Alberto Gonzales talks to Terry Moran about torture and terror.
Terry Moran Sits Down with Attorney General After White House Embraces Torture Ban
Dec. 15, 2005 —
President Bush has reversed course and now says he'll accept Arizona Sen. John McCain's proposal to ban cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of foreign detainees.
At issue, of course, is "torture." How you define torture is a central issue in the debate.
ABC News' Terry Moran talked to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales about the issue. He's been a major figure in the terror debate since his tenure as President Bush's White House counsel.
Following is a transcript of the interview:
TERRY MORAN: So the president said today, as he has before, we don't torture. Sen. McCain's amendment would ban the cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of any prisoner in U.S. custody anywhere in the world.
If that's so, why did the administration fight John McCain so hard on it?
ALBERTO GONZALES: You're right.
The president was very clear in saying we don't engage in torture. There is an existing law prohibiting torture, domestic law. And, of course, we're party to a international treaty that also prohibits torture.
The debate with respect to this amendment has never been about torture. We abhor torture. We condemn torture. It's been about the discussion as to what constitutes cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment.
If you look at court decisions of other countries, that could mean you can't insult someone. And obviously we have to ensure that we have the tools necessary to gain information from dangerous terrorists in order to protect America.
And so the discussion that's occurred during these past few months has been about what does it mean to engage in cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment?
MORAN: There are those who say that's a little too cute of an answer, because we aren't talking about insulting detainees; we're talking about water-boarding.
GONZALES: What we're talking about is a definition that was adopted by the Senate. It reflects our current policy. Our current policy has now become law. And what we now have is this clear guidance as a matter of law as to what conduct is appropriate. It is a standard which we believe allows us to continue to protect America. And we believe it's consistent with our values.
MORAN: Why was this necessary? John McCain said he had to have this amendment passed to send a message to the world, that the United States won't do this. How do they come to this that we have to send this message to the world?
GONZALES: Well, unfortunately there had been abuses that have occurred in connection with the war on terror. What we saw at Abu Ghraib for example, was horrific. And we condemn it, and people who engaged in that kind of conduct have been held accountable.
And I think it's important to send a clear message to people engaged in government activities, that people know what our standards are. I also think that the United States is a leader in human rights. And we want to reassure the world that we take that responsibility very, very seriously, and we mean it. And that's now reflected in the new law; it will soon be reflected in the new law.
MORAN: It goes beyond Abu Ghraib though, doesn't it? There are more than 100 prisoners who've died in U.S. custody and 26 of them are being investigated as criminal homicide.
GONZALES: I don't know the exact number of people that have been abused.
MORAN: Shouldn't you, though?
GONZALES: Clearly, abuses have occurred.
MORAN: It's not abuse, though; they've been killed.
GONZALES: Not necessarily -- that would not necessarily be the case. The Department of Justice would be responsible for the investigation in the initial matter. It involves a person in the military, for example, DOD as a normal practice is engaged in the initial investigation.
And so it's a question of simply doing the best job we can to ensure that people understand what the standards and we expect people to meet those standards.
MORAN: But you were attorney general of Texas.
GONZALES: I was not attorney general.
MORAN: You were chief justice of Texas.
GONZALES: I was a justice on the Texas Supreme Court. Prior to that, I did serve as counsel to Governor Bush.
MORAN: Counsel. That's correct. I'm sorry. As a government official in Texas, which has a large prison system, if 26 prisoners had been killed, criminal homicide, over the course of three years, that would say something terrible about the Texas justice system, wouldn't it?
GONZALES: I think it is unfortunate for anyone to die or to be abused in government facilities. And when that happens, we have an obligation to investigate that. And, obviously, if we have deaths occurring at that number, that would seem to indicate that we have a problem.
And if a problem like that were to arise, there would be an investigation. Changes would be made because we can't tolerate, we can't have that kind of occurrence occurring within our facilities.
MORAN: Do you think the fact that there was so much support in Congress for John McCain's amendment shows that Congress thinks we have a problem?
GONZALES: Well, I think it shows that Congress understands that we have an obligation as a world superpower, as a leader in human rights, to reaffirm our position, our commitment to basic human values; that we respect the rule of law. And we can do so in a way that allows us to continue to protect America, because obviously we are engaged in a war on terror against a new kind of enemy, a new kind of war.
And we need to ensure that as we meet our legal obligations, that we also do in a way that we continue to protect our country.
MORAN: Well, what dose that mean? It means that we need to water-board or hold mock executions of prisoners?
GONZALES: What it means -- what it means is that we need information.
In fighting this enemy, we need to have information.
And if there are lawful ways of obtaining that information, I think the American people expect this government to do what we can in a lawful manner in order to protect them.
MORAN: So is water-boarding, mock executing a detainee, is that ...
GONZALES: I'm not going to get into a discussion or a debate about particular techniques.
What I can say...
MORAN: Why not?
GONZALES: What I can say is that the United States government is going to do what it needs to do within the law to gather information to defeat terrorists.
MORAN: But you're our nation's highest law enforcement official and you can't say right now whether or not the mock execution, the water-boarding of a detainee is consistent with our law?
GONZALES: Terry, I'm not going to get -- again, not going to get into a discussion about the type of interrogation methods we're engaged in, which may (inaudible) our enemy.
What I wanted to reassure the American people is, is that we know what our legal obligations are and people are expected to follow those obligations.
MORAN: A couple more on this.
There are those who say that we started down a slippery slope when the president decided on your recommendation to excuse the United States from its obligations under the Geneva Conventions when it came to treating al Qaeda prisoners.
And in the memo that you wrote to the president in January 2002 ... you said one of the reasons he should do that, not abide by the Geneva Conventions in treating al Qaeda prisoners, was because it would substantially reduce the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act. And you said it is difficult to predict the needs and circumstances that could arise in the course of the war on terrorism.
That sounds like you knew there was criminal liability, that officials could be prosecuted for the kinds of interrogating techniques that you think are necessary in the war on terrorism.
GONZALES: The advice that I was given to the president related to a legal, binding obligation upon the United States. And when you're talking about legal binding obligations upon the United States, words matter.
So in looking at the words of the treaty, it seemed clear to not only me, but many, many lawyers in the administration, that as a matter of law of the Geneva Convention would not apply with the respect to our conflict with al Qaeda.
And so I don't think there's much disagreement about that conclusion. And obviously when we're engaging in a new kind of conflict against a different type of enemy, it is very, very important to understand: What are the legal limits? We don't want to do anything that exceeds the law. And, as lawyers, we have an obligation to try and provide guidance as to what the limits are within the law.
MORAN: Do you think you've confused those limits and that law, though, by deciding not to abide by the Geneva Convention?
GONZALES: Absolutely not. I get this question quite often, in terms of whether or not, because of the advice, not just by me, by my others: Did that result in the abuses that happened, say at Abu Ghraib? But if you look at what happened at Abu Ghraib, that was a night shift at one cell block that engaged in this horrific conduct that we see in these pictures that are flashed across the screens all over the world.
But the day shift didn't engage in that kind of conduct. They clearly understood what the rules were, they abided by the conduct that we would expect of our men and women in the military, and so it was a situation where you had people that, for whatever reason, engaged in conduct that is unexcusable.
MORAN: But it goes beyond Abu Ghraib. There are allegations of the abuse of prisoners around the world, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Guantanamo Bay.
GONZALES: And whenever there are allegations, we investigate those allegations and we hold people accountable. Now, it may be that in certain instances, someone may have been confused about what the requirements are or the standards are. And I agree. We need to be very clear. It needs to be clear what it expected of our men and women in uniform.
MORAN: And how about the citizens of the United States? Ten years ago, do you think if you asked Americans the question, "Does the United States support torture?" you probably would have had overwhelming people say no. Do you think you'd get the same answer today?
GONZALES: I don't know. I don't know. But what I do know is that the president has said: We don't engage in torture; we don't condone torture anytime, anywhere.
MORAN: Patriot Act: There are senators threatening a filibuster of this because they say it has not been fixed. How do you answer that?
GONZALES: I think that the -- there's been a lot of work on examining the record of the Patriot Act during the past four years. We have not been attacked here in America since then. I think one primary reason for that is because of the tools in the Patriot Act.
We've also looked at the record of the Department of Justice and exercised the authorities under the Patriot Act, and it is an outstanding record. There's not been one verified case of abuse under the Patriot Act.
We all have known that, come December 31st, 16 provisions would expire. And so we've engaged in a series of debates and discussions about these authorities. We've had 23 hearings alone this year about the Patriot Act. And I think the record reflects that this act has been very important in protecting our country, the department has exercised these authorities in a responsible manner and that the act deserves reauthorization.
MORAN: Do you have the votes to override a filibuster?
GONZALES: I think that, again, this is a very important tool for the Department of Justice. And I've been making calls today and I'll be making calls tomorrow, because this is very important not only for the department, but I genuinely believe it is important for the American people and for the defense of this country. And I do believe it strikes the right balance between protection of our civil liberties and protection of our country.
MORAN: Mr. Attorney General, thanks very much.
GONZALES: Thank you, Terry.
MORAN: Thank you.