Advertisement
Just have to share. I'm so happy to have people like Senators Feinstein and Boxer representing me and all Californians. They are both (perhaps Boxer even more so than Feinstein) willing to stand up against popular opinion, bringing to light such controversial issues as we see in Senator Feinstein's address to the Senate regarding prison standards for "enemy combatants" and others held in the name of the "war on terror" (which I hear both in the media and from "president" Bush more frequently than the "war on terrorISM" as quoted by Senator Feinstein). Take a moment and read her statements. It gives me a small glimmer of hope.
-Paul
Statement of Senator Dianne Feinstein on Detention of Enemy Combatants at Guantanamo Bay
June 15, 2005
Washington, DC - At a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today said that she is concerned that America's policy on the detention and interrogation of enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba is failing. The following is the text of her statement:
"I want to begin by thanking Chairman Specter and Ranking Member Leahy - today's hearing is, in my view, timely and extremely consequential.
I am increasingly concerned that our nation's policy concerning the detention and interrogation of prisoners taken in Iraq and elsewhere in the course of the 'War on Terrorism' is deeply flawed in both conception and implementation.
First, let me make clear my view that in this modern world of asymmetric warfare, nonstate actors, and unconventional threat, there is an absolute necessity to have a program to securely hold prisoners, effectively interrogate them, and where appropriate, prosecute them under our civil or military laws.
But I also believe that any such program needs to meet three basic tests: (1) is it legal; (2) is it right; and (3) does it work. I fear that our current course of action fails all three tests.
To address these tests, and gather the facts necessary to understand the current situation, last week I wrote to the Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence, asking twelve important questions, which I believe are a starting point for our inquiry. Last night, I received an interim response to four of my 12 questions - and these had been previously disseminated and only focused on Guantanamo. I look forward to receiving answers to my remaining questions. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be introduced into the record.
The first test is a legal test, and I believe our witnesses can speak to this test today. It is whether the entire program, including the conditions of incarceration, the techniques of interrogation, and the procedures for determining guilt and innocence, meet standards of American law, and our obligations under binding international treaties. This includes questions such as:
Are we adhering to our obligations under the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture? Are we adhering to U.S. law prohibiting torture? Do the procedures in place meet legal and constitutional due process standards?
In my view this is a relatively simple, objective test, and amenable to a lawyerly inquiry. There should be no ambiguity - if it is against the law, or violates our nation's obligations under treaties, we do not do it.
The second test is one of policy. It my strong view that it is not enough to know what we can do under law; we have an obligation to examine what we should do in light of our nation's ethical and moral history. Our soldiers (as well as our Intelligence Agencies) have a long and honorable tradition of ethical behavior. For more than two hundred years we have prided ourselves on being different - different from the Nazis; different from the Soviets; different from al Qa'ida. Simply put, there are some things that Americans do not do, not because it is illegal, or some lawyer says we cannot, but because it is wrong.
I am increasingly concerned that we are failing this second test. Our "policy on torture" has become obscure, complicated and ever-changing. I sit on two committees with jurisdiction, and have sat through hours and hours of hearing and briefings - I do not think I have a very good idea of what, if anything, our policy consists of. Frankly, the Administration's repeated statements about "wherever possible adhering to law" are unhelpful. The rules of engagement for our armed forces and intelligence agencies should be clear and simple, and in accord with our basic values. An infantryman should not need to be a graduate of a law school to know what to do with a prisoner.
The third test is a practical one - does what we are doing work? Put aside the legal and moral issues which lie at the heart of the first two tests. For argument's sake, put aside what the law is, or what is right or wrong, and focus only on whether U.S. interests are being furthered by our policy. My question is this: Does the value of the intelligence gathered from interrogations outweigh the self-evident harm being done to the perception of America in the rest of the world? In other words, are we creating more terrorists and insurgents than we are stopping?
From Abu Ghraib to Guantanamo, to allegations that there is a constellation of other prisons being run by America around the world, we are being watched, and watched closely. There are literally millions of young men throughout the Muslim world who are deciding as we speak whether to take up arms against us, or work towards peaceful resolution of complex issues.
The bottom line: I am increasingly concerned that we are failing on all three tests. The legality of our procedures is suspect. The ethics and morality of our methods is in question. And, perhaps worst of all, it simply may not be helping us win the war on terrorism.
I hope that today's hearing marks the beginning of a new approach to this issue. I hope that the Congress will refocus and intensify its involvement in this issue. I hope the Administration will be more forthcoming and engaged in this effort. I hope that we can work together to ensure that American can fight, and win, a 21st Century war, with out damaging the core values forged in wars of the 18th, 19th and 20th Centuries.
It must be remembered - American soldiers beat the forces of Nazism and Fascism; and beat the forces of Communist totalitarianism, without giving up what makes us Americans. We can and must do the same today. Usama bin Ladin and his ilk are dangerous and powerful. But they are not, fundamentally, different from other evils which America has fought against, and defeated."
###
Senator Feinstein Raises Questions About Guantanamo Bay Detentions
Feinstein says effort with respect to enemy combatants is 'failing;' methods in Global War on Terrorism need to be 'reassessed' June 9, 2005
Washington, DC - In anticipation of a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing next week on enemy combatant detentions, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today called on Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte to provide her and other members of the Committee with detailed information on those who have been, and are currently, held at Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Following is Senator Feinstein's letter to Secretary Rumsfeld and Director Negroponte:
"I write seeking updated information concerning the status of programs to detain and interrogate individuals held in the course of the 'Global War on Terrorism.' On June 15, 2005, the Committee on the Judiciary will hold a hearing on this subject - the information I am requesting would greatly assist the Committee in examining this issue, and thus I ask that you provide the information to me, and to the Committee, prior to that date.
I am increasingly concerned that our national effort with respect to enemy combatants and others held in custody is failing. The programs at Guantanamo, as well as those in Afghanistan and in Iraq, have repeatedly been the subject of allegations of mismanagement and abuse. Some of these allegations are credible. But whether true or not, these allegations have fueled a rising tide of anti-America feeling throughout the world, especially in Muslim countries. Given this situation, I believe it is incumbent on us to question whether changes need to be made at Guantanamo and elsewhere.
It is clear to me that the 'Global War on Terrorism' will not soon come to an end, and that we will continue to need facilities to securely hold prisoners, and effectively conduct interrogations to obtain needed intelligence. However, I believe it is time to reassess our methods. The information I request will help the Judiciary Committee begin its role in this task.
I ask that the response be jointly prepared so as to avoid confusion as to what elements of the United States government are responsible for these issues. My request is based on the assumption that except for the Department of Defense and the Intelligence Community, there is no other element of the United States government that may lawfully engage in the detention or interrogation of prisoners. Of course, my request excludes the Department of Justice's responsibilities to prosecute criminal activity under federal law. Finally, I expect that the responses to my questions may require information properly classified pursuant to Executive Order 12958. I ask that such responses be provided to the Committee as a separate annex through the Office of Senate Security. My questions follow:
1. How many individuals are currently held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba?
2. How many individuals, in total, have been held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba?
3. How many individuals, in total, have been released from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba?
4. How many individuals, if any, have died while in custody at Guantanamo Bay?
5. What is the rationale for using Guantanamo Bay as the location for detention facilities?
6. What are the costs of maintaining such a facility at Guantanamo Bay compared with maintaining a similar facility within the United States?
7. What are the measures necessary to maintain the facility securely at Guantanamo Bay compared with maintaining a similar facility within the United States?
8. What, if any, interrogation techniques can be lawfully used at Guantanamo Bay, but not at a location within the territory of the United States?
9. What procedural rights, including rights of appeal and review, would be available to a detainee held within the United States, but are not now available to a similarly-situated detainee held at Guantanamo Bay?
10. Has the Department of Defense or the Intelligence Community conducted an analytic assessment of the value of the intelligence derived from the interrogation program being conducted at Guantanamo Bay? If so, please provide a copy of the results of that assessment?
11. Has the Department of Defense or the Intelligence Community conducted an analytic assessment of the effect of maintaining the Guantanamo Bay facility on the view of the U.S. and its programs held by foreign nations and their populations?
12. Does the Department of Defense or any element of the Intelligence Community currently maintain any other facilities where individuals are held in custody? If so, please identify these facilities, and address each of the above questions to that facility.
I thank you both in advance for your response, and look forward to working with you to address the critical issues at hand."
###
Sincerely yours,
Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator
http://feinstein.senate.gov
Further information about my position on issues of concern to California and the Nation are available at my website http://feinstein.senate.gov. You can also receive electronic e-mail updates by subscribing to my e-mail list at http://feinstein.senate.gov/issue.html.
-Paul
Statement of Senator Dianne Feinstein on Detention of Enemy Combatants at Guantanamo Bay
June 15, 2005
Washington, DC - At a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today said that she is concerned that America's policy on the detention and interrogation of enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba is failing. The following is the text of her statement:
"I want to begin by thanking Chairman Specter and Ranking Member Leahy - today's hearing is, in my view, timely and extremely consequential.
I am increasingly concerned that our nation's policy concerning the detention and interrogation of prisoners taken in Iraq and elsewhere in the course of the 'War on Terrorism' is deeply flawed in both conception and implementation.
First, let me make clear my view that in this modern world of asymmetric warfare, nonstate actors, and unconventional threat, there is an absolute necessity to have a program to securely hold prisoners, effectively interrogate them, and where appropriate, prosecute them under our civil or military laws.
But I also believe that any such program needs to meet three basic tests: (1) is it legal; (2) is it right; and (3) does it work. I fear that our current course of action fails all three tests.
To address these tests, and gather the facts necessary to understand the current situation, last week I wrote to the Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence, asking twelve important questions, which I believe are a starting point for our inquiry. Last night, I received an interim response to four of my 12 questions - and these had been previously disseminated and only focused on Guantanamo. I look forward to receiving answers to my remaining questions. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be introduced into the record.
The first test is a legal test, and I believe our witnesses can speak to this test today. It is whether the entire program, including the conditions of incarceration, the techniques of interrogation, and the procedures for determining guilt and innocence, meet standards of American law, and our obligations under binding international treaties. This includes questions such as:
Are we adhering to our obligations under the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture? Are we adhering to U.S. law prohibiting torture? Do the procedures in place meet legal and constitutional due process standards?
In my view this is a relatively simple, objective test, and amenable to a lawyerly inquiry. There should be no ambiguity - if it is against the law, or violates our nation's obligations under treaties, we do not do it.
The second test is one of policy. It my strong view that it is not enough to know what we can do under law; we have an obligation to examine what we should do in light of our nation's ethical and moral history. Our soldiers (as well as our Intelligence Agencies) have a long and honorable tradition of ethical behavior. For more than two hundred years we have prided ourselves on being different - different from the Nazis; different from the Soviets; different from al Qa'ida. Simply put, there are some things that Americans do not do, not because it is illegal, or some lawyer says we cannot, but because it is wrong.
I am increasingly concerned that we are failing this second test. Our "policy on torture" has become obscure, complicated and ever-changing. I sit on two committees with jurisdiction, and have sat through hours and hours of hearing and briefings - I do not think I have a very good idea of what, if anything, our policy consists of. Frankly, the Administration's repeated statements about "wherever possible adhering to law" are unhelpful. The rules of engagement for our armed forces and intelligence agencies should be clear and simple, and in accord with our basic values. An infantryman should not need to be a graduate of a law school to know what to do with a prisoner.
The third test is a practical one - does what we are doing work? Put aside the legal and moral issues which lie at the heart of the first two tests. For argument's sake, put aside what the law is, or what is right or wrong, and focus only on whether U.S. interests are being furthered by our policy. My question is this: Does the value of the intelligence gathered from interrogations outweigh the self-evident harm being done to the perception of America in the rest of the world? In other words, are we creating more terrorists and insurgents than we are stopping?
From Abu Ghraib to Guantanamo, to allegations that there is a constellation of other prisons being run by America around the world, we are being watched, and watched closely. There are literally millions of young men throughout the Muslim world who are deciding as we speak whether to take up arms against us, or work towards peaceful resolution of complex issues.
The bottom line: I am increasingly concerned that we are failing on all three tests. The legality of our procedures is suspect. The ethics and morality of our methods is in question. And, perhaps worst of all, it simply may not be helping us win the war on terrorism.
I hope that today's hearing marks the beginning of a new approach to this issue. I hope that the Congress will refocus and intensify its involvement in this issue. I hope the Administration will be more forthcoming and engaged in this effort. I hope that we can work together to ensure that American can fight, and win, a 21st Century war, with out damaging the core values forged in wars of the 18th, 19th and 20th Centuries.
It must be remembered - American soldiers beat the forces of Nazism and Fascism; and beat the forces of Communist totalitarianism, without giving up what makes us Americans. We can and must do the same today. Usama bin Ladin and his ilk are dangerous and powerful. But they are not, fundamentally, different from other evils which America has fought against, and defeated."
###
Senator Feinstein Raises Questions About Guantanamo Bay Detentions
Feinstein says effort with respect to enemy combatants is 'failing;' methods in Global War on Terrorism need to be 'reassessed' June 9, 2005
Washington, DC - In anticipation of a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing next week on enemy combatant detentions, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today called on Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte to provide her and other members of the Committee with detailed information on those who have been, and are currently, held at Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Following is Senator Feinstein's letter to Secretary Rumsfeld and Director Negroponte:
"I write seeking updated information concerning the status of programs to detain and interrogate individuals held in the course of the 'Global War on Terrorism.' On June 15, 2005, the Committee on the Judiciary will hold a hearing on this subject - the information I am requesting would greatly assist the Committee in examining this issue, and thus I ask that you provide the information to me, and to the Committee, prior to that date.
I am increasingly concerned that our national effort with respect to enemy combatants and others held in custody is failing. The programs at Guantanamo, as well as those in Afghanistan and in Iraq, have repeatedly been the subject of allegations of mismanagement and abuse. Some of these allegations are credible. But whether true or not, these allegations have fueled a rising tide of anti-America feeling throughout the world, especially in Muslim countries. Given this situation, I believe it is incumbent on us to question whether changes need to be made at Guantanamo and elsewhere.
It is clear to me that the 'Global War on Terrorism' will not soon come to an end, and that we will continue to need facilities to securely hold prisoners, and effectively conduct interrogations to obtain needed intelligence. However, I believe it is time to reassess our methods. The information I request will help the Judiciary Committee begin its role in this task.
I ask that the response be jointly prepared so as to avoid confusion as to what elements of the United States government are responsible for these issues. My request is based on the assumption that except for the Department of Defense and the Intelligence Community, there is no other element of the United States government that may lawfully engage in the detention or interrogation of prisoners. Of course, my request excludes the Department of Justice's responsibilities to prosecute criminal activity under federal law. Finally, I expect that the responses to my questions may require information properly classified pursuant to Executive Order 12958. I ask that such responses be provided to the Committee as a separate annex through the Office of Senate Security. My questions follow:
1. How many individuals are currently held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba?
2. How many individuals, in total, have been held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba?
3. How many individuals, in total, have been released from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba?
4. How many individuals, if any, have died while in custody at Guantanamo Bay?
5. What is the rationale for using Guantanamo Bay as the location for detention facilities?
6. What are the costs of maintaining such a facility at Guantanamo Bay compared with maintaining a similar facility within the United States?
7. What are the measures necessary to maintain the facility securely at Guantanamo Bay compared with maintaining a similar facility within the United States?
8. What, if any, interrogation techniques can be lawfully used at Guantanamo Bay, but not at a location within the territory of the United States?
9. What procedural rights, including rights of appeal and review, would be available to a detainee held within the United States, but are not now available to a similarly-situated detainee held at Guantanamo Bay?
10. Has the Department of Defense or the Intelligence Community conducted an analytic assessment of the value of the intelligence derived from the interrogation program being conducted at Guantanamo Bay? If so, please provide a copy of the results of that assessment?
11. Has the Department of Defense or the Intelligence Community conducted an analytic assessment of the effect of maintaining the Guantanamo Bay facility on the view of the U.S. and its programs held by foreign nations and their populations?
12. Does the Department of Defense or any element of the Intelligence Community currently maintain any other facilities where individuals are held in custody? If so, please identify these facilities, and address each of the above questions to that facility.
I thank you both in advance for your response, and look forward to working with you to address the critical issues at hand."
###
Sincerely yours,
Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator
http://feinstein.senate.gov
Further information about my position on issues of concern to California and the Nation are available at my website http://feinstein.senate.gov. You can also receive electronic e-mail updates by subscribing to my e-mail list at http://feinstein.senate.gov/issue.html.