[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13060-13065]
[From the U.S. 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 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).

[[Page 13061]]


  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 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

[[Page 13062]]

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.
  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

[[Page 13063]]

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 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

[[Page 13064]]

     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.
  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

[[Page 13065]]

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.

                          ____________________