[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 23023-23025]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       HONORING OUR ARMED FORCES


           Army Specialist Allen Jeffrey ``A J.'' Vandayburg

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise this evening to say thank you to 
the men and women serving in our Armed Forces. Too often, we don't take 
the time to show our appreciation and tell them what their service 
means to us. They are there for us each day, dedicated to protecting 
all that we hold dear. They are there for us, making our world more 
secure. They are there for us, making our world a better place--a safer 
place. They are there for us, protecting our freedom.
  That freedom, though, as we know so well, does not come without a 
price. It does not come without sacrifice. As General Douglas MacArthur 
once said:

       The soldier, above all other men, is required to perform 
     the highest act of religious teaching--sacrifice. . . . The 
     soldier who is called upon to offer and to give his life for 
     his country is the noblest development of mankind.

  This evening, I rise to honor a Mansfield, OH, serviceman who 
selflessly gave his life while saving those of his comrades. Army SP 
Allen Jeffrey Vandayburg--``A.J.'' to his family and friends--earned 
the Bronze Star Medal with Valor for his final act of bravery--an act 
that ultimately saved the lives of the men and women serving with him.
  On April 9, 2004, in Barez , Iraq, A.J. and other members of the 
Army's 1st Infantry Division--the ``Big Red One''--found themselves in 
the middle of a fierce firefight with Iraqi insurgents. A.J. was 
manning the gunner position of his Bradley fighting vehicle when his 
unit was fired upon. According to an official Army report, A.J. fought 
valiantly, drawing enemy fire to himself. The report detailed the 
following:

       Vandayburg's unparalleled reflexes allowed him to destroy 
     an [enemy] who was attempting to fire a rocket propelled 
     grenade within 50 meters of his vehicle. Vandayburg had to 
     swivel the entire turret, acquire the target, and destroy the 
     enemy before the rocket-propelled grenade could be fired.

  A.J. prevented that grenade from hitting his convoy. He saved many 
lives that day--an act that ultimately took his own life. His valiant 
efforts prompted the insurgents to focus their fire on his vehicle. 
A.J. was killed in the onslaught. He was just 20 years old.
  A.J. was truly a great soldier--a courageous young man who put the 
safety of others above his own. We will never be able to repay A.J. for 
what he has done, and we will never be able to honor him the way he 
truly deserves. We can, however, remember this American hero as he 
was--as a strong, independent young man who did a great deal of good in 
this world.
  In his all too brief 20 years, A.J. touched many lives. His mother, 
Chantil, fondly recalls that ``everybody loved him.'' It was his smile; 
it was hard to stay mad at him.'' A.J.'s father, Allen, remembers that 
he was the kind of kid who could walk into a room and just light it up.
  A.J. loved his family very much. In the summers, A.J. always looked 
forward to their family vacation to Myrtle Beach, SC. A.J. loved kids. 
Family friend, Kim Loveland, recalled that she would pay A.J. to watch 
her children, only to have him turn around and use the money to buy the 
kids candy.
  A.J. went to Mansfield High School, where he played golf and 
baseball. He was known as a ``good guy'' who had a lot of good friends. 
After graduation in 2001, A.J. enlisted in the Army. He would 
eventually serve in Kosovo, Germany, Kuwait, and Iraq. Allen and 
Chantil Vandayburg treasure the picture they have of their son with 
children in Kosovo. Allen likes to call A.J. ``a warrior who also had a 
soft side.''
  A.J. was a lot like his father. Allen is a 25-year veteran of the 
Mansfield Police Department. A.J. learned from his dad the value of 
public service and how to trust your comrades--lessons he would bring 
with him overseas. A.J.'s parents knew that their son believed in what 
he was doing in Iraq. A.J. e-mailed them as often as he could and would 
tell them not to worry--that he trusted his fellow soldiers and knew 
they would look out for him. In his final battle, it was A.J. who paid 
the ultimate sacrifice for his comrades and for Iraqis he did not know.
  A friend of A.J.'s, Nathan Pival, who is serving in Afghanistan, 
posted the following message on a Web site honoring A.J.:

       A.J.--I found out what happened to you my first week in 
     Afghanistan. To say the least, I felt like a piece of me 
     died, too. I mean, who would have thought that you and me 
     would end up in the Army after high school? I know you didn't 
     find out I was in the service until you tried to call my cell 
     when I was in Basic, but I want you to know that you were the 
     person that helped to convince me that the military would 
     help me out. It has helped me. . . . You are a hero, and you 
     did the right thing, and that is what matters. I believe in a 
     higher purpose, so I know I will see you again some day, but 
     I'm still pretty upset that I am going to have to wait so 
     long to tell my Army stories to my buddy who motivated me to 
     join. If it wasn't for you, I'd probably . . . be going 
     nowhere. I'm sorry I couldn't be there for you man. See you 
     again someday.

  A.J.'s family found solace in the final act of devotion from one 
brother to another. Though he described it as ``the hardest thing I've 
ever had to do,'' A.J.'s brother Chris, a Marine, crossed military 
branches to escort his brother's body from Dover Air Force Base to 
their home in Mansfield.
  Hundreds of people came to support the Vandayburg family at A.J.'s 
memorial service. Hundreds more lined the funeral route. The outpouring 
of support was a truly moving display. At the memorial service, 
Reverend David Root spoke to the standing-room-only crowd. He said:

       [A.J.] was special and that is why you are all here. He 
     chose to take the tough road. He knew the risks. . . . He 
     changed the history of this country.

  A.J. Vandayburg was indeed special. He will be remembered always for 
his bravery, compassion, and sacrifice. He will be remembered as a 
hero.
  I close my remarks with the heartfelt words of A.J.'s 11-year-old 
sister, Taylor. Her words speak volumes about A.J., her hero--and A.J., 
her big brother:

       Bubby, you are my biggest hero, and I will always love you, 
     but that does not mean I am still not mad at you for leaving, 
     `cause I am. But, I will always and forever love you. I miss 
     you so much. You are loved and missed so much by me, Mom, 
     Dad, and Chris. . . . You are my hero and my bubby and I love 
     you so much. I am not saying goodbye because you are not 
     gone. You are still with me, and you are the biggest and 
     bravest soldier I know and I know God has a plan for you, but 
     I had one for you to be right here beside me. You still are. 
     I love you so much.

                       Abuse of Foreign Detainees

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as we near the end of this session, I am 
disappointed to report that Congress seems content to let the issue of 
foreign prisoner abuse linger without effective congressional 
oversight. Some have argued that continuing to investigate this matter 
will drag it out, and

[[Page 23024]]

have the effect of preventing us from putting the scandal behind us. I 
disagree. We have to uncover the full truth in order to ensure that 
such abuses are not repeated. I am sorry to report that each week 
brings new allegations that reveal how much we still do not know.
  Last week, I spoke on this floor about a recent Los Angeles Times 
article that raised troubling new allegations about the abuse of Afghan 
detainees in Gardez, including the death of one detainee that was never 
reported up the chain of command. The article revealed what appears to 
be a complete disregard for established Army procedure among certain 
units in Afghanistan.
  I sent a letter to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on October 1, 
2004, asking him several questions about the allegations raised in the 
news article. I asked Secretary Rumsfeld to explain how the special 
forces base at Gardez was allegedly allowed to operate with no 
recordkeeping requirements or standing operating procedures--an 
allegation that was corroborated by a U.S. Army investigator in 
Afghanistan. I asked whether any official policy allowed special forces 
units to suspend normal recordkeeping requirements while operating in 
Afghanistan or Iraq. I asked if there is an official policy to allow 
special forces units to detain prisoners in local Afghan jails or other 
undisclosed facilities. I asked Secretary Rumsfeld for a prompt 
response and hope that he delivers one soon.
  Even without the answers to these questions, we now know that senior 
officials in the White House, the Justice Department, and the Pentagon 
set in motion a systematic effort to minimize, distort, and even ignore 
our international agreements on torture and the treatment of prisoners. 
I am dismayed to report that some Members of Congress are now 
attempting to make it much easier for the administration to circumvent 
our treaty obligations. The 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act, 
H.R. 10, was recently introduced by the House Republican leadership. 
Sections 3032 and 3033 of that bill would make it official U.S. policy 
to exclude certain non-citizens from the protection of the Convention 
Against Torture, a treaty to which the United States is a party. To 
enact such language after the abuses that took place at Abu Ghraib and 
other locations would further undermine the once distinguished 
reputation of the United States as a world leader on human rights.
  Reports of the administration's support of these provisions are 
conflicting. Last week, Speaker Hastert's office claimed that the 
Justice Department ``wants and supports'' the provisions. The Justice 
Department declined to offer an official endorsement of sections 3032 
and 3033, but claimed that it favored any ``provisions that will better 
secure our borders and protect the American people from terrorists.'' 
In an attempt to reconcile these statements, Senator Kennedy and I sent 
Attorney General Ashcroft a letter on October 1 urging him to repudiate 
the Department's support for these sections. We were pleased to learn 
this week that the White House went on record in opposition to the 
provisions, but we still await a reply from the Attorney General 
definitively stating the position of the Department of Justice.
  Next Friday, October 15, is the deadline imposed by a Federal judge 
for the administration to turn over or identify all documents relating 
to the treatment of prisoners held by the United States at military 
bases and other detention facilities overseas. In his order, Judge 
Hellerstein stated: ``No one is above the law: not the executive, not 
the Congress, not the judiciary.'' I could not agree more. 
Unfortunately, this administration has continually ignored my requests 
for these documents--I will not be surprised if it refuses to comply 
with this court order. I would note that the original Freedom of 
Information Act request for these documents was submitted in October 
2003, a year ago. Any embarrassment their release may cause now--less 
than 3 weeks before the Presidential election--is due to the 
administration's own stonewalling.
  As the 108th Congress comes to a close, many questions about the 
prison abuse scandal will undoubtedly remain unanswered. Several 
Pentagon investigations are now complete, but none of them paint a 
complete and unbiased assessment of the prisoner abuse scandal. This 
Senate, and in particular the Judiciary Committee and Governmental 
Affairs Committee, failed to fulfill its oversight responsibilities. I 
have said many times there needs to be a thorough, independent 
investigation of the actions of those involved, from the people who 
committed abuses, to the officials who set these policies in motion. 
Perhaps in the new year, with a new Congress, the administration in 
power will be ready to seek the full truth about this scandal and begin 
the process of restoring honor to our nation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the letters to Secretary Rumsfeld and 
Attorney General Ashcroft, both dated October 1, 2004, be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                  Washington, DC, October 1, 2004.
     Hon. Donald Rumsfeld,
     Secretary of Defense,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Rumsfeld: As you know, I am deeply troubled 
     by the revelations of abuse of prisoners in U.S. custody 
     overseas. I have closely monitored the numerous ongoing and 
     completed investigations instigated by the Pentagon, but 
     remain skeptical that these investigations will uncover the 
     full truth. Each of these probes is limited in scope or 
     authority and, therefore, none will comprehensively 
     investigate the abuse of detainees. Each week brings new 
     allegations that reveal how much we still do not know.
       I am particularly disturbed by a story published in the Los 
     Angeles Times on September 21, 2004. This article raises 
     troubling new allegations about the abuse of Afghan detainees 
     in Gardez, but also reveals what appears to be a complete 
     disregard for established Army procedure among certain units 
     in Afghanistan. According to the news report, based in part 
     on a report written by Afghan prosecutors for the Afghan 
     Attorney General, U.S. Army Special Forces arrested eight 
     Afghan soldiers in March 2003 at the request of the 
     provincial governor. The prosecutors' report and an internal 
     memorandum prepared by a United Nations delegation both 
     allege American mistreatment of the detainees including 
     repeated beatings, immersion in cold water, electric shocks, 
     being hung upside down, and having toenails torn off. One 
     detainee, Jamal Naseer, reportedly died as a result of the 
     torture. The U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID) 
     recently opened a criminal probe into Naseer's death.
       This incident is very troubling, but it points to a much 
     larger problem. CID received a tip about Naseer's death 
     earlier this year, but stated that it could not investigate 
     the matter due to a lack of information. Christopher Coffey, 
     an Army detective based at Bagram air base, told the L.A. 
     Times: ``We're trying to figure out who was running the base. 
     We don't know what unit was there. There are no records. The 
     reporting system is broke across the board. Units are 
     transferred in and out. There are no SOPs [standard operating 
     procedures] . . . and each unit acts differently.''
       Apparently, because these units failed to follow Army 
     procedure, Naseer's death was never reported up the chain of 
     command. Yet, Lt. Gen. Mikolashek's report on detainee 
     operations inspection, released in July of this year, 
     conclusively stated that the team ``that visited Iraq and 
     Afghanistan discovered no incidents of abuse that had not 
     been reported through command channels; all incidents were 
     already under investigation.'' We now know that this 
     statement cannot be accurate. What we do not know is whether 
     and how many other deaths, let alone cases of abuse, may have 
     gone unreported.
       I also have new questions about the Defense Department's 
     involvement in the ``ghost detainee'' matter. The Fay-Jones 
     report revealed that the ghost detainee problem in Iraq was 
     far more pervasive than the Defense Department had previously 
     acknowledged, but that report placed much of the blame on the 
     CIA. The L.A. Times story, however, accuses U.S. Special 
     Forces commanders in Afghanistan of using local jails to hide 
     prisoners off of the official roles.
       In order to better understand the situation in Afghanistan, 
     and the role of the Department in monitoring the actions of 
     forces on the ground, I ask that you respond to the following 
     questions by October 8, 2004.
       1. Please explain how the Special Forces base at Gardez was 
     allowed to operate with no recordkeeping requirements or 
     Standing Operating Procedures (SOPs).
       2. Did any official policy allow Special Forces units to 
     suspend normal recordkeeping requirements or chain of command

[[Page 23025]]

     reporting while operating in Afghanistan or Iraq?
       3. Did any official policy allow Special Forces units to 
     detain prisoners in local Afghan jails, or in any other 
     undisclosed facilities?
       4. Mr. Coffey's quote above suggests that an unknown number 
     of detention centers have operated or are now operating in 
     Afghanistan with total impunity. In light of the allegations 
     raised in the L.A. Times story, what actions is the Pentagon 
     taking to investigate the situation and resolve the problems?
       5. In the absence of recordkeeping and SOPs, do you agree 
     that none of the ongoing or completed Pentagon investigations 
     can claim to have uncovered all allegations of abuse?
       6. Are any other government entities, such as the CIA or 
     other intelligence agencies, involved in the operation of 
     these detention centers or in the treatment or interrogation 
     of prisoners? If so, please describe the agencies and their 
     role. If the answer to this or any other question contained 
     in this letter is classified, please submit your answer in 
     classified form and make it available to appropriately 
     cleared staff.
       As stated above, I request that you answer these questions 
     by October 8, 2004. Thank you for your prompt attention to 
     this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Patrick Leahy,
     Ranking Member.
                                  ____

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                  Washington, DC, October 1, 2004,
     Hon. John D. Ashcroft,
     Attorney General, Department of Justice,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Attorney General Ashcroft: We write to express our 
     deep concern about the report in yesterday's Washington Post 
     that the Department supports the ``rendition'' of detainees 
     to nations where they are likely to be tortured.
       The United States is a party to the Convention Against 
     Torture, which provides that ``No State Party shall expel, 
     return or extradite a person to another State where there are 
     substantial grounds for believing he would be in danger of 
     being subjected to torture.'' Since 9/11, there have been 
     numerous reports that detainees in the custody of U.S. 
     military or intelligence officials have been transferred for 
     interrogation to governments known to torture prisoners. 
     According to such reports, detainees who refuse to cooperate 
     with U.S. interrogators have been ``rendered'' to foreign 
     intelligence services in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Morocco, 
     Syria, and other countries that practice torture. One report 
     stated that Deputy Attorney General Thompson approved the 
     rendition to Syria of a Canadian citizen, who was confined in 
     a small dark cell for a year and beaten on his palms, wrists, 
     and back with an electric cable. Syrian officials later 
     released him, telling reporters they found no link to Al 
     Qaeda.
       Until now, Administration officials have denied any 
     involvement in this practice. At a Senate Armed Services 
     Committee hearing on May 11, Undersecretary of Defense for 
     Intelligence Stephen Cambone testified that ``to the best of 
     [his] knowledge'' the Administration was fully complying with 
     all legal requirements and that all reports of U.S. officials 
     engaging in the practice of rendition were false.
       Yesterday's report, however, states that the Department is 
     urging House Republicans to include provisions in the 9/11 
     intelligence reform legislation authorizing the practice of 
     renditions. Sections 3032 and 3033 of the bill, H.R. 10, 
     would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to issue new 
     regulations to exclude certain non-citizens from the 
     protection of the Convention Against Torture. The changes 
     would increase the burden of proof on any person being 
     deported or rendered to establish ``by clear and convincing 
     evidence that he or she would be tortured,'' and would deny 
     the jurisdiction of courts to review the new regulations or 
     claims brought under the Convention Against Torture by aliens 
     at ports of entry.
       These changes would violate longstanding U.S. law and 
     policy, undermine basic humanitarian and human rights 
     standards, expose U.S. soldiers and citizens traveling abroad 
     to greater danger, and further weaken America's standing in 
     the world.
       Yet the spokesman for House Speaker Hastert is quoted in 
     the report as saying that the Department ``really wants and 
     supports'' these provisions. Department spokesman Mark 
     Corallo was also quoted as saying, ``We can't comment on any 
     specific provision, but we support those provisions that will 
     better secure our borders and protect the American people 
     from terrorists.''
       No Department official should express support, either 
     openly or behind the scenes, for provisions that so clearly 
     violate fundamental human rights. Torture defies our laws and 
     stains our ideals. The abuses at Abu Ghraib prison have been 
     a major setback in the war on terrorism. An essential part of 
     winning that war and protecting the country for the future is 
     respect for the ideals that America stands for at home and 
     throughout the world.
       The Department has already undermined those ideals by 
     issuing legal memoranda attempting to weaken the definition 
     of torture and eliminate restraints imposed by U.S. laws and 
     international treaties on the conduct of Executive Branch 
     officials. We urge you to repudiate immediately and without 
     qualification the Department's support for sections 3032 and 
     3033 in the House legislation, and to put an immediate halt 
     to any Administration involvement in the illegal practice of 
     rendition.
           Sincerely,
     Edward M. Kennedy,
       U.S. Senator.
     Patrick Leahy,
       Ranking Member.

                          ____________________