Gonzales, Ashcroft Speak On Torture: "Not Here To Apologize"

The New York Times reported Monday that Bush administration officials were far more deeply divided over interrogation policy than had been previously known -- and that division led to the secret C.I.A. program being dismantled.

[E]ven as interrogation methods were scaled back, former officials now say, the battle inside the Bush administration over which ones should be permitted only grew hotter. There would be a tense phone call over the program's future during the 2005 Christmas holidays from Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser, to Porter J. Goss, the C.I.A. director; a White House showdown the next year between Ms. Rice and Vice President Dick Cheney; and Ms. Rice's refusal in 2007 to endorse the executive order with which Mr. Bush sought to revive the C.I.A. program.

Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales makes an appearance in the White House discussions (his proposal: move C.I.A. detainees to Guantanamo Bay without admitting that they were held in secret prisons). But in a new interview alongside John Ashcroft, Gonzales showed little sign of regret.

Speaking to Dan Abrams (get the full interview on Abrams' Twitter account), Gonzales said he objected to President Obama's release of the now-infamous torture memos because those techniques "may be necessary in the future." Asked specifically if waterboarding was torture, he said:

"I think that the U.S. government provided advice to CIA interrogators based upon the best legal reasoning by the lawyers in the Department of Justice. Was it torture, when that advice was given? No. Were the interrogations harsh? Yes. Did they save lives? Absolutely."

John Ashcroft defended his successor, saying "the word waterboarding can be defined in a lot of ways." He added that "I don't think they got it wrong. It's different now ... Because the law has been changed." In fact, the law hasn't changed -- something Ashcroft acknowledged after the interview.

Meanwhile, on Sunday, a fourth-grader questioned Condoleezza Rice on waterboarding. She too claimed that nothing illegal was done.

"But [President Bush] was also very clear that we would do nothing, nothing, that was against the law or against our obligations internationally. So the president was only willing to authorize policies that were legal in order to protect the country."

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Comments

[cardineau]

They are all popping up to pre-emptively defend their actions. The chorus of people demanding an investigation and prosecution is growing and they are beginning to feel uncomfortable. GWB is no longer in a position to protect them. I hope they all rot in prison.

[BeachBubbaTex]

Divide and conquer. Pardon (disbar) and move up the chain. Even grade-schoolers want answers.
I just want Cheney, Rummy, and W. on the stand. Force them to go on record. If we're not willing to do this we don't deserve the Constitution that protects us from such abuse of power.

[Manx]

Gonzales' answers were self-serving, surprise, surprise. If waterboarding is legal, why did we prosecute Japanese soldiers for waterboarding after WWII? It wasn't legal then and it's not legal now.

[Prakosh]

Closer to home and closer to now why did the State of Texas prosecute, convict and sentence a Sheriff and his Deputies for waterboarding prisoners to extract confessions in the ninties while Bush was governor. The sheriff got ten years and the deputies each got four years. And nobody got a pardon from Bush!!!!

[kasinca]

Is this dog and poney show to defend Bush and Cheney?

[Prakosh]

Still haven't seen any evidence that torture secured any evidence of information that kept us safe. We all "know" that it did but just for the record I'd like to see some concrete facts to back up all this "opinion."

[dave1111]

And I am sure that a bank robber will think that robbing a bank will keep him financially safe. So does that make robbing a bank ok?

[Prakosh]

By the standards applied to this case by Republicans evidently it does.

[christopherflynn]

the only thing that's really "concrete" is the composition of your head...

[Gidster]

Why? Because you disagree? Nothing he posted was outrageous or fringe-y.

The FBI says they had all the data Cheney refers to before the CIA began torturing him.
The only reason to torture in that case is to get the victim to say what you want them to say.

Like confirming the lie that Iraq was linked to the 9/11 attacks.

Christopher, you have identified the wrong concrete......

[JessWonderin]

OOOOH cool . . . . re-par-tea . . . . .

Resorting the the usual Republic Party tactic . . . name calling and AVOID facts . . . .

[BeachBubbaTex]

Again, Prakosh, this "proof" Republicans cite is "spook speak" for "actionable data." If KSM or the others said ANYTHING under torture it produces a data point and therefore, by definition, "actionable data." It could be complete gibberish or lies, but it is another data source to be used by analysts. Is this proof? Not in any conventional use of the term.

It would seem that very basic standards for "proof" that torture works are (a) information that is accurate and time sensative [it can't take weeks to discover] and (b) information that could not be gained in any other way. In this sense, torture did not work. KSM and others were tortured weeks after their capture (no Jack Bauer hidden time bombs) and their statements changed very little as a result (but it's this little change that Cheney and the rest are basing their whole argument).

[Prakosh]

Ok, for clarity: In the first place my post has been misread. I was being ironic thus the "scare" quotes around the words "know" and "opinion" in the original. Second, I didn't use the word "proof," I seldom use it and when I do it is always a mistake. Here's why. I don't think one can "prove" much. Generally I reserve the words "prove" and "proof" for what happens in a court of law where by definition lawyers seek to "prove" the guilt or innocence of certain criminal types. And in civil cases where lawyers seek to "prove" liability. For the most part, most of us don't live in such environments and therefore I try to be rigorous in my avoidance of these words.

I think one can site evidence and one can argue persuasively based on that evidence and the rules of logic (another cultural construct) but one we generally accept here. Mostly I reserve the right to ask for "evidence"--or what I above to avoid more repetition called "concrete facts"--not that such evidence constitutes "proof" of anything necessarily but only because it keeps some liars more honest. Again the post was ironic. I don't believe for an instant such evidence exists.

[RustyPatina]

Ask Jesus about torture.

[Prakosh]

I guess that will have to wait until he either comes back as nearly all the superstitions say he will someday or I go to heaven and sit there with NOBODADDY and await his arrival there. That is of course if I am reading the current mythology accurately...

[cactusgal]

Wow Prakosh-- that was pretty naughty. I hope you weren't expecting a visit from Santa this year.

[BeachBubbaTex]

Cheney was too busy asking the Romans how they covered themselves legally (INRI).

[christopherflynn]

jesus rodriguez?????

[Prakosh]

I didn't know that was his last name; you must have a different collection of myths!!!! Who wrote yours???

[gonbald]

I used to know jesus romero about 20 yrs ago, and I don't think it was him.

[derrickhoyle]

Jesus Quintana. That creep can roll, man.

[JessWonderin]

actually it was a government "sanctioned stress position" . . . .

[CherokeeGirl]

my guess is that Jesus wouldn't torture, not just because he was tortured himself, but because it's wrong.

[bartleby042]

As a lawyer, I have a message for both Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Ashcroft.: You both are a disgrace to our profession. Please do us a favor and resign your bar memberships. Anyone who could give "legal advice" that torture is OK under either U.S. or international law -- to borrow a phrase from the movie "A Few Good Men" -- must have been absent from law school the day they taught law.

[Prakosh]

This from the interview:

Ashcroft speaking: "I don’t know. I haven’t made that decision. I’m talking about the fact that when you provide information to the enemy, and it’s valuable to the enemy, the risk goes up. When you also suggest to the American people that the risk is going down, there’s almost the situation where when people guard against the risk less because they feel more secure, the risk goes up. We’re dealing with an enemy that has sworn that they want to destroy us. And they call us the Great Satan, and they have continued to say that they want to fight us and that they want to injure us, and I take them at their word on that. Without adequate regard at one time it has cost us greatly. So I don’t think it’s reckless to say that if you provide something that assists the enemy."

Simply astounding. If we do not remain fearful enough of the terrorists the terrorists will strike again. We must remain very afraid, very, very, very, afraid, or the terrorists win!!!! No wonder these guys were so great at governance!!! They are all insane!!!

[cactusgal]

Yes. Criminally insane.

[dave1111]

Seems that Ashcroft left out the part where VP Cheeny and R0ve outed CIA covert agent Valerie Plame, a WMD expert. I wonder how much that little operation assisted the enemy.

[Gidster]

Vigilant, and watchful does not mean afraid. Ashcroft and his fear mongers have so twisted the reality of the situation it is insanity.....

[mnwildfan]

would ashcroft and gonzales think it would be alright for our enemys to waterboard our soldiers for "information"

[stargazer13]

they would probably say some like

war is hell you know !!

[cactusgal]

Of course not. Our enemies are subhuman and treacherous, and have no rights whatsoever. Sort of like slaves used to be in America.

[Palemoon]

To me, this sounds like nothing more than these people trying to save themselves from ever being investigated or punished. They are covering their butts as best they can at this point.

[stargazer13]

I must admit

I am very upset that these men who tortured humans being,s

are still running around free birds

when they should be jail birds !!!

[lornejl]

Doug Cassel: If the president deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?
John Yoo: No treaty.
Doug Cassel: Also no law by Congress -- that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo...
John Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.

[Gidster]

Splitting hairs and arguing semantics.

There is no law against using a bread knife to do a urethral sounding, so that makes it OK if the president decides to do it?

Nonsense. Illegal is illegal, period.

[dave1111]

Apparently John Yoo approves of the Nixonian principle: "If the president does it, then it's not illegal."

[rabiddog6708]

I don't want your apologies. I want you both to begin serving long prison sentences in the immediate future.

[Ray46]

Maybe they can share a cell together.

[R2D2-51]

Ask the FBI interrogator who first extracted useful Intel from KSM w/o torture, and what they got when CIA took it over using torture...Zip!
If torture is the best you can do to get useful information from someone, than hang it up.

[Tommygun264]

The pro-torture apologists don't want any bothersome facts getting in the way of extracting their revenge. Two and three years ago they were indignantly denying that torture ever took place. Only now that it has been proven beyond all doubt are they coming back with, "well, yeah we lied about never torturing people, but that's okay because it worked and who really knows what torture is anyway". The worst part of it is the mainstream corporate media and and so many of the American people have allowed themselves to be so easily diverted. No one was debating whether or not torture was okay a few years ago, Bush/Cheney were angrily denying what we now know to be true and they were denying it because everyone knew that torture was immoral, illegal and un-American.