[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9675-9676]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       SECRETARY RUMSFELD MUST GO

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
January 20, 2004, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) is 
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, what the administration said and did not 
say removes any doubt: Secretary Rumsfeld must go.
  A Los Angeles Times story dated May 12, which I will enter into the 
Record, may prove to be the defining moment when the administration 
could no longer hide behind the PR spin because their own words were 
spinning out of control.
  Not only did this administration fail to tell Congress about the 
prisoner abuse in Iraq, it also failed to tell the United States 
Supreme Court at a time and a place when it should have. On the very 
day that CBS News first broadcast pictures of prisoner abuse, the 
administration stood before the United States Supreme Court. The case 
involved the rights of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.
  The administration claims that prisoners held in Cuba are enemy 
combatants who can be held indefinitely without charges and without the 
protection of the Geneva Convention. The Deputy Solicitor General 
representing the United States invoked the ``Trust us'' defense in 
urging the Nation's highest court to side with the President.
  The lawyer did not know about the abuses in Iraq and the photos, but 
his client, Rumsfeld's Department of War knew, and said nothing. The 
Supreme Court, like the rest of America, like the entire world, was 
kept in the dark.
  On the very day that the prisoner abuse pictures were first shown, a 
lawyer for the administration stood before the Supreme Court and said 
only the executive branch should have the power to decide the fate of 
detainees.
  In response to that line of reasoning, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg 
asked, ``Suppose the executive says mild torture will help get a little 
information?'' The question was asked with no knowledge that torture 
had been used in Iraq. What answer did the administration's lawyer give 
Justice Ginsburg? The Deputy Solicitor General told the court that 
abuses would be a crime.
  The Supreme Court justice asked the attorney to elaborate on his 
remarks. The administration attorney said, quote, ``Our executive does 
not commit such abuses.'' The administration's attorney added, and 
again I quote, ``You have to recognize that in situations where there 
is a war, where the government is on war footing, then you have to 
trust the executive.''
  ``Trust us.'' Well, Mr. Speaker, America did and look what happened. 
At last count 1,600 pictures of prisoner abuse have scarred the Nation 
and shocked the world. Instead of full disclosure, the administration 
remains in full denial. The President says the Secretary is doing a 
superb job. Superb job of what? Destroying our credibility overseas? 
Demoralizing the American people? Denying that soldiers follow orders?
  The administration says, ``Trust us,'' then blames a handful of low-
ranking soldiers instead of looking up the chain of command, right up 
to the very top.
  ``Trust us.'' Well, Mr. Speaker, America did, and the administration 
sent soldiers off to war without adequate body armor.
  ``Trust us.'' Well, Mr. Speaker, America did, and the administration 
unilaterally told thousands of soldiers they were staying in Iraq 
instead of coming home as they were promised.
  ``Trust us.'' Mr. President, we did and look what happened.
  We are fresh out of trust, Mr. Speaker, in America, and around the 
world. It is time for Rumsfeld to go before we try and hand off 
sovereignty to the Iraqis. They will never be able to deal with our 
Secretary of war because nobody trusts him.
  Mr. Speaker, at this point I will insert into the Record the 
newspaper article I referred to earlier.

               [From the Los Angeles Times, May 12, 2004]

   Abuse Flap May Ruin Bush Team's ``Trust Us'' Argument on Detainees

       Washington.--The photos of abused Iraqi prisoners not only 
     have shaken the Bush administration but also may have ruined 
     its Supreme Court defense of its handling of terrorism 
     suspects, some legal experts say.
       ``Their argument has been `trust us,' and that argument has 
     been deeply undermined,'' said Yale University professor 
     Harold Koh, an international law specialist who served in the 
     Clinton administration.
       Before the court last month, the administration argued that 
     the president and his military commanders have exclusive 
     power to decide the fate of those captured in the war on 
     terrorism.
       The court has yet to rule.
       Shortly after U.S. troops invaded Afghanistan, the 
     administration declared that people captured there and 
     shipped to Guantanomo Bay, Cuba, were not entitled to the 
     protections of the Geneva Conventions: They were not 
     prisoners of war but rather ``unlawful enemy combatants,'' 
     falling outside both international law and U.S. law.

[[Page 9676]]

       International legal specialists criticized this decision to 
     create ``a law-free zone.'' The Supreme Court surprised the 
     Bush administration by taking up the issue.
       During arguments April 28, administration lawyers told the 
     court that, in wartime, the federal courts have no power to 
     hear claims from the imprisoned men. Only the executive 
     branch should decide their fate.
       ``Suppose the executive says mild torture will help get 
     information?'' asked Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
       Committing such ``an atrocity'' against a prisoner would be 
     a crime punishable by court-martial, replied Deputy Solicitor 
     General Paul Clement.
       When pressed further, he added, ``our executive doesn't'' 
     commit such abuses. ``You have to recognize that in 
     situations where there is a war . . . you have to trust the 
     executive.''
       That same evening, CBS aired the first photos of soldiers 
     mistreating Iraqi prisoners. Two days later, the Supreme 
     Court justices began working on their opinions in the case.
       ``In a close and difficult case like this, this could tip 
     the scales,'' said Michael J. Glennon, an international law 
     specialist at Tufts University. ``The overriding issue in 
     these cases has been to what extent can you trust the 
     executive to police itself.''
       A former Bush administration lawyer who advised the White 
     House on wartime issues said the Iraqi prison scandal should 
     have no effect on the court's decision.
       ``It is a false analogy. These are two separate and 
     different kinds of detainees,'' said John C. Yoo, a law 
     professor.

                          ____________________