond to some of these issues are so
very, very important.
Veterans that are listening to us now who have served in previous
conflicts on behalf of democracy in foreign lands and also on behalf of
our country, their honor is at stake. Their honor is at stake making
sure that when people look at men and women in uniform, the world and
Americans, that they are doing a noble job, which I believe they are,
which I know they are.
It is some of the individuals that are making the decisions in the
suits and the ties that I am growing more and more concerned about.
I am so glad that tonight I share this session and this floor of the
House with two of my colleagues from Ohio. I would like to recognize my
good friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I also want to extend my sympathies to
the family of the prisoner on behalf of myself and my family and the
citizens of the 17th Congressional District in Ohio, and really all
Americans. We are reminded, unfortunately, daily about the struggles
that we do have here and how real they are, and when you see the kind
of torture and the kind of treatment and the kind of abuse and the
murdering that go on every day in Iraq, in Afghanistan and,
unfortunately, now in Saudi Arabia and many other countries, I think we
are all beginning to question more and more and I think at deeper and
deeper levels about the policy of our government and its effect on the
credibility of this country.
I think ultimately we come to this House floor with a certain amount
of humility. President Reagan had his peace through strength, and I
think it is easy for the bully to go around and kick people around, and
we have had to do that on a number of occasions. We needed to do that
in Afghanistan, and we did it in Iraq to a certain extent; but we have
now gotten ourselves bogged down in a situation that I believe is
making the American people less safe than they were before we went to
war in Iraq.
I just want to share some thoughts. We are wrapping this
congressional session up here for the week. We are on our way to catch
some planes back home. But we wanted to come down here and share some
of our thoughts, because there is this growing amount of frustration
among many of us, not only those of us who sit on the Committee on
Armed Services, those of us who have consistently backed the troops
with the defense appropriations bills that I voted for and the
gentleman voted for. No one can come to you orally and say you are not
supportive of the troops. We put the money where our mouth is, and we
are saying we support the troops, and we voted for the defense
appropriations. We worked it through committee; we made sure there were
the proper modifications after the war already began.
But the question we have here is really of two different strategies.
The one strategy was take the $200 billion that you are going to spend
in Iraq, and take that money and not only invest it in the United
States, but use it like we passed today the Homeland Security bill, use
more of that money to secure our ports, to make sure people are looking
through the cargo that is coming into the country.
One or two out of 50 ships that actually come into the ports actually
get checked. If you ask the American people, would you rather spend
$200 billion in Iraq or would you rather spend that money looking
through and hiring people to work at our cargo ports, I think the
decision is clear.
We put ourselves in this predicament that it is going to be very,
very difficult for us to get out of. I am not saying we should cut and
run. We have to do the best we can there.
Another point that I want to make is that we had the opportunity. If
we wanted to set up an Arab democracy in the Middle East, we could have
done it with Afghanistan. Talk about a tragedy, is what we have done in
Afghanistan.
We went in there, and now we only have 10,000 to 12,000 troops in
Afghanistan, when in fact we have 130,000-some in Iraq. Osama bin Laden
was in Afghanistan; the Taliban that was the home of al Qaeda was in
Afghanistan. That is where we needed to be.
If you wanted to set up an Arab democracy, we had the opportunity to
do that in Afghanistan. As we learned a couple weeks ago in committee
with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Myers, when we
began to talk about the drug production in Afghanistan, which is the
funding mechanism for al Qaeda, billions of dollars in heroin is grown
in Afghanistan, is sold, the money goes to al Qaeda and these different
terrorist organizations, and they use that money to fund terrorist
attacks all around the world.
{time} 1800
So we need to go to the heart of it. We need to cut out their
financing. We did that through the special organizations and the
nonprofits, and a lot of these that people had here in the United
States, but we also needed to go into Afghanistan and we needed to rid
them of the poppy and get rid of it. And the answer we got from the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, when I asked him directly what are we
doing about drug sales, drug production in Afghanistan, because it
seems like at least at this point that is the only crop that they can
grow, and the answer was stunning. I think the American people need to
know this. The answer was: they harvested the crop early this year, and
so we did not have the opportunity to stop them.
Let me repeat that. The answer from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
and the policy of the United States in response to a question by a
Member of Congress as to what are we doing about getting rid of the
drugs in Afghanistan, the answer is: they harvested the crop early.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to let the gentleman
know, I just could not believe that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff would respond, because I was there, would respond in that manner.
I think that he is a man of honor but also, at the same time, we are
looking at the way the Taliban is being funded. And they said that they
harvested the crop early. That is what he said. I was there. This is
once again not the Tim Ryan report, this is what actually took place.
It is very serious.
I know that the Pentagon would like to save the lives of many troops,
but it is some of the decisions that are being made at the top, not at
the bottom, but at the top that is putting American lives at stake.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, we want to include our good friend,
the gentlewoman from Cleveland, Ohio (Mrs. Jones), from the good old
Buckeye State, but before I yield to her, I
[[Page H4570]]
want to say that obviously we do not have enough troops in Afghanistan.
So here we are in Iraq doing what we are doing with 130,000 troops, we
only have between 10,000 and 15,000, I do not know the exact number, I
think it is about 13,000 troops in Afghanistan right now. Now, just
imagine if we took some of the money that we are spending in Iraq and
we used it for homeland security and we took some of the money and some
of the troops that we are using there and we had them in Afghanistan,
Afghanistan has natural resources we could be developing, the water
infrastructure we could be developing in Afghanistan, and setting up an
Arab democracy. Is that not what we want to do? Was that not the goal
after hearing about weapons of mass destruction, hearing that al Qaeda
is tied to Iraq, and Iraq is tied to 9/11 and they have weapons pointed
at us, there is an imminent threat and all of this other nonsense that
we heard before the war. But then the story eventually changed, and
there is always that undercurrent of: we need an Arab democracy in the
Middle East for stability purposes. Why did we not do that in
Afghanistan?
We have many, many other points to make here, but I would like to
begin to include our good friend here from Cleveland, Ohio into the
discussion, and I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman, who is my
surrogate mother here in the United States Congress.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Ryan), for inviting me to participate in this Special Order this
evening. I am so proud of both of them. I am only 2 minutes older than
either one of them, but I am very proud of the work and leadership that
both of them are showing in the U.S. Congress. I always remind people
that both of them remind me of my man child Mervin, who is very tall
and very good looking, and 200-plus pounds, and I see Tim pulling his
collar here. But I am so proud of the leadership that both of them are
showing.
So I suppose my colleagues want to know, what is a woman my age doing
with these two young guys on the floor of the House talking about
issues. I am just glad to be in the House with them and glad to be a
part of the work that they are doing.
As we are talking about this, first of all, let me express my
sympathies to the Johnson family on behalf of my entire family and the
people of the 11th Congressional District of Ohio. I can empathize with
the wife of Mr. Johnson, having lost my husband only in October of last
year. It reminds me of all of the terrible things that are going on
across the United States of America. It reminds me also of the need for
the United States to be aboveboard and the need for the United States
to be able to do things that in 20 years will withstand the light of
day.
I am reminded of a meeting that I had at the Pentagon with some of my
colleagues and Secretary Rumsfeld. This was around the time of military
tribunals and the discussion: what are we going to do with military
tribunals and how are they going to be handled? Those of my colleagues
who do not know, prior to coming to Congress I was a Cuyahoga County
prosecutor or DA and, prior to that I was a judge for 10 years.
So I said to Secretary Rumsfeld, Mr. Secretary, I have concerns about
military tribunals. What we need to make sure that we do in the course
of these tribunals is to assure that the rules of evidence are complied
with if, in fact, we are going to use people who have no experience in
hearing law and in hearing cases. But if we are going to use people or
judges who have had some experience, then the rules of evidence may not
be so important. But what is important is that we have in place rules
and regulations that will assure that a trial in Afghanistan or a trial
in Iraq or a trial in the United States involving the same offenses
will be treated commonly and that there will not be any disparity.
But more importantly I said to him, Mr. Secretary, any of our
activity needs to be able to withstand the light of day. And I was
reminded of that today when I read this article in the Wall Street
Journal saying that Rumsfeld defends hiding prisoners at CIA urging.
And what it does is it adds another layer of distrust upon the United
States and upon the United States military when he says in the article
that he suggested, without elaborating, that often this is done. There
are instances where it occurs that they hide prisoners from the Red
Cross.
The Red Cross in the international community is supposedly the
organization that will come in and say to the world that we did not see
any problems there and, therefore, you should not be concerned.
Now, if the United States admits to hiding people from the Red Cross,
that is another layer of concern or distrust that is put in place.
So I would again encourage Secretary Rumsfeld to not engage in such
conduct. In fact, I said not too long ago that Secretary Rumsfeld ought
to do the United States a favor and do the President of the United
States a favor and withdraw from his position. He should not wait for
someone to put him out; he should be man enough to resign and step away
from his conduct.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman would yield, as the
gentlewoman brought up, this is the latest with the Red Cross, that we
first said that this was just an isolated incident. This is just a few
wild folks we have working with us and it is an isolated incident. Now
we find out that the Secretary of Defense is the one saying pull him
aside over here and put him back here and do not put a number on him.
It is the same with the Halliburton contract. Vice President Cheney
for months and months said, I do not have anything to do with it. My
office does not have anything to do with this Halliburton contract.
Well, we find out earlier this week, it has been a long week, earlier
this week that Scooter Libby, the Chief of Staff of the Vice President
of the United States, okayed the contract to Halliburton. It went right
through his office. You cannot tell me that the Vice President did not
know anything about it.
So when you keep looking, we see the subversion of the Geneva
Convention. All of a sudden in the United States of America, we have
lawyers saying, well, Mr. President, you do not have to follow the
Geneva Convention. Why would you want to follow the Geneva Convention?
Some people out there are saying, yes, we would like to get these guys
and treat them maybe the way they deserve to be treated. But when we
look at what has happened today with the beheading and the murder that
happened today in Saudi Arabia, where is the moral high ground in the
United States? Where do we come out, and what can we possibly say? I
yield to the gentleman.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to my colleagues
that how the United States is viewed in the world is important. Some
people may discount it. Some people may feel, oh, well, who are they to
judge us? Well, let me just say that the United States spearheaded the
creation of the United Nations. Let us come together. I want the
American people to understand. There are a lot of veterans out there
that shed a lot of blood for this country, and I am so appreciative of
their service. There are a lot of diplomats that have gone and stood in
the eyes of communism, stood in the eyes of what was humane, I mean in
trying to promote democracy and treating people in a humane way. And
then now, for very few individuals at the top, and I am not talking
about the troops. It is very interesting, when we start talking about
the Pentagon, they have greater knowledge, especially of men and women
in uniform than many Members of Congress have, and for Secretary
Rumsfeld to okay an investigation by General Taguba to look at the
Iraqi prisoner abuse, knowing all along that he was a 2-star general
and he could only look at certain people, the first person that was
court-martialed was an enlisted man.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I want the gentleman to repeat that,
because that is a very important point and we need to share this with
the American people. Reiterate that point, about the man doing the
investigation.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. General Taguba, who is an honorable man, he was
doing what he was told just like many men and women in uniform, he was
only able to interview MPs, number 1. Number 2, he was not able to go
over his rank of a 2-star general. So this means from the very
beginning, the fix was on.
[[Page H4571]]
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. So the gentleman is saying that if there was a 3-
star or a 4-star or any officer above a 2-star, General Taguba could
not investigate?
Mr. MEEK of Florida. No, he could not. I mean that is just the way it
is.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. That is the way the military runs. You cannot have
someone low on the chain of command investigating Jack Nicholson, the
top dog.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. No, you could not. But we would never, through
what the Pentagon has said, we would never know whether the mistakes
were made at the top. That is pretty much what I am saying.
So the way the deck, if I can, the way the deck is fixed now, that
all of the investigations that are taking place need to be reviewed or
what have you, will be done from the 4-star on down.
Now, Secretary Rumsfeld has appointed someone out of his office, a 4-
star, that is going to go take over the investigation in Iraq. I can
tell my colleagues that this Congress does not have what they need to
be able to know what is going on with these investigations. This is
actually putting American troops at risk. This is putting contractor
lives on the line. And we will continue to see this abuse of prisoners
that are taking our Americans that are taken and made examples out of,
the first thing that this group said that has connections to al Qaeda
has said, we are doing this because of Abu Ghraib, and we are not
responding. The American Congress, we are not responding in a way to be
taking this thing seriously.
We have the chairman of the Armed Services Committee in the other
body who dared to have a couple of hearings and then he was chastised
by his colleagues, including our chairman of the Committee on Armed
Services.
So I think it is important that it is okay for Members to say how
they feel. There is nothing wrong with that. We are doing that now. But
I think it is fundamentally wrong when we know that we are becoming an
incubator for more individuals to fight against American troops that
will be in Iraq for some time to come.
So I think it is important that we remember that. I just wanted to
mention this U.N. thing before I yield real quick.
I mean the gentleman from Ohio mentioned a minute ago of how the
world thinks of us. Kofi Annan, Secretary General Kofi Annan of the
United Nations, a very honorable man, who has tried his best to be with
us as long as he could. But now, we would like to renew our
relationship with the Security Council of not having our troops or our
military come before an international criminal court. This
international criminal court was established by a treaty in 1998, a
conference in Rome that would put forth saying prosecuting individuals
responsible for most serious crimes, including genocide, war crimes,
and crimes against humanity. The treaty was signed by 135 countries and
was ratified by 94, including us, and took effect in 2002.
Just today or yesterday, Secretary General Kofi Annan urged the
Security Council on Thursday to oppose renewing the resolution that
would shield U.S. troops serving in U.N.-approved peacekeeping missions
from prosecution before an international court.
{time} 1815
He said, Exemption is wrong. This is from The Washington Post today.
In light of what took place, the circumstances of abuse that took
place, the detainees of Iraq and Afghanistan, I think it is very, very
important that we pay very close attention to this.
Then check this out. China, of all people, said that they may veto
the security council approving the United States this blanket
exemption.
Mr. Speaker, that article is as follows:
[From the Washington Post, June 18, 2004]
Annan Opposes Exempting U.S. From Court
(By Colum Lynch)
United Nations, June 17--U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan
urged the Security Council on Thursday to oppose renewal of a
resolution that would shield U.S. troops serving in U.N.-
approved peacekeeping missions from prosecution before the
International Criminal Court, saying the ``exemption is
wrong.''
Annan noted that the United States is facing international
criticism for abuses of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan. He
told reporters: ``It would be unwise to press for an
exemption, and it would be even more unwise on the part of
the Security Council to grant it. It would discredit the
council and the United Nations that stands for the rule of
law.''
The U.N. chief's remarks added momentum to a campaign by
supporters of the war crimes court to defeat the U.S.-
sponsored initiative. Senior U.N. diplomats said Annan would
press his case in a closed-door luncheon Friday with the 15
Security Council members.
``Blanket exemption is wrong,'' Annan said. ``It is of
dubious judicial value, and I don't think it should be
encouraged by the council.''
State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said the United
States is well aware of Annan's position but will press the
council for renewal. The resolution, first adopted two years
ago, applies to ``current or former officials'' from
countries that have not ratified the treaty establishing the
court--which includes United States--and exempts them from
prosecution before the court for crimes committed in U.N.-
authorized operations. The council expressed an ``intention''
to renew the resolution each year ``for as long as may be
necessary.''
``It should be renewed the way the council said it would,''
Boucher said. ``And so we're still talking to other
governments in New York and discussing this with them.
The United States faces fierce resistance within the
council as the July 1 deadline for renewal approaches.
China has threatened to veto the resolution, citing concern
that it could be used to provide political cover for abuses.
U.S. and other Security Council officials say that China--
which also has not ratified the court treaty--is confronting
the United States because it recently supported Taiwan's bid
for observer status in the World Health Assembly. ``This
could have an impact,'' said one council ambassador, who
spoke anonymously because of the sensitivity of the issue.
China is sending a ``signal'' to Washington that this ``will
threaten the development of bilateral relations.''
U.S. diplomats acknowledge that they are struggling to line
up the nine votes required to pass the resolution. Six
countries--Russia, Britain, the Philippines, Pakistan,
Algeria and Angola--are expected to support the United
States, according to council diplomats.
France, Spain, Germany, Brazil, Benin and Chile have
indicated they will abstain. Romania's U.N. ambassador,
Mihnea Ioan Motoc, said his government will abstain unless
its vote is responsible for defeating the U.S. resolution.
The International Criminal Court was established by treaty
at a 1998 conference in Rome to prosecute individuals
responsible for the most serious crimes, including genocide,
war crimes and crimes against humanity. The treaty has been
signed by 135 nations and ratified by 97; it took effect in
July 2002.
President Bill Clinton signed the treaty in December 2000,
but the Bush administration renounced it in May 2002, warning
that it could be used to conduct frivolous trials against
U.S. troops. The United States subsequently threatened to
shut down U.N. peacekeeping missions in Bosnia and East Timor
unless the council exempted U.S. personnel from prosecution.
That strategy has fueled resentment against the Bush
administration at the United Nations. More than 40 countries
have a standing request to discuss the resolution in a public
debate. A senior diplomat said most nations will use the
event to criticize the resolution, and to draw attention to
U.S. abuses of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan.
``We think the resolution is not compatible with the U.N.
charter,'' one Canadian diplomat said. ``It's harmful to
international accountability for serious crimes and the rule
of law.''
China. You mean to tell me that we are at the point now that China
gets to say something about the United States and how we treat
individuals?
Now, American troops did not put us in this posture. This is the
culture from the top of the Pentagon. And I will tell you this, if we
want to save American lives, if we want to save the ways Americans
think about us, if we really care about what happened in World War II,
World War I and all of the wars after that up to this point, about the
sacrifice, blood their grandfathers and fathers and mothers have shed,
on behalf of how the world thinks that we are the good guys on the face
of the Earth, then it is important and we should not allow this kind of
leadership that is deeply flawed to continue.
I share with the gentleman, I was with the gentlewoman, I was with
many Members of this Congress when I asked Secretary Rumsfeld, maybe
you have done all that you can do at this point. Maybe you need to just
say, I had a good run. Maybe you need to allow someone else to move on
and lead the Pentagon in a way that it should be led, on behalf of
saving American troops' lives.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. As with anything, if you propose to resolve a
situation, when you put the person in leadership, that gives
credibility to the investigation, to the resolution. And
[[Page H4572]]
clearly this government, this Secretary knew better than to put a low-
level military person in charge of an investigation that would be so
very, very important. And it goes back to what would be on your mind.
How could you lead and not put in place the people who are needed to
give credibility to a situation?
I am just continually reminded as the gentleman talked about the
United Nations and China and Kofi Annan being concerned about what the
United States is doing, that again, what we do must be able to
withstand the light of day, because we are set aside or set out as the
country who is trying to move forward and permit or encourage democracy
or freedom and trust around the world. And if we are not encouraging
freedom and trust right here in our own Nation or in areas where we
have control, then who is going to believe us? Who is going to be
behind us?
I am with you once again, gentlemen, that this country has to
continue to show leadership.
Mr. Speaker, the article I referred to previously is as follows:
[From the Wall Street Journal, Jun. 18, 2004]
Rumsfeld Defends Hiding Prisoner at CIA Urging
(By Christopher Cooper)
Washington.--Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld defended his
decision to hold a prisoner incommunicado in Iraq last year,
taking pains yesterday to separate the incident from the
unfolding detainee abuse scandal involving U.S. soldiers.
Mr. Rumsfeld said he made his decision to hold a suspected
combatant out of the sight of international monitors when he
was asked to do so last October by George Tenet, director of
the Central Intelligence Agency. He suggested, without
elaborating, that concealing detainees from Red Cross
monitors is done from time to time, despite international
conventions that forbid it. ``There are instances where that
occurs,'' Mr. Rumsfeld said.
But the secretary bristled at what he said was an attempt
to link the decision he made in the case of the ``ghost
detainee'' with the scandal at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq,
where a handful of low-ranking U.S. soldiers stand accused of
abusing prisoners. ``The implication that's out there is the
United States government is engaging in torture as a matter
of policy, and that's not true,'' Mr. Rumsfeld said, adding
he has seen no evidence that senior Pentagon officials were
complicit in the abuse at Abu Ghraib or elsewhere.
An Army general assigned to investigate abusers at Abu
Gharaib prison, Antonio Taguba, criticized the military for
housing what he called ``ghost detainees'' for the CIA,
saying in a report that the practice was ``deceptive,
contrary to Army Doctrine, and in violation of international
law.''
Mr. Rumsfeld's comments to the press came a few hours after
President Bush told reporters he remained confident in his
appointee. Mr. Bush said he hadn't previously known about the
detainee who was held incommunicado. ``I'm never disappointed
in my secretary of defense,'' Mr. Bush said. ``He's doing a
fabulous job and America's lucky to have him in the position
he's in.''
But nearly every day for the past month the Bush
administration has found itself on the defensive about
treatment of detainees in Iraq or Afghanistan. In
Afghanistan, the U.S. Army is investigating several
suspicious detainee deaths. Yesterday, a federal grand jury
indicted a CIA civilian contractor in one of the cases. David
A. Passaro, described by a CIA spokesman as a retired Army
special forces officer on contract to the agency, was charged
with beating an Afghani to death with a flashlight last
summer. The indictment said Mr. Passaro murdered a detainee
who had turned himself in to military forces at Asadabad
military base.
Investigators have said they are looking into three
prisoner deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan that may have come at
the hands of CIA agents or their proxies. The CIA said Mr.
Passaro's relationship with the agency was a short one. He
signed a contract to work for the agency in December 2002 and
arrived in Afghanistan in mid-May. The alleged murder
occurred the following month.
``We take allegations of wrongdoing very seriously, and
it's important to bear in mind that CIA immediately reported
this allegation to the [CIA] inspector general,'' said
spokesman Mark Mansfield.
The case of the ghost detainee doesn't involve abuse
allegations. CIA and Pentagon officials say the man was
captured last June in northern Iraq and spirited out of the
country by CIA operatives. When the Justice Department ruled
several months later that the man shouldn't have been taken
from Iraq, he was returned and placed in the custody of the
U.S. Army.
According to two U.S. officials, the CIA asked that the man
be held without an identifying serial number because making
his arrest public might hinder an ongoing operation. Because
his case wasn't recorded in Pentagon prisoner files, however,
U.S. officials acknowledged they lost track of him for a
time. He resurfaced in May when senior Pentagon officials got
wind of his case. Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said the
man will soon be issued an identifying number, and placed in
the general prison population in Iraq if the CIA voices no
objections.
Let me say one more thing. I want to send out kudos to all the
veterans across this country, those who are from World War II, from the
Korean War. One of my favorite veterans is my father, Andrew Tubbs, who
is now 84 years old. But to all the young people serving, the ones that
I met when I went over to the United Arab Emirates and when I went to
Turkey and when I went to all these places in the military and Kosovo,
we are so very proud of you. The reason we are standing here on the
floor this evening is not because we are ashamed of your conduct. We
are standing on this floor this evening, not because we are patriotic,
because we are all patriotic.
We are standing on the floor of the House this evening to say to the
world that the United States wants people in leadership who are going
to set an example. We want people in leadership who are going to allow
our troops to do what they need to, but not have the work of the troops
diminished by the conduct of those in leadership.
I thank the gentlemen for the opportunity to be heard.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. As I begin to wrap up here, I want to make a final
statement that maybe next week, to the gentleman from Florida, I have
about 6 pages here that a member of my staff put together for me, Dean
Thomas who does my military work, that has about 6 pages' worth of
claims by the administration, President, Vice President, different
Secretaries; and then it has the facts.
Let me suggest that maybe next week the gentleman and I come down
here, whether it is with our 30-something hour or maybe another Special
Order, and we go through these because it is astonishing to me that in
the United States of America we can have a commission put together, a
bipartisan commission, the likes of Lee Hamilton and Senator Kerry and
the distinguished group that we have with the 9/11 Commission, and the
commission issues a report and the report says what we have known for
many, many months, and that is that there is absolutely no connection
between Iraq, Saddam Hussein, and al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, two
separate entities that did not want to work together.
And to have the administration just come out and just keep repeating
the fact that they have a connection is a slap in the face to the
American people. And that is not the only claim. We talked about the
Halliburton claim that was denied and found out to be true. We found
out the claim, it was only a couple of soldiers; now we found out it is
more of a systemic problem.
The American people need to know what the facts are, and just because
the administration wants to keep repeating what they want the world to
be like and what they want the situation to be like, as opposed to what
the truth is; and hopefully next week and over the course of the next
few weeks and the next few months we can really try to shape the debate
here and move the ship back to the truth. Because I get very, very
frightened when the majority of the American people think that Saddam
Hussein had something to do with 9/11 and Iraq has connections, direct
connection, military connections and terrorist connections with al
Qaeda, when everyone is saying it is not true, when the experts are
saying it is not true, when the CIA is saying it is not true, when the
9/11 Commission says it is not true.
And the administration keeps repeating it just to muck up the waters,
just to make it unclear, just because people are working two or three
jobs and they are worried about getting their kid a pair of tennis
shoes and some health care, and they do not have time to pay attention.
So, hopefully, over the course of the next few months, the gentleman
and I and maybe other Members of this Chamber, we can try to establish
what the truth is and what the facts are and let the American people
make the kind of decision that they want to make it, and they can make
it at least in an informed way.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. I will tell the gentleman, we have maybe 10 more
minutes. We shared with the majority side that we were going to go
about 40 minutes so that their Member can get down here.
[[Page H4573]]
So I just want to say very quickly, it is important that we share
that information. This is a Special Order that we thought that was
important. As members of the Committee on Armed Services, to come to
the floor to talk not about politics but to talk about our troops, to
talk about the leadership of our troops as it relates to the shirts and
ties over at the Pentagon, the folks that are not supplying the
information that we need in the Committee on Armed Services for the
correct oversight.
I believe there should be more oversight because that is the only way
we are going to find out what actually took place, what memo was
written so that we do not have to read about it in the newspaper. The
thing is that I do not like coming in here and quoting the newspaper. I
would much rather have some sort of memorandum or some sort of
committee testimony that I can make reference to, saying that General X
told me Y, or Secretary X told us this. We do not have that privilege.
We have to read about it in the paper. We have to read about it in Time
magazine. We have to read about it in Newsweek.
And for us to be 60-something-odd members of the Committee on Armed
Services, the largest military on the face of the Earth, the most
capable, able, agile, mobile military on the face of the Earth, for us
to have to read the newspaper to understand what is going on, and
taking from General Myers's testimony when he did come before us and in
his 30-plus years of service he has never seen anything like this Abu
Ghraib issue. He said that to us. He has never seen it.
So for us to have an event that has not happened in 30-some-odds
years, or I do not see anywhere in U.S. history that this has happened,
it is documented the way that it is documented, for that to happen and
for us to put a two-star, as much respect that we have for him, to
investigate the little guys and gals that were a part of this bad
behavior, it sets forth a culture that it is okay. If you are in the
Pentagon, you are okay. You are a protected class. Do not worry. No one
will look into you or no one will call you down to the Hill and ask you
some tough questions, because if they do, they will be chastised by
members of the Committee on Armed Services. Unfortunately, from the
majority.
And it is also unfortunate that we have to come to the floor to be
able to share thoughts in a way that we should be able to share
thoughts with members of the military. I would love to ask Secretary
Rumsfeld questions about why he came before the committee, shared with
us what he shared with us at that particular time.
We received the Taguba report 2 weeks after that. I have taken a look
at the Taguba report. Many members of the Committee on Armed Services
have looked at the Taguba report. But now we just received new
information from the Pentagon.
So when are we going to get all the information so that we can
represent our constituents in the way that we should and be able to
protect and make changes in legislation that is moving through this
process now to protect American troops, to save American troops' lives,
to be able to carry out all of our missions as we look abroad in what
we are trying to do. But if we are not getting the information, then
who is? And if they are getting the information and it is continuing to
be suppressed, then it is not going to help save the lives of American
troops.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Then when we get this information through the
newspapers or through some other entity where we can get it, and then
when we get the information and we try to share the information, people
were questioning, why are we doing this? And I think the short answer
is with the war and all the preliminaries of the war, with the weapons
of mass destruction, and the ties to 9/11 and greeted as liberators and
we do not need 200,000 troops, we are going to use the oil as revenue
to fund the war, all of these things that have been said and now denial
of Halliburton, and then saying it is an isolated incident when in fact
it seems like more of a systemic problem that we have, detaining
prisoners and keeping them away from the Red Cross.
Why are we bringing this up? Because it is wrong. That is wrong. It
is not right that you do that. The way we got into the predicament
right now, I just could not disagree more with how this all transpired.
And if the original reason was you wanted to go to the Middle East to
set up an Arab democracy, tell the American people that and let them
answer yes or no with their support for or against it. But do not give
us all those reasons that there is going to be a mushroom cloud in
Cincinnati when we have a dictator that is writing romance novels,
boxed in in the fly zone and the sanctions were working.
So do not mislead the American public with this. This is wrong, and
we have to say it is wrong. We have to call a spade a spade here.
Hopefully, over the hours of the next few weeks and months, we can be
able to do that.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to thank
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs.
Jones) for coming down here this evening.
I also want to share with the gentleman that on the upcoming Tuesday
we have the first Democratic hour, and we can share the information
that the gentleman has pulled together.
We look forward to seeing that and sharing with the American people.
A part of the reason why we came down to the floor was to bring to
light some of the issues that needed to be illuminated a bit more and
also talk about solutions. Solutions are having the Congress do what it
is supposed to do, an oversight of the Department of Defense. Solutions
are doing what the junior Senator from Missouri, Senator Truman, who
became President Truman, in his committee that he had from 1941 to 1948
during World War II. To say that we do not have time to do this, we are
at war, does not reflect on past history.
So I think it is important even if it is the good, bad and ugly, it
helps the American troops, our troops be able to get the up-armor that
they deserve.
{time} 1830
It will probably have avoided us from having to put in this Armed
Services bill reimbursing families for bulletproof vests that they
bought. Why should they have to buy them in the first place? If someone
is going into harm's way, they should have the equipment that they
need. I think that is so very, very important.
____________________