Congresswoman Diane Watson's Trip to Guantanamo: Paid Contractors Interrogate, Not the Military.
On, April 11, 2009, Congresswoman, Diane Watson, who represents, California's 33rd District, which is located in Los Angeles, held a Resource Fair in her district.
The following week, the Congresswoman, was gracious enough to sit down with me for an interview. Below is Part I of that interview.
Kathleen Wells: Last week, it was reported in the New York Times and re-published on Huffingtonpost, that the NSA had wiretapped a member of Congress without a warrant. Can you give me your thoughts on that?
Congresswoman Watson: Well, number one, that is patently illegal. Number two, it happened often in the last administration. Number three, not every person working in an agency, leaves when the administration, changes. Those who are career personnel, stay -- the appointees, leave. And so, it was a mentality under the Bush administration, that it was alright to tap in, without alerting the member, because it was all about Homeland Security. A lot of lines were breached, after 9-11, in terms of protecting America. We have a Constitution; we have a Bill of Rights that lays out the right of an individual in America. And the right to privacy, Freedom of Speech, is the first one. Why couldn't they go to a judge who would be available 24/7 and get permission?
And my experience being in the House, in the last 8 years, is that many things that were done, were done above the law. We are a nation of laws. I was an Ambassador and consistently it was pressed, that we are a nation of laws and that we intend to see that the laws prevail. Certainly, the Bush Administration, cherry picked -- between things that were legal and things that were illegal. Illegal things were overlooked.
Let's take Guatanamo Bay -- they were torturing people down there. I went down to Guantanamo Bay, with a codel ("Congressional Delegation.") We visited as members of an international organization on security and cooperation.
Kathleen Wells: Specifically, who invited the codel and what did they promise?
Congresswoman Watson: We, the United States, belong to an organization -- security and cooperation ("OSCE"). And around 2005, and on my first visit there, they mentioned that there was a resolution, which they wanted to pick up again, that condemned the United States, for their handling of prisoners, at Guantanamo Bay.
To wit, I stood up and said: Mr. Chair, could we possibly, table this motion and let a Codel, that's a Congressional Delegation, go down, take a look at Guantanamo Bay and when we come back, maybe we can amend the resolution. He said: no, we've had it on the table, for a couple of years now and we are going to go ahead with it.
So, they took the vote and there were only 15 nations that voted in accord with the United States. The others voted against us.
Later, I encouraged our Committee and that was the Foreign Relations Committee, to go down on a Codel and we did.
We always fly military - Air Force, aircraft. So, it was a special mission. There were about 6 of us and we left and landed in Havana.
When we landed there, we went out to the waters edge and there was a yacht, waiting for us to take us around (you know the United States has leased that property - I think for 99 years or so.).
When we were going around, they pointed out the Commander's home - these beautiful mansions, overlooking the ocean and so on. We were only going to be on the ground for 6 hours. By the time, we got around to Guantanamo Bay, 2 of those hours, had lapsed.
They took us then to the mess hall to have lunch. And that took about an hour and 45 minutes. Then, they took us around to the PX. Now remember, we are only on the ground for 6 hours. We have now used up about 4 of those hours. They took us to the PX and we had no interest in the PX. They had closed it down so we could go shopping.
Well, by the time, we got to the prison area, we had less than 1 hour.
We wanted to find out and view, where they were actually interrogating. They took us into rooms - concrete, I would say they were about 10X12. And there was a slab and a pedestal. And in the floor, there was a drain. And above, there was a light.
And I said: why the slab. And the answer was: they do better, when they are proned out - that means lying flat. And I said: oh, do you give them sodium pentathlon. You know that's sorta like the truth drug. And he said: oh, no, we don't touch them. And I said: But, I see a drain at the bottom of the floor and there is nothing on these walls - just concrete. So, I figured when they lose their body fluids, all you have to do is take a hose and wash down the whole room.
I was really shocked when I saw the place where they interrogated the detainees. And found out from the Commander, who was with us, that they contract out interrogations. They are not done by the military, on the base. They are done by a contractor, and the contractor and the contract says that no one with the military can be in on the interrogation session - they can not see the interrogation.
They don't know what procedures they use to interrogate them.
And I said: if the military can not see and can not be involved, can not sit in, then how do we know you are using legal methods.
We don't know what they were doing and I raised this question.
And they give them a bag full of money - hundreds of thousands of dollars. And they are on their way.
Kathleen Wells: To the contractors performing the interrogations?
Congresswoman Watson: Yes. I don't know how much, was stated in the contract, however, I'm sure if you are going in with the detainees and with terrorists, you are going to charge, handsomely, to do that kind of work.
And so, we raised these questions. And I also raised the question as to why in all these years, had they not processed more of the detainees and sent them back to their homes.
We went back, several months later. This time, they picked us up and they took us to the mess hall. There were maybe 8 or so of us, members, and each member sat at a table with somebody from the military and/or somebody from the interrogation team, etc...
Kathleen Wells: And when you say you went back, when was this?
Congresswoman Watson: Several months later - it might have been 6 or 7 months. We gave our report and then we went back to see, if there were any changes. Now, remember: I promised to come back and offer amendments, but we never did go back to the OSCE, to tell them what we saw. We turned in our report here, to our Committee.
Kathleen Wells: In the House?
Congresswoman Watson: Yes. Our Foreign Affairs Committee. And, at that time, there was a Republican, as the Chair - Henry Hyde.
On our second visit, they had a woman's firm, as the interrogators. Before I sat down, I let her know my credentials - my background. I told her that I was a school psychologist and I was the one who tested and evaluated and did an assessment on children, who were referred to me by the teachers, for many different reasons.
I would establish their I.Q. I would establish their ability to learn and I would recommend the proper program for them.
So, I know how to ask the questions, to get the answers that are needed for me to score them to identify their level of intelligence - their I.Q.
And so when I said that, then she... well, you know they try to tell you want they think you want to hear. I wanted her to know, at the outset, that I understand these things. She said, "yes and we know that the environment is very important. And we need to have a friendly environment."
At this time, they had built new interrogation centers. There was a glass cube and you could go in a door and sit in the middle and you could see, in the glass, the rooms (there were 4 rooms attached to this glass tube) -- you could sit, listen and watch, but not to the interrogations.
And that was what really shocked me was the fact that no one attached to the military could sit in, and listen and watch. Apparently, they weren't informed as to the rule of law. And this was still true, even on our second visit.
This was under the Bush administration, and under the Attorney General, who wrote the memo, which stretched what was acceptable and made waterboarding appear acceptable.
We would say it was a torture device, but the way the memo was written to President Bush, it was written as if, this was acceptable, on certain detainees and under certain circumstances.
Kathleen Wells: And you are referring to Alberto Gonzales?
Congresswoman Watson: Yes, he is the one that wrote the torture memo. And so, we felt - it was what we didn't see that gave me clues because I was trained to watch for body language, room setting -- I was trained as a school psychologist.
So, you look for many indicators. The person's emotional and mental condition, at the moment.
And so, when you go into a room - gray walls, with a drain - that drain and the slab, told me so much about the techniques. And then to find out that in the contract, they can not participate, they can not listen, they can not watch.
Kathleen Wells: You are saying "they" being the military?
Congresswoman Watson: The military.
Kathleen Wells: So, this is second hand information. In other words, the interrogators, who are contracted, are telling the military what's actually taking place in the interrogation?
Congresswoman Watson: No, they don't tell them what took place. They tell them what came out of the interrogation.
Kathleen Wells: So, in essence, we don't' know...
Congresswoman Watson: We don't know, because what they are finding now is that the more painful the method is, and if it is torture, they will say anything to get you to stop - to let up. So, they are finding now, that torture does not give you any accurate information that you can rely on.
The President, said a few days ago, that the FBI, has let us down, because they are not giving us the kind of information that will lead to the capture of Osama Bin Laden. That's what this is all about. And, the capture of those who were directly involved with 9-11.
Kathleen Wells: What are you thoughts about the President releasing the torture memos, last Thursday and from that, what do you think needs to happen?
Congresswoman Watson: The President talked about, when he ran, the openness of government - the transparency government - the responsible oversight of government. And I feel that the President is doing what he should do. If we are torturing human beings, and we are going around the world, saying that we are a role model for a Democratic government -- because we abide by the rule of law, I feel that the only thing he could do, was make public the torture memos, to show where President Bush and those in his administration, felt they were above the law.
I don't think we ought to cover these things up. Because, then the rest of the world, will find us to be hypocritical. How can we condemn China, for its assault on human rights, when we are doing the same thing?
And other countries, in the world where we feel they deprive their citizens of their rights.
And if we are going to be a tower of virtue, then let justice take its course. What is the symbol of justice: It's a woman, with a blindfold and holding a scale.
And where does that scale tip? Martin Luther King, Jr., said, the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.
I really feel that the things that happened under the last administration were not only scurrilous, but they were illegal.
Kathleen Wells: How do you think that the Obama Administration will differ from the Bush Administration regarding Guantanamo Bay?
Congresswoman Watson: He has already signed the executive order. An order, that allows for the closure of Guantanamo Bay. That's already done. He did that the second day he was in office. He has only been in office, 12 weeks. That's the first thing he did.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
So Sen. Leahy wants to read the pages of this tor ture programme before turning them and Sen. McCain doesn't want to travel down this road ... question Mc, what road !???
I recently watched an HBO movie where Glen Close portrayed an American Interrogator charged with gaining certain information from a moslem man, and an interrogator in China was charged with gaining certain information from an American woman both used the same exact methods and even the same words... Hmmm (It was supposed to be based on facts as I recall)
The article sheds some light on detainees who apparently didn't survive the "methods" :
http://new
So the real reason we have to torture is so that somebody can make money off of it?
Having known that Bush and Cheney were in charge, I really should guessed that myself long ago.
It's like Lily Tomlin says about being a cynic, you just can't keep up.
We must have Truth and Reconciliation about this if America is to be America again - for ourselves AND to show the world that we hold ourselves accountable to the ideals of truth, free speech, justice for all -
Americans must have a national "come to Jesus" experience and face what we allowed when we allowed Cheney/Bush to hijack florida and then our country - a CEO of Halliburton suggested for Vice President was A Conflict of Interest Waiting To Happen - and it didn't take long for the project for a new american century and Dick Cheney to start a conflict in his own best material and reputational interest -
Anyone who has read LBJ biographies knows about Brown and Root morphed into KelloggBR morphed into Halliburto
Jim Morrison's navy admiral dad just died - he took command of a ship on 22 November 1963 and his first act was to announce the assassination of JFK and months later his ship was part of the Gulf of Tonkin [supposed/Never Happened] incident -
If America does not admit the truth of What We Allowed To Happen On Our Watch - and reconcile this with those we have damaged and who lost and broke faith with us -
Are there constitutional concerns about this in terms of the separation of powers? Isn't the power of the exectutive vested only in the executive branch under Artlcle II, Section 1? It seems that if Congress is forbidden from delegating it's legislative powers to the executive (United States v. Schecter Poultry), the executive should be forbidden from delegating its enforcement power to people who are not principal or inferior officers within the meaning of Article II.
Continued.
http://www
While it is important for Ms. Watson and others to come forth and explain what they knew to further illuminate these horrific Bush Administration deeds, it is past time for those asking the “tough” questions to now question the complicity of those who are now coming forth to tell their stories and demand answers as to why, not one single person, took a documented and public stand against what they knew was being illegally perpetrated in the name of America and its citizens. I want every “after the fact” objector to these crimes to go on record with their justification for not being accountable at the time that they knew or would have reasonably been able to infer that these crimes were being committed.
In light of the extent to which President Obama, who is wildly popular, has to contort himself to accommodate a “vote the party line” republican minority that seems to block him at every turn, it is abundantly clear that the congressional democratic minority and eventual majority were spineless and completely complicit for the duration of the Bush regime. Had these people actually cared more about the future of this country and less about keeping their cushy jobs with its perks, we might be better off today as a country, from both geopolitical and economic perspectives.
You did a fantastic job eliciting Ms. Watson’s account and I forward to reading Part II.
Kathleen, I have just read your interview and it left me with an even greater feeling of disgust and contempt for what Bush/Cheney and their co-conspirators have done in our names. The extent to which the existence of a torturous regime was known by many elected officials and war crimes were being committed is very disturbing. I am unclear as to why, with such knowledge, congress was not willing to impeach Bush. In addition, what exactly kept Ms. Watson and the others in the codel from bringing to light the information that they knew, yet alone that which they suspected? Every possible thing could not have possibly been of a classified nature and even if it was classified information, wasn’t there a process by which they could have objected via a special committee or something similar.
I hear what you're saying, however, the congresswoman stated that she did give her report to the head of her Foreign Relations committee ! For those congresspersons who "suspected" such t o r lures taking place, I believe the word "suspected" must be understood ! GW also pushed through congress a "Patriot Act" ... this act gave that man very, heretofore unheard of authorities ... people were fearful of being accused of being unpatriotic and even of aiding & abetting the "enemy" ... and, GW had the public on his side in all of this ! I would like to read the report Congresswoman Watson submitted to the Foreign Relations Committee Chair, republican Henry Hyde !
I am not familiar with the protocol that must be followed, so I will accept that submitting the "report" was the appropriate course of action. Was there anything else that could have been legally done to shine light on the then suspicions?
I am unsure if your reference to being fearful was a legal fear or a political fear. I have yet to hear a single politician state what you have stated in their place.
I too would like to read the report that the Congresswoman submitted. Everything that is not a threat to national security should be declassified. I will expect to see you (and your story) in the MSM, as there are even more questions than answers.
What prevented the democrats, at the time, from blocking the Bush agenda the way that the republicans block President Obama at every turn?
There are very few elected officials from either party who don't share in the blame of what has happened in regards to Bush Administration crimes.
VictoriaP, I was given this video that shows Congresswoman Watson eager to impeach GW, having signed-on impeachment resolutions presented to her for support ! It does seem that she did attempt to speak out .
http://www
Congresswoman Watson stated that she "raised questions" ... that she gave a report to her Foreign Relations Committee heads ! Was she to violate congressional rules of publicizing classified info by alerting MSM !??
I'm at this article much today because I think it is a bom bshell ... it should be main thread ! I have heard no other congressperson give this much information on this matter !??
I was wondering why we haven't heard from the Congresswoman before this. She should have been more vocal at the time. Why did she wait until now to talk to the press about this?
Much is classified information ... what if she had, the Bush Admin. & all neonuts would have called for her impeachment !!!
Our poster "VieuxCharles" offered a link to a NYT article which he attempts to use as proof that President Obama continues the NSA surveillance operations as they were under GW, is patently WRONG !!
That article states clearly that the DOJ (Eric Holder) responded to NYT by acknowledging there had been problems under Bush's operations, but that those problems had been RESOLVED ! Get it ... RESOLVED ! Nowhere did I read that President Obama's Admin. was NOT getting legal warrants vis a vis the FISA court for any domestic wiretappings ... period !!!
Yeah .... sadly .... Gonzo said exactly the same thing a couple of times. A few bad apples ... never happen again.
The NSA is still operating under the warrant-free rules of Bush based on the law that Obama opposed - then supported - which authorized the practice. They also granted immunity to AT&T under the premise that in the future, companies would be less likely to break the law when requested if they were subject to prosecution for the violations.
Unless you can point to some statement the administration has made indicating differently, there is no basis to assume a change has been made to the program.
I simply don't compare what "Gonzo" says or ever said to our current administration !
Anyway, unless you can point any "illegal" wiretapping supported by the Obama Admin. your argument fails !!! In that NYT article Holder is quoted as saying the concerns of illegal acts done by the Bush Admin. have been addressed !
I understand that people have been so betrayed for the last 8 yrs by the Bush, Admin. that they fear all people and everything ... like persons having been continuously beaten flinches even at the raising of a hand !
President Obama is not "gonzo" or Bush !!!
Unbelievable! Just unbelievable!
Blackwater a no-bid Bush, Inc. private contractor ... how many innocent lives were taken in our names by these type people !!??
Stop using the term Private Contractor
You're right ! However, the Congresswoman states plainly that they were paid a "contracted" for sum of cash ! Meaning to me no matter what we call them, they had a "contract" with America ... verbal or written who knows !!
For the record, it wasn't Blackwater ... it was Mitchell Jessen & Associates
http://www
Ok ... how many different names & straw partners do these people have ... would you know !!??
Didn't I say "these TYPE people" !!!!!
How can American even have Any say in Human rights or even say a word to another Nation- Until The United States hold accountabilty for WAR CRIMES crimes against humanity
Exactly forward is to prosecute the past violators.
"Congresswoman Watson: Well, number one, that is patently illegal. Number two, it happened often in the last administration. Number three, not every person working in an agency, leaves when the administration, changes."
Number 1 - the NYT was either misinterpreted, just plain wrong or lying (most likely) in regards to Harman's conversations being wiretapped without a warrant. NSA had a FISA court order to wiretap suspected Israeli spies. Congresswoman was lawful recorded under that court order. Furthermore, Rep. Pelosi was completely aware of this recording almost immediately after it was made.
Number 2 - Congresswoman Watson has no evidence whatsoever that warrantless wiretapping of Congresspersons has even once (much less often) been executed under the Bush admininistration.
Number 3 - This is irrelevant as Bush's NSA wiretap guidance remains unchanged under President Obama's authority. The only thing that has changed is that according to the NYT there has been a spike in "overcollection" by the NSA wiretaps since Obama took office.
You need to prove your Number 3 !!! Where is your facts that President Obama is not going to FISA for any and all legal authority to wiretap ! Prove it !!!
The NYT article that Congresswoman Watson responded to cites this exact fact: NSA wiretaps are proceeding exactly as before, albeit w/ more frequency. This is indisputable and the result of a routine Justice Department certification:
http://www
Until the criminals who authorized this are prosecuted and punished, the United States cannot utter one word about human rights violations by other nations. This cannot be swept under the table.
3 female american citizens are being held right now, 2 in NK and 1 in Iran ... they may be charged and "labeled" anything by those nations ... guilty or innocent ! What treatment may we expect they should have !???
I don't understand how people like you can't get this. Leading by example means ALWAYS trying to do the right thing no matter what anyone else does. You can't just live by principles when its easy. Christ wanted you to strive to be like him, knowing that you would falter along the way but hoping that you would at least try when the road was long and hard. People like you seem to give up at the first sign of difficulty. What the terrorists did and do is horrific but that doesn't mean that we should become more like them. Don't be a coward. We live in a dangerous world but that doesn't mean we have to be the ones to strike first with as much brutality as we can muster and turn our eyes away from that fact for comfort's sake.
Oops. Sorry. I misinterpreted your statement. Never mind.
Based on the actions of the Bush administration, 'anything goes', right?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
