Edited on Mon May-18-09 11:02 AM by L. Coyote
HEARING before the COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE -
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_senate_hearings&docid=f:27088.wais...........
Chairman Warner. Thank you, Senator Levin.
Director Goss, we are prepared to have your statement. We
welcome you to the committee.
STATEMENT OF HON. PORTER J. GOSS, DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL
INTELLIGENCE
Mr. Goss. Thank you, Chairman Warner and Ranking Member
Levin, thank you, for the opportunity to be here today. I would
ask unanimous consent that my full statement could be made part
of the record so I could abbreviate my statement, sir.
Chairman Warner. Without objection, and that will likewise
apply to Admiral Jacoby.
Mr. Goss. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Levin: Thank you so much for
the opportunity to be here today. I hope to accomplish a number
of things during this time. I want to briefly share with you my
thoughts relative to the threats that are facing the United
States in the coming years. But by virtue of the unclassified
nature of this setting, I am not going to go into a great deal
of detail, and I do look forward to a more in-depth discussion
of the threats with the committee in our closed session.
I also want to discuss the broader issue of capabilities
the Intelligence Community requires to face these threats. The
capabilities issue is one that fundamentally impacts the way we
support policymakers and warfighters, and of course we need
your help with the capabilities question.
The war on terrorism has presented the Intelligence
Community with challenges unlike any before. In response, we
have changed some of the ways we gather secrets. We are facing
small groups of terrorists and extremists, rather than standing
armies. They operate out of homes and caves rather than
military bases and government entities. They do not necessarily
wear uniforms, they do not always use conventional ordinance,
and they do not observe norms and standards of civilized
society. Only a few individuals may know the complete plan of
any given terrorist plot.
Professional interrogation has become a very useful and
necessary way to obtain information to save innocent lives, to
disrupt terrorist schemes, and to protect our combat forces.
The United States Government has had documented success
protecting people and capturing terrorists with such
information. As I have publicly said before, the United States
Government does not engage in or condone torture.
..................
Senator Levin. When you receive complaints from, evidence
of torture by people against whom rendition has been used, do
you follow up? Since it is not our policy--the President has
said publicly it is not our policy--to engage in rendition of
people for purposes of torture, do we follow up with the
countries that have represented to us that they would not
torture individuals we sent to those countries? Do you know
whether we have ever followed up with those countries with that
evidence?
Mr. Goss. If you are asking about the Intelligence
Community, again this is a kind of question that is complicated
and would need to be answered in closed session. But I can
assure you that I know of no instances where the Intelligence
Community is outside the law on this, where they have complied.
As I have said publicly before and I know for a fact, that
torture is not productive. That is not professional
interrogation. We do not do torture.
I can also tell you that it is my understanding and my
experience that any serious allegations--and I am not just
talking about some press speculation or something--that have
ever been brought to the attention of the proper authorities
have been referred properly for investigation.
...........
Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the
witnesses.
Director Goss, just to follow up on Senator Levin's
questions, the thing that bothers a lot of us is that we do not
seem to have a clear policy on treatment of prisoners which
could then be translated into specific instructions for those
who are in charge of interrogations, recognizing that it is
complicated by the fact that we now have two different kinds of
prisoners. One is those who are eligible for the Geneva
Conventions for the Treatment of Prisoners of War and others
are outright terrorists, who have none of those protections but
still have protections by international treaty such as the
torture treaty and others.
I wonder how you feel about that view, because when I look
at these cases of abuse I think that perhaps there was not
sufficient training, but maybe more importantly or as
importantly, there was not specific policy guidelines issued
for those people who are the ones who are interfacing with the
prisoners. Do you have a view on that?
Mr. Goss. Yes, sir, I do. I would like to make a
distinction if I could. We started talking about transfers of
people, alleged renditions and so forth, and then we switched
to prisoner treatment. I want to make a distinction between the
two and answer both questions, more candidly obviously in
closed session.
I believe that there is policy and I believe that it is
very well understood at this point. I am not speaking for the
military side and I am not going to go to all those
investigations and reviews and so forth. I am going to go to
what I understand are the Intelligence Community's orders on
how we use the tools that have been given to us lawfully and
how we stay within bounds.
As I say, I believe that if you go back and you take a look
at transfers helping other countries deal with terrorists, you
will find this is a process that has been going on for more
than 20 years. We actually got in the terrorist business back
in the early 1980s, starting with Beirut.
I think there have always been procedures, processes, and
policies in place to deal with these and they have been
understood.
Senator McCain. Well, some of those policies at one time
were to have the prisoner feel that they were drowning.
Mr. Goss. You are getting into again an area of what I will
call professional interrogation techniques and I would like
to----
Senator McCain. That is the area that I am concerned about,
because I am not sure that the interrogators are fully aware of
specific policies as to what they can and cannot do when
interrogating a prisoner. That is my point.
Mr. Goss. Thank you, sir. That is a clarification. If you
are going to talk about the techniques as well and add that
dimension to it and not just how people are held, then I would
take the statement even further, to say that there has been in
that case some uncertainty. There has been an attempt to
determine what those policies are. I think that uncertainty is
largely resolved, and in the mean time I can assure you that
pending any uncertainties that anything that would be happening
would be erring on the side of caution.
.............
Senator Kennedy. All right. I know you have gone through
this, but I would like to come back to this policy on
rendition. I have been informed by staff that there has been
some comments about this and a desire to get into a secure
session for it. But I would like to ask a little bit more about
some parts of it that I think ought to be able to be answered.
Yesterday the President said we send detainees back to
their country of origin with the promise that they will not be
tortured. Last month, Mr. Goss, you said that we have an
accountability program to make sure the promises are kept. But
since September 11 the U.S. has flown 150 suspects to countries
like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Jordan, countries that we
know engage in the torture, and they are not always the
detainee's country of origin. We have turned over a Canadian to
Syria, where allegedly he was tortured for nearly a year until
the Syrians concluded he had no ties to al Qaeda and released
him.
We detained an Arab German and flew him to Afghanistan,
where he was drugged, beaten, and then released 5 months later.
We captured an Arab citizen of Australia and flew him into
Egypt, who says he was given intense electric shocks, hung from
metal hooks, beaten, and almost drowned. The U.S. eventually
released him from Guantanamo.
If we are sending them back to the countries of origin, how
do you explain the fact that we are sending many of these
people to other countries?
Mr. Goss. Senator, thank you. On the subject of
transferring dangerous terrorists and how that all comes about,
there are obviously a number of equities involved. We have
liaison sources. We have other government agencies. The idea of
moving people around, transferring people for criminal or other
reasons by government agencies, is not new. For us in the
intelligence business, the idea of helping out dealing with
terrorists has been around for about 20 years, and we do have
policies and programs on how to do it.
We also have liaison partners who make requests of us, and
we try to respect not only the sovereign rights of other
countries, but all of the conventions and our own laws and of
course the Constitution. As far as I know, we do that, and in
cases where we do not or there is a problem, there are ways to
bring it to the attention of people like our IG. That system
does work.
Senator Kennedy. Well, you mentioned other times. During
the Clinton administration they had used rendition. They used
it, as I understand it, for limited purposes, to return
terrorist suspects for criminal prosecution. It required an
interagency group's review. Do you require interagency groups
to review, and also to approve each requested transfer? Do you
have those kinds of safeguards? Did you maintain that process?
Mr. Goss. Sir, I can only speak for the Intelligence
Community.
Senator Kennedy. That is exactly what I am asking. Those
were in place during the previous administration. I am asking
whether those kinds of protections still exist.
Mr. Goss. I actually believe that since September 11 and
since we have understood the value of how to deal with the
terrorist threat that we have more safeguards and more
oversight in place than we did before.
Senator Kennedy. Well, there are many that believe that if
we abuse prisoners in ways, we do not undermine al Qaeda; we
strengthen them and make it easier to recruit terrorists and
create a backlash of hatred against us.
Moving on to the Bybee memoranda, which we went into in
very great detail in the Judiciary Committee at the time of Mr.
Gonzalez's hearings. I am wondering whether you can confirm
that the CIA is no longer using the legal guidance contained in
the August 2002 Bybee memorandum?
..........
=======================
Senate Committee on Armed Services: Hearings – 109th Congress
http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/senate04sh109.html
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
