国会纪录：2004年12月7日（参议院）Page S11868-S11869提名Alberto Gonzales将军罗海先生。主席先生，在我们1月份回来后，参议院司法委员会将开始审议阿尔贝托古典的提名，以获得美国司法部长的职位。我在他的指定作为总统的提名人之后，我在11月17日结束时会见了法官冈萨雷斯。我有那次会议为我们的听证会做准备。我期待着与参议员幽灵和司法委员会的其他成员合作，并确保1月初就这一重要提名提供了迅速和公平的聆讯。没有秘密的秘密，古老的冈萨雷斯呼吁不仅对律师将军的作用应该是什么，而且还如何将其区分离出白宫律师的愿望。他也将被问及他在制定政府在海外囚犯的囚犯待遇和审问的政策方面发挥着作用的作用。阿布勒布的丑闻，伊拉克和阿富汗案件的围场，调查和收费的虐待指控是严重的事项。有挥之不去的问题。在唤醒时留下了未解决的问责制。 The Bush administration circled the wagons long ago. It has continually maintained that the abuses were simply the work of a few bad apples. But we know that the photos from Abu Ghraib do not depict an isolated incident. Abuses have occurred in many locations, including Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, and in a number of other facilities within Iraq. I have long said that somewhere in the upper reaches of the executive branch, a process was set in motion that rolled forward until it produced this scandal. Even without a truly independent investigation, we now know the responsibility for abuse runs very high into the chain of command. Senior officials in the White House, the Justice Department, and the Pentagon set in motion a systematic effort to minimize, distort, and even ignore laws, policies, and agreements on torture and the treatment of prisoners. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and later LTG Ricardo Sanchez authorized the use of techniques that were contrary to both U.S. military manuals and international law. Former CIA Director Tenet requested, and Secretary Rumsfeld approved, the secret detention of a ghost detainee in Iraq so he could be hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross. These issues, especially when they involve the greatest democracy history has known, are a significant concern. But there are also issues in which the administration has been far less than forthcoming. In letters dated May 17 and June 15 of this year, long before the fall elections, long before the resignation of John Ashcroft, and long before he was designated by the President as nominee, I asked Judge Gonzales to describe his role in both the interpretation of the law and the development of policies that led to what I and many others considered to have been a disregard for the rule of law. Those letters of May 17 and June 15 remain unanswered as of today. I have repeatedly emphasized to Judge Gonzales the need for responsiveness and accountability in these matters. Last Friday, I sent Judge Gonzales a letter reiterating my concerns. I emphasized the importance of full disclosure during this confirmation process. I urge him to cooperate, to cooperate now with all members of the Judiciary Committee on both sides of the aisle on the full range of issues of oversight and accountability that come before us. That is something his predecessor did not do. That lack of oversight on the part of the Senate, the lack of accountability and lack of responsiveness on the part of the administration, should not continue. I ask unanimous consent to have my December 3, 2004, letter to Judge Gonzales 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, December 3, 2004. Hon. Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President, the White House, Washington, DC. Dear Judge Gonzales: I enjoyed our preliminary meeting and look forward to your confirmation hearings. In following up on our meeting, and to give you and your staff ample opportunity to prepare for the hearings, I write to reiterate several concerns that I have raised in prior discussions and correspondence. When we met on November 17, 2004, I said that these issues will be raised, by myself and other members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, during the upcoming hearings. Based on our conversation, I am encourage by your willingness to answer questions about you role and your views in these matters. Photographs and reports of prisoner abuse in Iraq and other locations show an interrogation and detention system operating contrary to U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions. In addition to the abhorrent images from the Abu Ghraib prison that were published last spring, actions that have occurred with Administration approval include the forcible rendition of individuals to nations where they may face torture, and the hiding of ``ghost detainees'' from the International Committee of the Red Cross. Reports of abuse continue to emerge. Just this week, The New York Times reported that the Red Cross has charged U.S. military authorities with using physical and psychological coercion ``tantamount to torture'' on prisoners at Guantamano Bay. The Washington Post is reporting that in December 2003 Army generals in Iraq were warned in a confidential report that members of an elite military and CIA task force were abusing detainees. According to The Post, the report concluded that certain arrest and detention practices could be deemed to be ``technically'' illegal. In letters dated May 17 and June 15 of this year, I asked you to describe your role in both the interpretation of the law and the development of policies that led to what I and many other consider to have been a disregard for the rule of law. These letters remain unanswered. My concerns regarding the abuse of prisoners in U.S. custody did not begin with these letters. I have been seeking answers from the Administration for well over a year, before the abuses at Abu Ghraib came to light. In a very few cases my questions were answered, but with information that later proved to be less than accurate. For example, in a news conference on June 22, 2004, you stated, ``In Iraq, it has always been U.S. position that Geneva applies. From the early days of the conflict, both the White House and the Department of Defense have been very public and clear about that.'' However, an October 24, 2004, article in The Washington Post revealed yet another Justice Department memo authorizing actions that potentially violate the Geneva Conventions. The draft memo, dated March 19, 2004, apparently was written to authorize the CIA to transfer detainees out of Iraq for interrogation--a practice expressly prohibited by the Geneva Conventions. According to the memo's cover letter, it was drafted at your request. In another example, a June 25, 2003, letter from Department of Defense General Counsel William Haynes stated that the United States was adhering to its international obligations including those under the Convention Against Torture. We later learned of an August 1, 2002, Department of Justice memorandum that twisted the definition of torture in unrecognizable ways. That memo was addressed to your. We also learned months [[Page S11869]] later of the rendition of a Canadian-Syrian citizen to Syria, despite his fear of being tortured there, and despite the Syrian government's well-documented history of torture. Unnamed CIA officials told the press that this man was in fact tortured in Syria. The Committee and the Senate will want to know your role in these situations and your views with regard to the development of the legal justifications that appear to underlie so many of these actions. You will be called upon to explain in detail your role in developing policies related to the interrogation and treatment of foreign prisoners. The American public and the Senate that will be called upon to confirm your appointment deserve to know how a potential Attorney General, the chief law enforcement officer in the nation, will interpret and enforce the laws and how you will develop policy. We want to know what the current policy on torture is, but since the Administration disavowed the August 1, 2002, memo, no public statement of policy has replaced it. Questions remain unanswered on a host of issues. Requests to the White House and the Department of Justice for relevant documents-- including my requests to you in May and June of this year-- have been ignored or rejected. I urge you and the Administration to provide the documents that have been requested by myself and others without further delay so that the hearings will be well informed. Another key concern you will be called upon to discuss is how you view the duties and responsibilities of the Attorney General. As we discussed, I view the White House Counsel position and that of the Attorney General as quite distinct. You may well have viewed this President as your ``client'' while serving him at the White House, although the courts do not recognize an attorney-client privilege in that setting. We will want to know how differently you will act and view your responsibilities as the Attorney General of the United States. Finally, I encourage you to commit to cooperating with all members of the Judiciary Committee on issues of oversight and accountability. In the 108th Congress, the Judiciary Committee failed to fulfill its oversight responsibilities. Accountability and improving government performance are sound and long established purposes of congressional oversight, and accountability has been lacking on these and other crucial issues. With a new Congress, and a new Attorney General, I expect a return to the diligent oversight envisioned by our Founders to ensure that the Executive Branch remains accountable to the American people. Our meeting was a constructive beginning at the start of the confirmation process, and I look forward to your hearing early next month. In the meantime, Marcelle and I send our best wishes to you and your family and hope that you have a restful and rewarding holiday season. Sincerely, Patrick Leahy, Ranking Democratic Member. Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I see the distinguished Senator from North Dakota now seeking the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous unanimous consent, the Senator from North Dakota is recognized. Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me ask consent to speak for 20 minutes in morning business. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. ____________________