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

[ThunderclapNewman]

The ends do not justify the means.

But the means dictate the ends.

[dave1111]

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. Freudian Slip?

[Gidster]

That is like saying "Murder can be defined in many ways...It is up to the President to decide when it is illegal"....

It's silly.

[revhatchell]

the fact that torture is debatable in the united states of america says a lot about the damage 8 years of fear mongering have done.

[CherokeeGirl]

I know, see how dangerous it is if we take our eyes of these guys and trust them to at least try to follow the law? Then, next thing you know, they are arguing to KEEP breaking that law.

Just like a bunch of kids who don't like the rules that prevent them from pushing people around.

[obviously]

I happen to believe it is debatable-there are two moral issues involved 1. torture is wrong 2. the moral responsibility to protect our people. I certainly don't believe just anything goes-but I also don't believe that we should just do nothing. So how far is too far. What is torture? What is okay?

And I cannot believe that I am hearing American citizens suggesting that we should send a American President or a citizen to a foreign court. If it is decided that they should be prosecuted it should be done here.

[CherokeeGirl]

Your thinking is a good example of how we've slowly been brainwashed to think it's okay to torture if we are torturing a terrorist.

Other countries look at America as terrorists too, so would it be okay for them to torture you? How about if you weren't even charged with a crime? How do you feel now?

Do you like world travel? Are your children or grandchildren someday joining the military?

These are things you should be protecting, not considering if torture is okay sometimes.

[dave1111]

Bush was asked, while he was president, how he defined torture. He said "Torture is whatever the law says it is." Well, the law says that water boarding is torture, so, we must prosecute, simple, eh?

[pjburke]

It should be done here.

The law is very, very clear on what torture is... and on what qualifies as being torture.

There is no grey area on waterboarding. It is torture... period.

Do not listen to the accused spin all of the lies and justifications that accused criminals will inevitably spin.

[ThunderclapNewman]

If you're not sure if it's torture, then it probably is.

From the International Committee of the Red Cross:

The 1984 United Nations Convention Against Torture (Article 1) provides a definition of torture that is considered customary.

International humanitarian law (IHL) differs somewhat from this definition in not requiring the involvement of a person acting in an official capacity as a condition for an act intended to inflict severe pain or suffering to be defined as torture.

The ICRC uses the broad term "ill-treatment" to cover both torture and other methods of abuse prohibited by international law, including inhuman, cruel, humiliating, and degrading treatment, outrages upon personal dignity and physical or moral coercion.

The legal difference between torture and other forms of ill treatment lies in the level of severity of pain or suffering imposed. In addition, torture requires the existence of a specific purpose behind the act – to obtain information, for example.

The various terms used to refer to different forms of ill treatment or infliction of pain can be explained as follows:

* Torture: existence of a specific purpose plus intentional infliction of severe suffering or pain;

* Cruel or inhuman treatment: no specific purpose, significant level of suffering or pain inflicted;

* Outrages upon personal dignity: no specific purpose, significant level of humiliation or degradation.

Methods of ill treatment may be both physical and/or psychological in nature and both methods may have physical and psychological effects.

[iRob08]

Who said "we should just do nothing"? Why are there only two choices: Torture or "just do nothing"? Have we all gone stupid or something? Have we forgot how to think critically?

[TheIndependenceParty]

Exactly correct, Rev! Thank you!

[Budokan]

I know. Think about it. We're actually having this discussion in the United States of America!

The RepubliKans have done almost irreparable damage to our nation. I hope voters never forget and give them what they deserve at the next election cycle.

http://kennethmarkhoover.com

[Palemoon]

I agree with your post! And by the way, isn't that a chaos symbol on your avatar? I remember reading about those in the Elric of Melnibone series of books. ;o)

[MaximMaximus]

I find it pathetic that these poor excuses of a human being have law degrees! Obviously, they've never ever understood what the law is. Someone should throw the US Constitution at them and make the read over and over again 100 times -I suppose that would be an acceptable from of torture to them!

[dave1111]

You obviously haven't met that many lawyers. They will do or say anything, if you can pay them enough.

[R2D2-51]

See the original 13th Amendment of the United States Constitution:

MEANING of the 13th Amendment
The "missing" 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:

"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."

http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/E/thirteen/thirteen2.htm

[MaximMaximus]

Actually, most lawyers I know are very decent people who are doing an honest job. Unfortunately, someone of them give rest a very bad name. Integrity and character cannot be acquired in college as seen in the case of the poor excuses of human beings in question.

[CherokeeGirl]

yeah! and while we're at it, maybe Sarah Palin could finally read that one paragraph about what a VP does.

These people don't read, John McCain doesn't read, he just spouts the latest talking points.

These guys are all just flying by the seat of their pants (faking it)

[R2D2-51]

Thats why its always been, its not what you know, but who you know, and how much chump change you bring to the dance.

[mergina]

What a pack of old used up and useless farts.

[iRob08]

Gonzales said he objected to President Obama's release of the now-infamous torture memos because those techniques "may be necessary in the future."

So is he saying that he wants America to set up global torture camps to stop us from being attacked again? Isn't there a better way to deal with our perceived enemies?

[CherokeeGirl]

you got it Robo, and they must be stopped.

there isn't EVEN an argument about this becuase it's ILLEGAL, since 1898

Gonzales, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, Bush, ALL WAR CRIMINALS

[iRob08]

I can only hope that those who support torture as a foreign policy tool--or any other tool--would be banished from America. Revoke their citizenship. Exile them. We won't prosecute people for torture? Fine. Kick them out of this country and bar them from returning.

[dave1111]

Setting up global torture camps is exactly what they did. I. E. Gitmo, Abu Gharib, Bagram Air base, CIA "dark" sites. What do you call that?

[CherokeeGirl]

Secret Global Torture in the name of OUR Country, that's what I call it! :)

[iRob08]

Well, I meant out in the open, no dark sites, classified or secret locations, since they believe it is the right thing to do.

[R2D2-51]

He's one of these compartmentalized need to know secret types of the dinosaur cold war age, that causes useful Intel to get wasted, and why 9/11 happened.

[dave1111]

Gonzo, unless you actually have amnesia, 'I don't recall' is NOT a defense.

[CherokeeGirl]

singing like canaries now, are we Gonzales? Ashcroft? You're gonna need a much pertier tune.

[Ffranco]

Now that we know water boarding is legal and is not torture, it's a technique police departments throughout America can use. It will be a lot easier getting criminals to confess using these techniques.

[CherokeeGirl]

I say we waterboard the Bush Regime just one more time, to make sure.

[southdakotajack]

We are beyond apologies.

Give them a choice: prison or exile (Iraq would be good).

[CherokeeGirl]

I like your no nonsense approach.
South Dakota Jack for President 2016! :)

[ReportThis]

Has that halfwit Gonzalez found a job yet? Can't imagine any legitimate law firm offering him a position.

[dave1111]

Gonzo actually said that water boarding may be required in the future. It would seem that 'looking forward' means different things to different people.

[CherokeeGirl]

then, I "look forward" to Gonzales' waterboarding adventure! :) On himself.

[R2D2-51]

With that kind of logic, if my neighbor rapes and kills my daughter, does that give me a license to burn down his house at night with his whole family inside?

The people who represent the greatest danger to the rule of law and our honor in knowing right from wrrong, are those who still don't get it, that two wrongs, don't make it right!

[Icantbelieveher]

Don't these people understand that this would be the camel nose under the tent if we do nothing? If it works is the defense they use, then what would keep it from being legal for the police department to start using these sort of tactics for suspects? Hey, if it works, why not? It's legal, cuz president Bushy said it was! So we should be able to use it when we just know the person is guilty and just won't give us the confession!

[bvongrabe]

Actually they do. Google Florida Prison Torture

[CherokeeGirl]

nice try BV, it's being challenged by a lawsuit because it's ILLEGAL.

You act like it's a normal everyday occurence down there, MISLEADING (lie)

[dave1111]

When the ends justify the means, anything is justified.

[woody7]

who cares what these pinheads have to say, put them in prison, and see how they like it