[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 55 (Tuesday, April 8, 2008)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E528-E529]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    THE ``TORTURE MEMO'' AND THE LAW

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. MARK UDALL

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, April 8, 2008

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, this week the press reported 
the declassification and public release of a Justice Department memo 
popularly known as the ``torture memo.''
   It's news that the memo has been made public, but, sadly, what it 
says comes as no surprise. At least since the summer of 2004, when it 
was reported in the press, the American people have known that after 
the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington 
the Bush Justice Department advised other agencies that the President, 
when acting as commander-in-chief, is not bound to follow duly enacted 
Federal laws.
   After this was revealed, the Bush administration--preparing for the 
2004 Presidential election--repudiated the memo. But it had guided the 
administration for 22 months, and experts have claimed that its 
startling reading of the law and the constitution led to excesses at 
Abu Ghraib and elsewhere.
   In 2005, Congress responded by enactment of the Detainee Treatment 
Act, which requires the defense department to follow the interrogation 
guidelines in the Army Field Manual and which prohibits the ``cruel, 
inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment of persons under the 
detention, custody, or control of the United States Government.''
   I strongly supported those provisions, which are often referred to 
as the ``McCain amendment' in recognition of their Senate author.
   But when President Bush signed them into law, he issued a ``signing 
statement'' that raises serious questions about whether he intends to 
follow the law by suggesting that he intended to reserve the right to 
authorize prohibited interrogation methods in some cases.
   Taken together, the memo and the signing statement clearly signal 
the Bush administration's contempt for the rule of law. As the Rocky 
Mountain News says in an April 3 editorial, ``This was one step on the 
path to the Bush administration's unfortunate assertion, until the 
courts knocked it down, that the president had the power to snatch an 
American citizen on U.S. soil and hold him incommunicado in solitary 
confinement indefinitely, without charge, trial or counsel.''
   And the memo and the signing statement also show that the 
administration refuses to recognize that its contempt for the law will 
result in placing every American, especially those in uniform around 
the world, at grave risk.
   I think we all should remember that, in the words of the Colorado 
Springs Gazette, ``In

[[Page E529]]

the larger struggle with jihadist terrorism and those tempted to 
support or harbor them, the perception that the United States has a 
certain moral authority is invaluable. Moral authority was a key factor 
in the long, twilight struggle with aggressive communism we call the 
Cold War. Using torture undermines that moral authority.''
   For the information of our colleagues, I am attaching the full text 
of the editorial in the April 3 edition of the Rocky Mountain News.

              [From the Rocky Mountain News, Apr. 3, 2008]

                   Not Above the Law, Despite the Memo

        The Justice department has released the full text of the 
     infamous 2003 ``torture memo'' brushing aside the legal 
     restraints on military interrogators. The memo, which 
     originated in the department's Office of Legal Counsel, 
     argues that the president's inherent powers in wartime 
     overrode any federal law or international treaty, raising in 
     the layman's mind the point, Why bother to have laws and 
     treaties?
        Our government is supposed to be one of checks and 
     balances but the Office of Legal Counsel saw no check on the 
     president's powers. The courts had no jurisdiction on what 
     Americans did overseas and in any case ``Congress cannot 
     interfere with the president's exercise of his authority as 
     commander in chief to control operations during a war.''
        This was one step on the path to the Bush administration's 
     unfortunate assertion, until the courts knocked it down, that 
     the president had the power to snatch an American citizen on 
     U.S. soil and hold him incommunicado in solitary confinement 
     indefinitely, without charge, trial or counsel.

                          ____________________