Obama Does Not Support Return of Fairness Doctrine

There may be some Democrats talking about reimposing the Fairness Doctrine, but one very important one does not: presumptive presidential nominee Barack Obama.

Over at Broadcasting & Cable, John Eggerton reports:

There may be some Democrats talking about reimposing the Fairness Doctrine, but one very important one does not: presumptive presidential nominee Barack Obama.

The Illinois senator’s top aide said the issue continues to be used as a distraction from more pressing media business.

"Sen. Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters," press secretary Michael Ortiz said in an e-mail to B&C late Wednesday.

"He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible," Ortiz added. "That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets."

The Fairness Doctrine issue flared up in recent days after reports that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was talking about a Democratic push to reinstate it, although it was unclear at press time whether that was a new pledge or the restating of a long-held position.

Conservative paper Human Events reported that Pelosi was not planning to bring to a vote a bill to block the reimposition of the doctrine.

The paper went on to say that Pelosi “added that ‘the interest in my caucus is the reverse’ and that New York Democratic Rep. ‘Louise Slaughter has been active behind this [revival of the Fairness Doctrine] for a while now.’”

But it was unclear whether Pelosi was talking about a push, or simply restating her long-held view that the doctrine should return.

President George W. Bush pledged to veto any attempt to legislatively establish the doctrine, and Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) told B&C in an interview last fall that there were no plans to try to bring the doctrine back.

One year ago, the House passed a bill, from Indiana Republican and former radio talker Mike Pence, that put a one-year moratorium on funding any Federal Communications Commission reimposition of the doctrine. Democrats, led by David Obey (D-Wis.), suggested that the amendment was a red herring, a nonissue and that it was being debated, such as it was -- no Democrats stood to oppose it -- to provide sound bites for conservative talkers and "yap yap TV," who had ginned up the issue.

In a Shakespearian mood, Obey said the amendment was "much ado about nothing" and "sound and fury, signifying nothing."

It was a permanent version of that moratorium, also pushed by Pence, that Pelosi was reportedly saying would have no chance.

But other Democrats suggested that the sticking point was the current administration, and some big names, including Sen. John Kerry (Mass.), talked about the possibility of bringing it back. Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) went so far as to say he would make the doctrine part of his media agenda.

The Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters to air both sides of controversial issues. The FCC found the doctrine unconstitutional back in 1987, and President Reagan vetoed an attempt by congressional Democrats to reinstate it.

It is a sensitive topic with Republicans, who fear that Democrats will use it to try and rein in conservative talk radio, the rise of which followed the scrapping of the doctrine.

In the wake of press reports about Pelosi's comments, Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio), a longtime foe of the doctrine, said its return would be "nothing less than a sweeping takeover by Washington bureaucrats of broadcast media, and it is designed to squelch conservative speech on the airwaves."

Pelosi's office had not returned calls at press time on what she said, and meant, by her comments to the paper.

Former U.S. president Bill Clinton holds the hand of an unidentified woman as he waves at supporters while leaving the Delta Edmonton South hotel Friday. (David Bloom/Sun Media)

The Edmunton Sun reports:

An Edmonton Sun picture of former U.S. president Bill Clinton, holding hands in Edmonton with an unidentified woman, is getting international attention.

Entertainment website TMZ.com picked the picture up with headline "Bill Clinton: Hands-On Experience."

"President Bill Clinton is always giving a helping hand to his fellow man -- or woman, as the case may be," reads a cutline.

Clinton was in Edmonton Friday to give a lecture on various global issues, including Canada's relationship with the U.S., at Delta Edmonton South.

In the photo, Clinton holds the hand of an unidentified woman, as he waves at supporters and leaves the hotel after his lecture, where tickets ran $149 a pop.

The Sun was unable to determine just who the woman was.

Transcript of 'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' for June 20, 2008

Guests: Dana Milbank, John Cusack, John Dean, Jonathan Alter, Chris Kofinis

Transcript:

KEITH OLBERMANN, HOST (voice over): Which of these stories will you be talking about tomorrow?

The Friday night polling stunner. “Newsweek” last month: Obama, 46; McCain, 46. Newsweek tonight: Obama, 51; McCain, 36, Obama by 15. Plus, he gets feed (ph) in our time, Senator Clinton to campaign with Obama one week from today.“86-ing the 527.” Moveon.org says its liberal 527 group will go dark, inspired by Obama‘s call that both sides should shutter the unchecked advertising of the groups, not that his holding his breath about McCain -

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BARACK OBAMA, (D) PRESUMPTIVE PRES. NOMINEE: You and I both know that 527 pop up pretty quickly.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: The Democratic sell-out. The House votes aye and key senators, Obama included, say they‘ll vote yes if telecom immunity is still in the FISA bill.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH, (D) OHIO: Under this bill, large corporations and big government can work together to violate the United States Constitution.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: The McClellan hearings. Outing Valerie Plame, did the president know it was being done? Absolutely not. The vice president? No comment.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCOTT MCCLELLAN, FMR. WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: It was wrong to reveal her identity, because it compromised the effectiveness of a covert official for political reasons.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: And the ranking Republican Lamar Smith says -

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. LAMAR SMITH, ® TEXAS: It‘s hard to take Mr. McClellan or this hearing too seriously. Scott McClellan alone will have to wrestle with whether it was worth selling out the president and his friends for a few pieces of silver.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: Strong words, Mr. Smith, unless it‘s coming from a man like you who sold out his country.

Worst Persons: Rupert Murdoch‘s latest gaffe, the actual number in question is 2,202,000, the number he reports is 300,000. Close.

And, he‘s an activist. He doesn‘t just lay one on TV.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN CUSACK, ACTOR: You think you can tell President Bush apart from John McCain, really?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: John Cusack joins us tonight.

All of that and more: Now on COUNTDOWN.

(on camera): Good evening. This is Friday, June 20th, 137 days until the 2008 presidential election.

Even though it‘s fully deserving the title of “Obama maniacs” did not dare to dream, even though as faithful among the “McCaininites,” did not have such nightmares. A new addition of the “Newsweek” Poll in which the men were tied a month ago, anything but at the hour, this summer formally begins.

Our fifth story on the COUNTDOWN: Obama by 15, but the caveat that Michael Dukakis had a similar lead at this point in his race 20 years ago. The poll shows Obama bounding away from McCain by a margin of 51 to 36. McCain getting barely more than one out of three registered voters, and Clinton voters, specifically women, the majority of electorate is now backing Obama over McCain by even bigger margin, 54 to 33, that is a 21-point lead.

That 54 percent, of course, now includes Senator Clinton herself. She will make her first public appearance, we learned today, with Obama next Friday. Logistical details still to come. This, following a private joint meeting next Thursday with 100 of her top fundraisers to make them his top fundraisers.

Last night, Senator Clinton held a private conference call with other big fundraisers, telling them to start giving to Obama and asking them to help her with her own campaign debt.

(INAUDIBLE) specifically, Obama‘s money is still an issue of contention for the new frontrunner, he‘s decision to opt out a public financing, still generating questions, at least, among reporters who asked him today to explain what was so bad about the existing system that he became the first major party candidate in decades not to opt into it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: Well, what we got of the system, as I said yesterday, that where we see 527s, the RNC, or the DNC, outside groups, raising vast amount of money, much of it undisclosed, from special interests, from PACs, from lobbyists, and that amount of money last election cycle dwarfed some of the money that were spent within the system.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: A report at Politico.com today says there are literally no serious anti-Obama 527s yet—the independent groups with no caps on donations, not now in existence, none in the pipeline. Politico reporting that Karl Rove approached wealthy GOP veterans of past smear campaigns, with none so far opening their wallets, even T. Boone Pickens, the patron of the swiftboats, like others, either sitting out 2008, or focusing on other issues.

Obama, however, said the lack of 527s now does not guarantee a lack of them tomorrow.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: You and I both know that 527s pop up pretty quickly and have enormous influence and we‘ve already seen them—there was an ad, one in South Dakota by Floyd Brown, I think, were it took a speech that I‘d made extolling faith and made it seem as if I have said that America was a Muslim nation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: We should note also that Politico reported—

Republicans believe there will be third-party groups attacking Obama. McCain, of course, while criticizing such efforts, has also said he will not play referee on the ads. He also failed to get his own party in North Carolina to stop running anti-Obama ads there in the primaries.

On the left, Moveon.org today shut down it‘s 527, saying it is honoring Obama‘s request, saying it believes it can do better relying on its political action group which is limited, like 527s, unlike 527s, rather, to donations of $5,000 or less.

Let‘s turn now to MSNBC political analyst, Jonathan Alter, also, of course, senior editor at “Newsweek” magazine.

Thanks for coming in, Jon.

JONATHAN ALTER, MNSBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Hi, Keith.

OLBERMANN: Your magazine‘s poll numbers, they‘re a better sign for Obama than they were for Dukakis for what reason?

ALTER: Well, you can argue that it‘s baked in the cake more this time. But we do have to stipulate a few things. First of all, this is only one poll, even though it is a “Newsweek” Poll. I‘d like to see some others before I‘m willing to say that this is a super ball bounce. You know, a huge, huge bounce the way it looks tonight. But the indications are pretty strong right now that the Democratic Party is coming together behind Obama and independents are moving in his direction.

A lot can happen. You can have another terrorist attack, return to a fear campaign that really connected, if that were to happen, Reverend Wrights‘ memoirs might be coming out between now and the election.

So, you know, I‘ve covered enough of these to know that it‘s very premature to declare this over, but it is much different than Mike Dukakis‘ race. First of all, Dukakis wasn‘t anywhere close to the candidate that Obama is. Second of all, he‘s running against incumbent Vice President George H.W. Bush, who was running for a third Reagan term at a time when the incumbent was very popular. The incumbent right now to whom John McCain is lashed is extraordinarily unpopular.

OLBERMANN: There‘s also a danger of looking back as to what this indicates in the past, in the recent past, but a lot of inferring is being done here that this had something to do with, or at least backs up those who say—well, this toughened - the primary season did, in fact, toughen Obama up and this is the result of it, when that finally was sealed over when the waters covered the p-quad (ph), suddenly, it‘s a 15-point lead. Anything to that?

ALTER: I think there is something to that and you can make the argument, I think Obama himself understood this, and actually mentioned it to me during the South Carolina primary, that he thought that the tough race with Hillary Clinton could help him long term, puts a little more mileage on him, shows that he can take a punch, and meanwhile, his organization was growing all of these different primary states. So they got a kind of a dress rehearsal for November by going through these bruising primaries.

Notice that one state that he‘s not doing so well in this is Michigan. He didn‘t campaign there during the primaries. So, I think that we all will look back on—if he goes on to win, that the primary season as having actually helped him.

OLBERMANN: This meeting of the minds next Friday, a week from now, with Clinton and Obama in some kind of joint appearance, Lord knows where the news was so important that the details seem to be irrelevant until we come upon the point. Is it political reconciliation or is this actually more debt reconciliation?

ALTER: Well, you know, I think it‘s some of both. You know, he will go to his fundraisers and ask them to help her erase her debt. She is getting on board as an enthusiastic member of the Obama team which she did in her concession speech.

So, they have mutual interests here but the bigger Obama‘s lead is in the polls, particularly among women, the less likely it is that Hillary Clinton herself will go on the ticket. So, I think at this point, we should be starting to talk about the chance of her going on the ticket is something of a long shot.

OLBERMANN: Which, it almost lends a different air to her support. Yes, there are financial considerations in both directions because her supporters, her financial supporters can now work for him in ways that they could not even have work for her anymore, especially the big donors, and his supporters can help her out and help her campaign out of that campaign debt, those are givens.

But having said that, there are other ways out for her. She does not necessarily have to be doing even what she‘s doing now and we‘re all forget that so much has happened. It‘s two weeks tomorrow since she dropped out, it‘s not like it was six weeks ago.

ALTER: Yes, you know, the thing that so peculiar about the campaign finance laws is that she can‘t have her own people erase her debt. He has to have his people do it. And he needs her people to give what‘s expected to be as much as $30 million for his general election campaign. So that‘s the twisted nature of our system, which he, today, was just objecting to and thinking that we need to redo when he becomes president.

OLBERMANN: Well, sincerity and financial self-interest are not necessarily mutually exclusive. They can both run on parallel tracks.

ALTER: That‘s right.

OLBERMANN: Jonathan Alter, political analyst for MSNBC, senior editor at “Newsweek” magazine, as always, thanks for coming in. Have a good weekend.

ALTER: Thanks, Keith. You, too.

OLBERMANN: Today‘s news about the disarmed 527s on the right, and the unilateral disarmament of one of the left‘s most powerful 527s, Moveon.org, comes at the same point of the campaign where a last time out the swiftboaters and other mudslingers were already up and running. It leaves a vacuum of uncertainty about if and when, and from whom the mud comes this time.

Let‘s turn to Democratic strategist, Chris Kofinis, whose job was to anticipate the mud, while communications director for the campaign of John Edwards.

Great thanks for your time tonight, sir.

CHRIS KOFINIS, FMR. EDWARDS CAMPAIGN SPOKESMAN: Thanks, Keith.

OLBERMANN: The political assessment here, are the mudslingers on the disabled list this season?

KOFINIS: More like playing possum. I mean, let‘s be realistic. They are going to unleash, you know, their 527 groups. It‘s a question of if, not when.

If you read the Politico story, you know, it‘s maybe we will, might do it, could do it. I can answer the question. They will do it. My guess is you‘re going to see it probably closer to the convention as well as after.

The real interesting question for me is why even do they need 527s? I mean, people forget that John McCain was the first online grassroots candidate. I mean, he raised $1 million back in 2000, which was an unprecedented number.

What‘s happened? And what‘s happened if you look at it is his message. He has none. He‘s changed who he is as candidate. He‘s flip-flopped on major issues. Neither his base nor his supporters know exactly who he is. And so, I mean, that‘s, I think, become a real problem for him in terms of being able to raise money online.

And so, when you kind of step back, you kind of look at it, the reality is, that John McCain of 2000 would neither donate nor support the John McCain of 2008. That‘s his problem.

OLBERMANN: But let‘s turn that on its head here, Chris, with Obama‘s statement about 527s and Moveon.org dropping its, could that be as much about the fact that he has this money spigot available to him? The number came in from May, $22 million, it‘s $43 million on hand for the general election campaign for Obama. Is it not just the question of whether or not 527s are right but whether or not they are necessary for the left side of this equation?

KOFINIS: Listen, you know, in the past, the reason why the 527s and these independent groups were playing such an active role was because, one, the Republicans tended to just crush us in terms of fundraising. That started changing in 2004 when grassroots fundraising, online fundraising just exploded. You saw that with Howard Dean, and now, you‘re seeing that with Barack Obama at another level. It‘s unprecedented.

I mean, I think, the reality is the reason why Senator Obama and his campaign just want to basically shun the 527s is they want to be able to control their campaign and the message and it actually is the right thing to do. You want to be able to fund your campaign through small dollar donations. Ninety percent of his donors give $100 or less. That is a public financed campaign by definition.

The real problem here is John McCain‘s inability to tap the millions of supporters out there that he clearly in theory has. I mean, if you have 1 million supporters and in theory he does, you‘ve got $100 from them, you $100 million, you have unlimited resources. What does this say about the McCain campaign that they can‘t tap that? That‘s a real failure.

OLBERMANN: So, in a weird way, these “Newsweek” numbers with a 15-point slippage, he goes with a tie with Obama in May to 15 points behind as of tonight in this “Newsweek” Poll. Is that good news for fundraising for McCann or do people bail out at 15 points, or just, other people say, “Oh, my God, we‘re really in huge trouble, we better get in”?

KOFINIS: You know, I don‘t know. It‘s a good question. I mean, the problem is, if you read that, a Politico story and you read between the lines, at least, one read, I don‘t buy it, but, you know, arguably you can look at it this way. I mean, the Republicans are almost looking at John McCain as a bad investment for 2008, like why waste our money.

I mean, I‘m not going to bet on that. And I think any Democrat that‘s going to sit there and pretend that the 527s are not going to come, the Republicans aren‘t going to mobilize to attack Senator Obama and the campaign like crazy, it‘s going to happen. I think, the problem right now is John McCain is a flawed candidate with a flawed message and that is impossible at a year when people have seen the last eight years and the damage the Bush administration has done.

So, for McCain to go out there and consistently embrace it and change positions that actually made him a unique candidate in 2000, to become a Bush acolyte just doesn‘t make any sense. That‘s what‘s hurting him.

OLBERMANN: Chris Kofinis, Democratic strategist, former spokesman for the Edwards campaign. As always, sir, our great thanks.

KOFINIS: Thanks, Keith.

OLBERMANN: The Obama test in the Senate. Next, the House approves the FISA fold-up. Obama promises to fight telecom immunity but he may vote yes any way next week.

John McClellan testifies, John Cusack joins us, and Murdoch‘s minions of darkness smear Tim Russert‘s memory again.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

OLBERMANN: By 164 votes, many of them are shifting suddenly just a way a pack of flies will mindlessly (ph) all shift two feet to the left for no apparent reason in summer, the House gave the president what he wanted on FISA.

Later in Worst: John Bolton loses track who was president on 9/11, Chris Wallace loses track of who was anchoring on FOX on primary nights, and the “New York Post” loses track of, well, everything.

Not to oversell it, but also just in tonight, we may have the greatest piece of videotape of George Bush in action ever, seriously. Press, play, and record now.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

OLBERMANN: It is the last thing a man says before he becomes president, a catechism between him and the chief justice which concludes with him swearing he, quote, “will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, so help me God.”

Nothing in there about ignoring the Constitution or gutting it, yet in our fourth story tonight: There is Mr. Bush doing it again and being aided and abetted by Democrats who outnumber his people on Capitol Hill. The bill, a bipartisan compromise on FISA was rubber-stamped this morning, 293 to 129, this, after impassioned debate even between members of the same party.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH, (D) OHIO: Let‘s stand up for the Fourth Amendment. Let‘s remember when this country was founded, Benjamin Franklin said, “Those who give up their essential liberties to achieve a measure of security deserve neither.”

REP. NANCY PELOSI, (D) CALIFORNIA: We have to fight the war on terrorism, the fight against terrorism, wherever it may exist. Good intelligence is necessary for us to know the plan of the terrorist and to defeat those plans. So we can‘t go without a bill. That‘s just simply not an option.

But to have a bill, we must have a bill that does not violate the Constitution of the United States. And this bill does not.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: The bill stands not only to corrupt the Constitution but will immunize telecom communities that spied on American citizens at the behest of President and keep them from any legal liability. As the Senate prepares to take this up, FISA 2008 is already a campaign issue. Senator Obama offered qualified support, warning that as president, he would monitor the program closely, which is nice, but not really close enough. John McCain, after blaming the ACLU and trial lawyers for delaying the passage of this bill, said he will support the measure.

John Dean is White House counsel under Richard Nixon, author of “Broken Government,” joins us tonight from Los Angeles for a comment on this.

John, good evening.

JOHN DEAN, FMR. NIXON WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: Good evening, Keith.

OLBERMANN: What happened here, do you suppose? Is this—is this some sort of prophyllactic gesture for the election on behalf of Democrats or how did this transpire?

DEAN: Well, I think, you‘ve got to give one for the terrorists on our Fourth Amendment. They really did some damage today in this so-called compromise, contrary to what the speaker said that really does hurt the Constitution. So, it‘s very troubling and it‘s not a good day for civil liberties, particularly.

OLBERMANN: We have seen before, learned way after the fact that before several critical bills like this and votes, that the Democrats were shown harrowing secrets from the supposed terror threats—terror threats that later turned out to be exaggerated, even fabricated. I don‘t have any evidence whatsoever that this happened this time or suggesting that. But given the suddenness of the Democrats fold, does it not feel like this has happened again this time?

DEAN: Well, it wouldn‘t surprise me if it had happened. You know, they have used fear very effectively. This is somewhat sudden in finally reaching a conclusion on what to do with a very troublesome problem that they have been resisting on.

It would not surprise me also if it really is what I‘ve been told, is that the conservative elements of the Democratic Party lean on the leadership and said, “Listen, we‘ve got some really tough opponents from Republicans in closed districts. We need this. We don‘t want to have this hanging over our head. Let‘s get it solved now before it‘s too late.”

OLBERMANN: Senator Obama‘s position on this confuses me. He loathes the telecom immunity, he says that he would fight it immediately and he would monitor it carefully as president. The vote though is next week. He better do that part of the fight quick.

If this gets in through the Senate, there‘s no way to get it out again, is there? I mean, the history of this nation in terms of lost civil liberties is pretty bad about restoring them.

DEAN: Well, I spent a lot of time reading that bill today, and it‘s a very poorly-drafted bill. One of the things that is not clear is whether it‘s not possible later to go after the telecoms for criminal liability. And that something that Obama has said during this campaign he would do, unlike prior presidents who come in and really give their predecessor a pass, he said, “I won‘t do that.” And that might be why he‘s just sitting back saying, “Well, I‘m going to let this go through. But that doesn‘t mean I‘m going to give the telecoms a pass.” I would love it if he gets on the Senate floor and says, “I‘m keeping that option opened.”

OLBERMANN: In other words, let the private suits drop and get somebody in there who‘ll actually use the laws that still exist to prosecute and make the actual statement and maybe throw a few people in jail.

DEAN: Exactly. And it looks to me, as I read this bill and talk to a number of people in Washington familiar with the bill, some who are involved in the negotiations, and they say, “You know - we just didn‘t think about this issue.” So, as it goes to the Senate, maybe Obama‘s got a shot to take, you know, a future look at this thing and not let them have the pass that they think they‘re getting.

OLBERMANN: That would be a nice symmetry to that—that everybody had been so lulled into a sense of complacency because of the Bush success on this that they‘ve left out anything that protected anybody legally, if you had a president who actually believed in the Constitution. That would be a nice touch. To that point, Jonathan Turley suggested last night though, that this is as much about immunizing Congress for its complicity with the president as it is about anything else to use the play on (ph) acronyms that I used last night, this is not FISA, it‘s CYA.

DEAN: I caught your acronym and I listened to Jonathan last night. And while I—you know, it wouldn‘t be the first time or the last time that there‘s been a CY action in Washington. That isn‘t what I‘ve heard. And so I‘m not sure, but it‘s one of the things I know we‘ll never learn the answer to, for this reason—those people were all briefed on a classified basis, so they really can‘t explain it.

OLBERMANN: How convenient that is.

John Dean, author of “Broken Government,” giving us a little hope in here that perhaps a President Obama or some future Democrat might be able to still pursue this within the courts. Thank you, John. Have a good weekend.

DEAN: Thanks, Keith.

OLBERMANN: There is ice on Mars. Unfortunately, there doesn‘t appear to be any whiskey.

And, poor Chris Wallace. We‘re going to have to break the bad news to him. Apparently, they have told him some people don‘t get to do election night over there, even though they do get to do election over there.

Ahead on COUNTDOWN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

OLBERMANN: Best Persons in a moment and the greatest piece of non-speaking George Bush videotape ever.

First, on this day, 20 years ago, a brand new camera operator on the game show, “The Price is Right,” put a little too much English on one of his moves, swinging the camera abruptly and forcibly enough to send model, Janice Pennington, flying 10 feet off the stage into the audience and knocking her out cold. She was OK but thus was born the game “Plinko” (ph). It sounds she (ph).

Let‘s play Oddball.

To COUNTDOWN to Mars bureau where scientists working on NASA‘s Phoenix Mars Lander think they have found evidence of ice on Mars. This is a ditch dug by the lander‘s robotic arm. In a before (ph) picture taken on Sunday, there are diced-size formations in the lower left corner of the ditch.

NASA figured it was ice but they were not sold until they saw this picture taken Thursday, four days later, the formations have disappeared, leaving little doubt the formations were made of frozen water vaporized when exposed to the Martian atmosphere. Of course, those scientists are unsure of the ice theory, we‘re finally convinced when the lander sent this picture back to Houston.

And now here it is, Raleigh, North Carolina. A 26 percent approval rating feels like. Watch the two guys behind the fence waiting for Marine One to land. As the president disembarks, he waves hello to them and nothing. So he tries a bigger wave. Yoohoo, hey. Nothing. Eventually he gives us and saunters out of screen. Next time, give him a couple no-bid contracts. We‘ll show that to you again later in the hour.

The Scott McClellan hearing—it is not much but it‘s on the record. Sometimes the only way to start is to say the truth out loud. We‘ll ask John Cusack about that after his role in a new ad hammering home the links between John McCain and George Bush.

These stories, the “Countdown‘s” three best persons of the world. Number three, best dumb sports fans. Dutch soccer supporters, visiting Bern in Switzerland to watch their team play. The railway worker was dumbfounded when he realized the large group of Dutch fans was following him on to the tracks like lemmings as he went to make a repair. He was wearing an orange safety vest. Their team‘s official color is orange. So they followed him. Swiss rail authorities are temporarily switching to yellow safety vests until the tournament is over.

Number two, best smack down. Bernard Goldberg on FOX Noise, as Bill O. went all projection over a European mayonnaise ad in which the mayo is so authentic it temporarily turns a housewife into a New York City deli counter man. The husband then kisses him briefly.

It was obviously a gay thing, Bill O. bellowed. I don‘t know what the message is besides gay people like mayonnaise. Goldberg‘s response, Bill, if you think a major corporation like Heinz is trying to sell a product like mayonnaise by appealing to gay people—and I say this in the best possible sense—you‘re nuts. This is not a gay issue. It‘s a mayonnaise issue.

Number one best dumb criminal. The Botox bandit of Port St. Lucie, Florida, has been busted. A woman was going into the offices of cosmetic surgeons, getting injections and then making excuses about having to go out to her card for her credit card and never coming back and never paying. 23-yeawr-old Kelly Thomas, recognized because she had before and after pictures at one of the clinics. Apparently, it never dawned on her that somebody might release the photos. Ms. Thomas, I know you‘re in jail and I know the free Botox treatments are a thing of the past, but still, why the long face?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

OLBERMANN: “Only those who know the underlying truth can bring this to an ends. Sadly, they remain silent,” the words of former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, this time under oath, in our third story on “Countdown,” describing the Bush administration‘s overstated and over-packaged selling of prewar intelligence and facing critics like Ranking Republican Lamar Smith, who snidely welcomed McClellan to the Judiciary Committee of the book of the month club. Appearing voluntarily before the House Judiciary Committee at its request, Mr. McClellan said he did not think President Bush knew about the leak of CIA officer Valarie Plame‘s identity. As for the vice president, quote, “I do not know. There‘s a lot of suspicion there.”

Pay attention to how McClellan‘s own unwitting lie in the matter came about, September 29th, 2003, right after the leak investigation was launched.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCOTT MCCLELLAN, FORMER WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: That Saturday morning I received a call from the White House chief of staff, Andy Card, and he said that the president and vice president had spoken that morning and they wanted me to provide the same assurances for Scooter Libby that I had for Karl Rove. I was reluctant to do it but I headed into the White House that Saturday morning. I talked with Andy Card. I said I would provide the same assurances for Scooter Libby given that he would give me the same assurance that Karl Rove had. I got on the phone with Scooter Libby and asked him point blank, were you involved in this in any way, and he assured me in unequivocal terms that he was not, meaning the leaking of Valarie Plame‘s identity to any reporters.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: Also notable that the leak of Valerie Plame‘s name and the distorted prewar intel of which it was a part may never fully be addressed.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MCCLELLAN: I think that the problem here is that this White House promised or assured the American people that at some point when this was behind us, they would talk publicly about it. And they have refused to. and that‘s why I think, more than any other reason, we are here today and this suspicion still remains.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: So when Congressman Smith says, quote, “Scott McClellan alone will have to wrestle with whether it was worth selling out the president and his friends for a piece of silver,” he should consider exactly what he himself was selling and the consequences far more grave than a few pieces of silver.

Dana Milbank, the national political reporter of “Washington Post,” MSNBC political analyst, attended today‘s hearings.

Dana, good evening.

DANA MILBANK, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST & NATIONAL POLITICAL REPORTER,

“WASHINGTON POST”: Good evening, Keith.

OLBERMANN: The reception for Mr. McClellan before judiciary today sounds like it was varying wildly between the book critics and the Democrats and one of the Democrats, at least one of them, invoked impeachment?

MILBANK: Actually, three of them invoked impeachment. One of them was Robert Wexler, who has been a key surrogate for Barack Obama. Basically, all of that is is invoking impeachment. The Democratic leaders, as you know, have taken it off the table. Really, all they can do in this sort of a forum is make some noise. It really actually did become sort of a book club gathering of where he was getting raves from the Democrats and rather harsh reviews from the other side.

OLBERMANN: Those who raved on his behalf, was there any sense there today that this great body of discontent about pre-war intel, about selling the war, about the lies, the attacking of the critics of the war, that all of this is going to be in some mysterious way resolved after Mr. Bush leaves office or is it going to sit there like an historical exhibit of the Smithsonian?

MILBANK: Yes, it will be an exhibit in the Smithsonian and Joe Wilson will donate his body to the exhibit. Usually this sort of thing would come out. The National Archives would get the note and they‘d eventually be released for the benefit of historians. But as we know, a lot of the crucial e-mails and things will have been deleted by that time any way. There‘s not a lot of hope here, either, that this committee will get anywhere, since it‘s an actual prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, could not get any further than this. Who knows in a quarter century we may be able to write a footnote in history.

OLBERMANN: About Fitzgerald, the chairman of the Judiciary, John Conyers said that the incidents in McClellan‘s book—let me quote him exactly—“may constitute obstruction of justice beyond what Scooter Libby was convicted for.”

The book is essentially—the key elements of the book, they‘re now on the congressional record. Does it move the Judiciary Committee‘s investigation forward? What is the nature of that investigation or are they just, as we said before, the only stage right here is telling the truth on the record allowed and hoping something good will happen of it some day?

MILBANK: Yeah. Well, you see, Keith, there‘s no accident that the contempt of Congress is a misdemeanor. Carl and Scooter and the whole gang know that they can stone wall and avoid this committee. All they can do is scream and yell about it. and there‘s not a whole lot of time that they have that they have to worry about. It will be very easy for them to runoff the clock.

Clearly, as you saw from Lamar Smith and his book of the month club remark that they are not going to get a lot of support there. Yeah, they can call a few more hearings. Hard to see, as Scott McClellan himself said today, how they get much beyond this without other people coming to talk.

OLBERMANN: Even though this is a Rosetta Stone—I‘ve used that term for like the 15th time about trying to understand the last few years. His point, he may be the last one to speak. Is there any possibility, that anyone is going to follow down this path even if it is later on if Karl Rove needs 5 million bucks?

MILBANK: No, I don‘t think. Plenty of people are talking about Tony Fratto, who said today that Scott McClellan has said everything that he doesn‘t know, so why not say some more. No, I think—I saw the puffy bags under Scott‘s eyes there. He‘s been under a great deal of strain because so many of his old friends have been so loyal to the president and so tough on him. I see no cracks occurring where others are going to follow him.

OLBERMANN: The cracks may be going to occur if the Republicans don‘t get the White House bank and the rest of these people don‘t have a source of income after January of next year. We‘ll see.

Dana Milbank of the “Washington Post” and MSNBC, permitting me to talk about that while he sits there and nods knowingly.

Thank you, Dana. Have a good weekend.

MILBANKS: Thanks, Keith.

OLBERMANN: Polls show John McCain‘s key chance at winning is to separate himself from President Bush. John Cusack has other ideas. He will join us.

And anybody out there remember who was president on 9/11? Because former unconfirmed U.N. Ambassador John Bolton can‘t seem to remember. Worst Persons next on “Countdown.”

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

OLBERMANN: John Cusack on his MoveOn.org ad, his film “War, Inc.” a satire which looks surprisingly like a documentary about the Bush administration in Iraq. The first, the worst, the “New York Post” actually does not know, the rest of us know, they fabricate their own gossip updates. The latest insertion of foot into mouth from the unfortunate Paula Froelich, next on “Countdown.”

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

OLBERMANN: Actors speaking out. That‘s one thing. An actor actually appearing in a political commercial, that‘s a new level. John Cusack joins us.

But first, “Countdown‘s” number two story, tonight‘s Worst Persons in the World.

The bronze, former unconfirmed U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, telling John Gibson, apparently on the streets since John doesn‘t have a TV show anymore, that the election of Barack Obama, quote, “Will simply be a replay of the Clinton administration. It will simply have more embassy bombings, more bombings of our warships like the Cole, more World Trade Center attacks. That will be the best outcome from that perspective.”

Mr. Unconfirmed Ambassador, I don‘t know how to break this to you, but the World Trade Center attacks occurred on September 2001, your watch, Mr. Bush‘s administration, not Mr. Clinton‘s. This crew will blame George Bush. Sorry.

Our Runner up, Chris Wallace, of Fixed News. speaking at Thousand Oaks, California, according to coverage in the local paper there, “The Acorn,” he, quote, “distanced himself from right wing Fox shows hosted by Bill O‘Reilly and Sean Sanity by calling them opinion shows and said that, unlike MSNBC‘s fiery liberal, Keith Olbermann, O‘Reilly and Hannity are never permitted to anchor newscasts.”

Chris, you‘re 60. Stop being naive. Everything on FOX is an opinion show and, of course, FOX permits them to anchor newscasts. They let O‘Reilly anchor on primary nights. They let Hannity & Colmes anchor on primary nights. They let you anchor on primary nights.

Paula Froelich, of the gossip section of Rupert Murdoch‘s “New York Post,” who‘s writers are divided into those who have been found taking bribes and those that have not yet been found taking bribes. As we told you last night, she made up a story about Chris Matthews and me seeking to succeed our friend, the late Tim Russert. Even as a work of fiction, it was pretty dam weak. They had Chris lobbying for the job at the reception after Tim‘s memorial service, which not only isn‘t true, but which only somebody working for Rupert Murdoch would be classless and self destructive enough to do.

Her hallucination had me threatening to quit if I didn‘t get the job, which not only isn‘t true but, as I said last night, does not account for the fact that I am not qualified for Tim Russert‘s job.

Mr. Froelich, however, knowingly and maliciously printed the falsehoods and has now had Bill Hoffman make something else up. He‘s another staffer at page 6, who‘s writers are divided into those who have been found taking bribes and those that have not yet been found taking bribes. Mr. Hoffman was told to make something up for tomorrow‘s paper about my supposed recent diagnosis of Witmack Echbaum‘s Syndrome (ph), a neurological condition in which sleep is sometimes interrupted by odd nerve sensations in the limbs. He‘s been told to talk about the sexual side effects of a new drug prescribed for the disease and to make up something about whether or not the drug is affecting me, which gives him a hobby. But unfortunately, with dead on inaccuracy—has nothing to do with me, since my diagnosis was not recent. It was in the mid-1990s. And I‘ve never taken the drug he‘s going to be making stuff up about tomorrow.

Returning to Ms. Froelich meantime, she told an online gossip site, quote, “Perhaps, Keith, who is as infantile as he is narcissistic, should preach to his viewers about things that actually matter to him rather than himself. But then again, there are only 300,000 of them.”

Actually, we had 2,202,000 viewers last night and every time you‘ve written about me, that number has gone up. So congratulations to Paula and the “Post” for getting yet one more thing wrong by a factor of 1,900,000.

And congratulations on the “Post‘s” daily circulation of nearly 725,000. Well, there‘s been a toilet paper shortage lately.

Paula Froelich, of the “New York Post,” nearly one day without a factual accident, today‘s Worst Person in the World.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

OLBERMANN: He‘s acted in at least 57 films, produced eight of them and produced three, but on our number one story on the “Countdown,” John Cusack now has a new role—political polemicist. He joins us presently.

First, his debut commercial for MoveOn.org.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN CUSACK, ACTOR & FILM PRODUCER: Do you think you can tell him apart? Pop quiz. Who supports the bipartisan bill of rights to support them when they return home? Who tried to privatize our Social Security and opposed health care for uninsured children last year? And the answer is both. Go to MoveOn.org and take the Bush-McCain challenge. Bet you can‘t tell them apart.

ANNOUNCER: MoveOn.Org Political Action is responsible for the content of this advertisement.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: That ad, released just months after the premier of Cusack‘s new film, “War, Inc.” set in the fictional Terakistan (ph), where tanks carry advertising banners, journalists are confined to the Emerald City, the movie satires the enormous influence that companies like Halliburton and Blackwater have in Iraq. Indeed, the fictional corporation that runs Terakistan (ph) is itself run by a former vice president of the United States, who, in publishing or push, rather, for his company‘s latest big sale in that war-torn country, is a familiar rational, “It‘s our big launch, bringing democracy to this part of the world. Plus, now that we‘ve bombed the blank out of them, well, there‘s a lot of building to do.”

As promised, we‘re joined by John Cusack who is in London.

Thanks for you time tonight, John.

CUSACK: Thanks for having me. I‘m a big fan of the show.

OLBERMANN: Thank you for your time this evening.

We‘ll get to the film in a moment but, first, this ad. Acting is one thing producing is one thing. Interview‘s one thing. There are protests, but protests are still art. Why go to a situation where, you know, the MoveOn ad is literally and utterly you out there?

CUSACK: Well, you know, I‘ve been sort of politically active in the same way I think for a long time. And I think maybe in 2008, if you‘re not going to be an activist now, I don‘t know when you ever are going to be. And I think we‘re in a place now where—if torture if a for-profit business, if the Bush administration and the Republican ideology that it represents is going to outsource interrogation and the very core functions of state and military, and if we‘re so far down the rabbit hole that that‘s true, I think your conscience dictates that you speak out. So in this case, I agreed with MoveOn and everything I said in the ad is true. So I‘m happy to do it.

OLBERMANN: Well said. I need to welcome you to this vast society of fear mongering smear merchants or smear mongering fear merchants, and whatever we‘re called. Bill O‘Reilly has attacked you, said this is propaganda. Just swing away. What‘s your reaction?

CUSACK: Well, you know, it‘s—as I said, if you‘re not going to speak out now—I think maybe when folks like that attack you it means that you‘re probably somewhere close to the truth. And as I said before, when asked about that, you beat his head in every night. So I think it would be just piling on, to be honest.

I wouldn‘t know where—where would one begin?

OLBERMANN: Don‘t blame his condition on my beating his head in. He came to us this way.

When celebrities and performers get involved in politics, obviously there can be an impact. You know, the obvious example, Oprah Winfrey with Barack Obama. Is there any concern that they sometimes blow back, that it could be hurtful to a candidate or to a cause?

CUSACK: Yeah. I think when you say something is as important as what you say in some ways. And I certainly wouldn‘t want a lecture the electorate or American people about anything.

But on the same token, I have a right to speak out and speak my mind and democracy requires participation. And some things are so egregious and I think that this administration, as you‘ve chronicled it for seven years, as been so criminal and lawless that I think morality compels you to speak. So I think what you say is important, but when you say it is also important. And I felt now is the time to say it.

OLBERMANN: Reality versus fiction. In the film you play an assassin who has gone to Terakistan (ph) to protect the corporation‘s oil interest by killing a Middle Eastern oil executive who wants to build his own pipeline. Given that, it‘s kind of—it seems far fetched. and then comes the news this week that four U.S. oil companies are now on the verge of getting back into Iraq to manage the Iraqi oil 36 years after Saddam Hussein nationalized their wells. There‘s such a blur here. Anytime somebody gets a good imaginative idea on how to satirize this war, it seems like the Bush administration beats you to it.

CUSACK: Yeah. It‘s very true, you know. In a way I think what satire and absurdity does is take the current trends to their logical conclusions. Even if you go out there on the limb and get way out there and stay out there, it‘s hard to stay ahead of this crew.

This is such a corrupt ideology. And it‘s been such a disaster and I really think that this idea that government really—the job of government is to preside over a corporate feeding frenzy and give total liberations for corporations. And that‘s the core of Heritage Foundation and Cato and the Project for the New American Century. Many of the signatories on that are now working for John McCain. So it‘s the same—it‘s the same crew. They go in this revolving door between corporations and the government and, you know, it‘s a pretty dark reality. So I agree.

OLBERMANN: Are you hopeful—and I say this as a precursor to showing this tape again, which you‘ll see on a five-second delay from Raleigh, North Carolina this afternoon. First off, we have the “Newsweek” poll that shows Obama is up 15 points after one month of a general campaign.

Let‘s play this tape, boys. This is President Bush‘s arrival in Raleigh, North Carolina. And he waves to the two guys who are waiting to see him and they don‘t even move. There‘s no reaction whatsoever.

When you see something like this, are you encouraged, are you hopeful about the state of the United States?

CUSACK: You know, I‘m—I am hopeful about it. And I—that‘s pretty funny. Yep, that‘s our president.

I am hopeful about it, but I do think that, you know, we have to call on all well-meaning Libertarians, Republicans and Democrats to sort of expose and shame the last seven years. And I do think if the Democrats say impeachment is off the table, I think that‘s very troubling. So I do—I think that if that sends out a signal that the rule of law doesn‘t mean anything if we‘re within striking distance of the White House.

And I think you have to also take a hard look at Democrats and not only the people who have stood by and enabled George Bush, but also the Democrats who would allow this to continue and allow these crimes to stand. I think that‘s deeply, deeply troubling as well.

But to give you a more coherent answer, I do—I am still optimistic. And I do think Obama‘s going to win. And I think the country‘s going to change, which I‘m grateful, grateful for.

OLBERMANN: John Cusack, actor and activist. We are grateful for you staying up late with us here in London. Good luck and safe travels.

CUSACK: Yeah, I‘m always happy to have an excuse to be incoherent so it‘s late at night, but...

OLBERMANN: Take care.

CUSACK: Thanks, Keith.

OLBERMANN: That‘s “Countdown” for this, the 1,878th day since the declaration of mission accomplished in Iraq. I‘m Keith Olbermann. Good night and good luck.

Deals With Iraq Are Set To Bring Oil Giants Back

The NY Times reports:


Four Western oil companies are in the final stages of negotiations this month on contracts that will return them to Iraq, 36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power.

Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP — the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company — along with Chevron and a number of smaller oil companies, are in talks with Iraq’s Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraq’s largest fields, according to ministry officials, oil company officials and an American diplomat.

The deals, expected to be announced on June 30, will lay the foundation for the first commercial work for the major companies in Iraq since the American invasion, and open a new and potentially lucrative country for their operations.

The no-bid contracts are unusual for the industry, and the offers prevailed over others by more than 40 companies, including companies in Russia, China and India. The contracts, which would run for one to two years and are relatively small by industry standards, would nonetheless give the companies an advantage in bidding on future contracts in a country that many experts consider to be the best hope for a large-scale increase in oil production.

There was suspicion among many in the Arab world and among parts of the American public that the United States had gone to war in Iraq precisely to secure the oil wealth these contracts seek to extract. The Bush administration has said that the war was necessary to combat terrorism. It is not clear what role the United States played in awarding the contracts; there are still American advisers to Iraq’s Oil Ministry.

Sensitive to the appearance that they were profiting from the war and already under pressure because of record high oil prices, senior officials of two of the companies, speaking only on the condition that they not be identified, said they were helping Iraq rebuild its decrepit oil industry.

For an industry being frozen out of new ventures in the world’s dominant oil-producing countries, from Russia to Venezuela, Iraq offers a rare and prized opportunity.

While enriched by $140 per barrel oil, the oil majors are also struggling to replace their reserves as ever more of the world’s oil patch becomes off limits. Governments in countries like Bolivia and Venezuela are nationalizing their oil industries or seeking a larger share of the record profits for their national budgets. Russia and Kazakhstan have forced the major companies to renegotiate contracts.

The Iraqi government’s stated goal in inviting back the major companies is to increase oil production by half a million barrels per day by attracting modern technology and expertise to oil fields now desperately short of both. The revenue would be used for reconstruction, although the Iraqi government has had trouble spending the oil revenues it now has, in part because of bureaucratic inefficiency.

For the American government, increasing output in Iraq, as elsewhere, serves the foreign policy goal of increasing oil production globally to alleviate the exceptionally tight supply that is a cause of soaring prices.

The Iraqi Oil Ministry, through a spokesman, said the no-bid contracts were a stop-gap measure to bring modern skills into the fields while the oil law was pending in Parliament.

It said the companies had been chosen because they had been advising the ministry without charge for two years before being awarded the contracts, and because these companies had the needed technology.

A Shell spokeswoman hinted at the kind of work the companies might be engaged in. “We can confirm that we have submitted a conceptual proposal to the Iraqi authorities to minimize current and future gas flaring in the south through gas gathering and utilization,” said the spokeswoman, Marnie Funk. “The contents of the proposal are confidential.”

While small, the deals hold great promise for the companies.

“The bigger prize everybody is waiting for is development of the giant new fields,” Leila Benali, an authority on Middle East oil at Cambridge Energy Research Associates, said in a telephone interview from the firm’s Paris office. The current contracts, she said, are a “foothold” in Iraq for companies striving for these longer-term deals.

Any Western oil official who comes to Iraq would require heavy security, exposing the companies to all the same logistical nightmares that have hampered previous attempts, often undertaken at huge cost, to rebuild Iraq’s oil infrastructure.

And work in the deserts and swamps that contain much of Iraq’s oil reserves would be virtually impossible unless carried out solely by Iraqi subcontractors, who would likely be threatened by insurgents for cooperating with Western companies.

Yet at today’s oil prices, there is no shortage of companies coveting a contract in Iraq. It is not only one of the few countries where oil reserves are up for grabs, but also one of the few that is viewed within the industry as having considerable potential to rapidly increase production.

David Fyfe, a Middle East analyst at the International Energy Agency, a Paris-based group that monitors oil production for the developed countries, said he believed that Iraq’s output could increase to about 3 million barrels a day from its current 2.5 million, though it would probably take longer than the six months the Oil Ministry estimated.

Mr. Fyfe’s organization estimated that repair work on existing fields could bring Iraq’s output up to roughly four million barrels per day within several years. After new fields are tapped, Iraq is expected to reach a plateau of about six million barrels per day, Mr. Fyfe said, which could suppress current world oil prices.

The contracts, the two oil company officials said, are a continuation of work the companies had been conducting here to assist the Oil Ministry under two-year-old memorandums of understanding. The companies provided free advice and training to the Iraqis. This relationship with the ministry, said company officials and an American diplomat, was a reason the contracts were not opened to competitive bidding.

A total of 46 companies, including the leading oil companies of China, India and Russia, had memorandums of understanding with the Oil Ministry, yet were not awarded contracts.

The no-bid deals are structured as service contracts. The companies will be paid for their work, rather than offered a license to the oil deposits. As such, they do not require the passage of an oil law setting out terms for competitive bidding. The legislation has been stalled by disputes among Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish parties over revenue sharing and other conditions.

The first oil contracts for the majors in Iraq are exceptional for the oil industry.

They include a provision that could allow the companies to reap large profits at today’s prices: the ministry and companies are negotiating payment in oil rather than cash.

“These are not actually service contracts,” Ms. Benali said. “They were designed to circumvent the legislative stalemate” and bring Western companies with experience managing large projects into Iraq before the passage of the oil law.

A clause in the draft contracts would allow the companies to match bids from competing companies to retain the work once it is opened to bidding, according to the Iraq country manager for a major oil company who did not consent to be cited publicly discussing the terms.

Assem Jihad, the Oil Ministry spokesman, said the ministry chose companies it was comfortable working with under the charitable memorandum of understanding agreements, and for their technical prowess. “Because of that, they got the priority,” he said.

In all cases but one, the same company that had provided free advice to the ministry for work on a specific field was offered the technical support contract for that field, one of the companies’ officials said.

The exception is the West Qurna field in southern Iraq, outside Basra. There, the Russian company Lukoil, which claims a Hussein-era contract for the field, had been providing free training to Iraqi engineers, but a consortium of Chevron and Total, a French company, was offered the contract. A spokesman for Lukoil declined to comment.

Charles Ries, the chief economic official in the American Embassy in Baghdad, described the no-bid contracts as a bridging mechanism to bring modern technology into the fields before the oil law was passed, and as an extension of the earlier work without charge.

To be sure, these are not the first foreign oil contracts in Iraq, and all have proved contentious.

The Kurdistan regional government, which in many respects functions as an independent entity in northern Iraq, has concluded a number of deals. Hunt Oil Company of Dallas, for example, signed a production-sharing agreement with the regional government last fall, though its legality is questioned by the central Iraqi government. The technical support agreements, however, are the first commercial work by the major oil companies in Iraq.

The impact, experts say, could be remarkable increases in Iraqi oil output.

While the current contracts are unrelated to the companies’ previous work in Iraq, in a twist of corporate history for some of the world’s largest companies, all four oil majors that had lost their concessions in Iraq are now back.

But a spokesman for Exxon said the company’s approach to Iraq was no different from its work elsewhere.

“Consistent with our longstanding, global business strategy, ExxonMobil would pursue business opportunities as they arise in Iraq, just as we would in other countries in which we are permitted to operate,” the spokesman, Len D’Eramo, said in an e-mailed statement.

But the company is clearly aware of the history. In an interview with Newsweek last fall, the former chief executive of Exxon, Lee Raymond, praised Iraq’s potential as an oil-producing country and added that Exxon was in a position to know. “There is an enormous amount of oil in Iraq,” Mr. Raymond said. “We were part of the consortium, the four companies that were there when Saddam Hussein threw us out, and we basically had the whole country.”

Transcript of Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing on Interrogation of Detainees in U.S. Custody

The Senate Armed Services Committee looks at who approved the use of interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib prisons at Afghanistan.

Witnesses testified about interrogation techniques and methods used to question suspected terrorists at U.S. detention facilities in Cuba and Afghanistan. In the final panel, William Haynes answered questions about the use of torture and testified about the role senior Pentagon officials played in developing policies for detainee interrogations and the degree to which the Justice Department and Central Intelligence Agency participated in the decision-making process. In his testimony he did not recall several memos indicating the use and scope of several techniques. However, he acknowledged that several officials had objected to the use of enhanced interrogation techniques despite the desire by Bush administration officials to produce intelligence and results in their efforts to combat terrorism and avoid future terrorist attacks.

Transcript:

00:00:12 Levin, Carl -- THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, WE WELCOME YOU MR. HAINES. AND IF YOU HAVE AN OPENING STATEMENT, WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO HEAR IT FROM YOU NOW. YOU PUT YOUR MIC ON.
00:00:24 Haynes, William THANK YOU, MR. CHEARM. CHAIRMAN. I DON'T HAVE A FORMAL OPENING STATEMENT EXCEPT TO OBSERVE THAT THIS HEARING TODAY IS PART OF A PROCESS THAT'S BEEN GOING ON FOR SOMETIME NOW AND WILL CONTINUE FOR MANY YEARS TO COME, I'M SURE. HOW OUR COUNTRY DEALS WITH THIS UNPRECEDENTED THREAT IS THE SUBJECT OF DISCUSSION AMONG MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, EXECUTIVE AND THE JUDICIARY, THE MEDIA AND MANY POLITICALLY ACTIVE CITIZENS. THIS IS AS IT SHOULD BE. ULTIMATELY HOWEVER THE END OF THESE DISCUSSIONS CAN ONLY COME WITH HISTORY'S LARGER JUDGMENT OF HOW WELL OUR LEADERS AND VARIOUS BRANCHS OF GOVERNMENT PERFORMED IN WORK, AND THE WORK OF PROTECTING AMERICANS AFTER AN ATTACK AND, OF COURSE, HOW WELL THE COUNTRY REMAINS EQUIPPED TO DEAL WITH THIS THREAT IN THE FUTURE. I WANT TO SAY THAT THIS HEARING TODAY COULD SERVE A LARGER PURPOSE AND A MOST USEFUL PURPOSE. WE ALL RIGHTLY FEAR ANOTHER ASSAULT ON OUR COUNTRY, ONE PERHAPS EVEN MORE HORRIFIC THAN THE LAST. WE KNOW THAT AMERICA'S ENEMIES ARE UNRELENTING. INDEED, SOME OF THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN RELEASED FROM GUANTANIMO HAVE SHOWN THEIR RECIDIVISM THAT HAVE LEFT INNOCENT PEOPLE MAIMED OR KILLED. ALONG WITH MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE AND MANY OTHER AMERICANS, I LOOK FORWARD TO WATCHING OUR NATION'S LEADERS ADVANCE THE CAUSE OF AMERICA'S SECURITY AND FREEDOM. AND FINALLY, MR. CHAIRMAN, I'D LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE MY APPRECIATION OF ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE PREVIOUS TWO PANELS FOR THEIR SERVICE, GOOD FAITH, THEIR HARD WORK, AND TRYING TO DEAL WITH THE VERY DIFFICULT ISSUE. I'M READY FOR YOUR QUESTIONS.
00:02:05 Levin, Carl THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. HAYNES. IN JULY OF 2002, YOUR COUNSEL CONTACTED THE RECOVERY AGENCY AS WE HEARD EARLIER AND ASKED FOR INFORMATION ABOUT SERE TECHNIQUES. DID YOU ASK THEM TO OBTAIN INFORMATION ON SERE TECHNIQUES?
00:02:28 Haynes, William MR. CHAIRMAN, 2002 -- THE SUMMER OF 2002 WAS SIX YEARS AGO. AND MY MEMORY IS NOT PERFECT. MY MEMORY'S NOT PERFECT EVEN IN MORE RECENT TIMES, BUT SIX YEARS AGO IS SURELY THE CASE. WHAT I REMEMBER IN THE SUMMER OF 2002, A GOVERNMENT-WIDE CONCERN ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF ANOTHER TERRORIST ATTACK AS THE ANNIVERSARY OF 9/11 APPROACHED. I ALSO REMEMBER A WIDESPREAD BELIEF THAT THE PEOPLE THAT THE UNITED STATES HAD CAPTURED IN THE WAR ON TERROR WERE NOT PRODUCING AS MUCH INFORMATION AS WE BELIEVED THEY HAD. SIMILARLY, THERE WAS WIDESPREAD FRUSTRATION THAT THE EXISTING DOCTRINE WAS INADEQUATE, AND THAT THE COUNTRY'S CAPABILITIES WERE INADEQUATE TO THE TASK. SO AS THE CHIEF LEGAL OFFICER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, I WAS INTERESTED IN THAT AND CONCERNED ABOUT IT. I REMEMBER INQUIRING GENERALLY ABOUT WHERE THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION AND EXPERTISE AND THE GOVERNMENT MIGHT BE AS A SENIOR LEADER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND A POTENTIAL ADVISOR ON DIFFERENT MATTERS. AND RICHARD WOULD HAVE BEEN THE PERSON I WOULD HAVE ASKED FOR THAT KIND OF INFORMATION.
00:03:51 Levin, Carl OKAY. DO YOU REMEMBER ASKING HIM TO OBTAIN INFORMATION SPECIFICALLY ON SERE TECHNIQUES?
00:03:59 Haynes, William I DON'T REMEMBER THAT SPECIFICALLY, WHAT I DO REMEMBER IS WHAT I SAID ASKING GENERALLY ABOUT THAT. AND I DO ALSO REMEMBER SOMETIME IN THE LATE SUMMER AND THIS IS RECOLLECTION SOMEWHAT REFRESHED FROM RECENT REVIEW OF SOME DOCUMENTS THAT I DID GET SOME INFORMATION. FROM THE JOINT PERSONNEL RECOVERY AGENCY.
00:04:25 Levin, Carl YOU DON'T REMEMBER REQUESTING
00:04:29 Haynes, William WELL, I DON'T REMEMBER REQUESTING, BUT I DO REMEMBER BEING INTERESTED IN IT AND I WOULD HAVE REQUESTED IT THROUGH RICHARD.
00:04:35 Levin, Carl IF YOU REQUESTED IT.
00:04:38 Haynes, William YES, SIR.
00:04:41 Levin, Carl BUT AGAIN, JUST TO BE VERY PRECISE, YOU DON'T REMEMBER REQUESTING INFORMATION ON SERE TECHNIQUES TECHNIQUES.
00:04:47 Haynes, William I DON'T REMEMBER THAT
00:04:48 Levin, Carl ALL RIGHT. YOU MET REGULARLY WITH A SMALL GROUP OF SENIOR ADMINISTRATION LAWYERS INCLUDING MR. GONZALEZ, THE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL, THE VICE PRESIDENT'S COUNSEL, THE ACTING CIA GENERAL COUNSEL, AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE, ILLEGAL COUNSEL ATTORNEYS, YOU AND PATRICK PHILBIN DISCUSSING LEGAL MATTERS RELATING TO THE WAR. THIS REQUEST TO FOR THE INFORMATION YOU DESCRIBED YOU DID REQUEST, DID THAT COME FROM THAT GROUP? WAS IT A RESULT OF DISCUSSIONS WITH THAT GROUP?
00:05:24 Haynes, William AGAIN, SIX YEARS AGO IS A LONG TIME. I HAD PROBABLY TEN MEETINGS A DAY. DURING THE COURSE OF MY TIME AS GENERAL COUNSEL. I MET WITH MANY PEOPLE, MANY GROUPS, I MET WITH SUBSETS OF THAT GROUP, MET WITH LARGER SETS OF LAWYERS. THEY WERE INNER AGENCY MEETINGS OF ALL TYPES THROUGHOUT MY TENURE AS GENERAL COUNSEL. SO TO KEY INTO ONE PARTICULAR MEETING WITH A PARTICULAR GROUP OF PEOPLE WITH A SPECIFIC REQUEST IS VERY DIFFICULT FOR ME TO DO.
00:06:02 Levin, Carl I WASN'T ASKING YOU FOR THAT. DO YOU REMEMBER WHETHER YOUR REQUEST WAS AS A RESULT OF DISCUSSIONS WITH THAT GROUP?
00:06:09 Haynes, William NO, SIR, I DON'T.
00:06:11 Levin, Carl NOW TAB TWO, IF YOU'LL TAKE A LOOK AT IT IS THE JULY 26th, 2002, MEMO FROM LIEUTENANT COLONEL TO YOUR OFFICE. AND IT RELATES TO JPRA MEMORANDUM DATED JULY 25th AND ABOUT SERE TRAINING PROGRAMS. DO YOU REMEMBER --
00:06:36 Haynes, William I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT. THIS SAYS DECEMBER -- OR JULY 26th.
00:06:39 Levin, Carl ALL RIGHT. DID I SAY JULY 25th?
00:06:44 Haynes, William I THOUGHT YOU DID.
00:06:46 Levin, Carl THE REFERENCE WAS TO JULY 25th JCRA MEMORANDUM. DO YOU SEE WHERE THAT SAYS REFERENCE?
00:06:52 Haynes, William I DO.
00:06:53 Levin, Carl DO YOU REMEMBER SEEING THIS MEMO AT THE TIME?
00:07:04 Haynes, William NO, SIR, I DON'T REMEMBER IT AT THE TIME, BUT I'VE SEEN IT BEFORE, AND I'VE SEEN IT A LONG TIME AGO, NOT JUST RECENTLY.
00:07:11 Levin, Carl YOU DON'T REMEMBER SEEING THAT AT THE TIME IT WAS SENT?
00:07:16 Haynes, William NO, SIR, I DON'T.
00:07:19 Levin, Carl IS IT POSSIBLE YOU DID SEE IT THEN?
00:07:22 Haynes, William IT'S POSSIBLE I DID SEE IT. AND THE ADDRESSEE IS THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE GENERAL COUNSEL, WHICH IS NOT PRECISE TITLE OR WAS NOT MY PRECISE TITLE. BUT IF IT WAS SO ADDRESSED, I WOULD HAVE SEEN IT, PROBABLY.
00:07:40 Levin, Carl NOW, TAB THREE IS AN ATTACHMENT TO THE JULY 26th MEMO IF YOU COULD TAKE A LOOK AT THAT. IT'S A LIST OF PHYSICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL PRESSURES USED IN SERE TRAINING, INCLUDING STRESS POSITIONS, WALLING, DEG, EXPOSURE TO BRIGHT FLASHING LIGHTS, SLEEP DEPRIVATION, AND WATERBOARDING. DID YOU SEE THIS DOCUMENT AT THE TIME?
00:08:08 Haynes, William WAS THIS AN ATTACHMENT TO THE OTHER ONE?
00:08:10 Levin, Carl YES.
00:08:11 Haynes, William WELL, IF I'D SEEN THE OTHER ONE AND IF I WAS ATTACHED, I WOULD HAVE SEEN IT.
00:08:16 Levin, Carl DO YOU REMEMBER SPECIFICALLY WHETHER YOU SAW THIS ATTACHMENT AT THE TIME?
00:08:22 Haynes, William I DON'T REMEMBER SPECIFICALLY
00:08:23 Levin, Carl ALL RIGHT. NOW, THERE'S ANOTHER ATTACHMENT. TO LIEUTENANT COLONEL'S JULY 26th MEMO.
00:08:39 Haynes, William IS THAT NUMBER FOUR?
00:08:42 Levin, Carl NUMBER FOUR, AND THE LONG-TERM TRAINING ON STUDENTS. WRITTEN BY THE WITNESS ON OUR FIRST PANEL, AS YOU HEARD AND INCLUDES A PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE TECHNIQUES USED AT THE AIR FORCE, SERE SCHOOL, AND ONE TECHNIQUE USED AT THE NAVY SERE SCHOOL OF WATERBOARDING. DID YOU ASK HIM TO OBTAIN INFORMATION ON THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF SERE RESISTANCE TRAINING.
00:09:09 Haynes, William I MAY HAVE.
00:09:10 Levin, Carl DID YOU SEE HIS MEMO AT THE TIME?
00:09:20 Haynes, William WE'RE NOW -- THIS IS AN ATTACHMENT TO THE OTHER ONE YOU SAID?
00:09:23 Levin, Carl YES.
00:09:25 Haynes, William IF I HAD SEEN THE FIRST ONE AND IT WAS ATTACHED.
00:09:28 Levin, Carl DO YOU REMEMBER SPECIFICALLY WHETHER YOU SAW THIS MEMO AT THE TIME, THIS ATTACHMENT?
00:09:39 Haynes, William I DON'T SPECIFICALLY REMEMBER WHEN I SAW THIS.
00:09:46 Levin, Carl NOW, DID -- WHEN YOU GOT -- DO YOU REMEMBER RECEIVING THIS? WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE DONE WITH THIS INFORMATION WHEN YOU GOT IT? DO YOU REMEMBER DOING SOMETHING WITH THIS INFORMATION?
00:10:03 Haynes, William I DON'T REMEMBER DOING SOMETHING WITH THIS INFORMATION. WHAT I REMEMBER, SENATOR, AND I'M SORRY ABOUT --
00:10:09 Levin, Carl IT'S ALL RIGHT. IF YOU DON'T REMEMBER, THAT'S OKAY.
00:10:11 Haynes, William MY RECOLLECTION. WHAT I RECALL WAS THE ENVIRONMENT THAT I DESCRIBED EARLIER.
00:10:21 Levin, Carl I UNDERSTAND.
00:10:24 Haynes, William AND I'VE FORGOTTEN WHAT PROMPTED MY INTEREST OTHER THAN THE GENERAL CONCERNS, THERE MAY HAVE BEEN SOME OTHER CATALYST -- BUT, YOU KNOW, I CAN'T BE MORE SPECIFIC.
00:10:50 Levin, Carl DID YOU EVER DISCUSS YOUR TECHNIQUES WITH ANY OTHER SENIOR LAWYERS WITH WHOM YOU MET REGULARLY?
00:11:06 Haynes, William I BELIEVE I DID. DISCUSS SERE TECHNIQUES WITH OTHER PEOPLE IN THE ADMINISTRATION.
00:11:11 Levin, Carl PRIOR TO THE DECEMBER 2 MEMO SIGNED BY THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE?
00:11:16 Haynes, William YES.
00:11:18 Levin, Carl AND WOULD THAT HAVE HAPPENED ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION?
00:11:20 Haynes, William I CAN'T REMEMBER.
00:11:21 Levin, Carl WHAT WAS THE GIST OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS?
00:11:28 Haynes, William WELL, I THINK THAT FIRST OFF MY MEMORY IS NOT GREAT. BUT IF I -- IF I WERE TO DISCUSS ANYTHING FURTHER, I THINK I WOULD HAVE TO TALK ABOUT CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.
00:11:49 Levin, Carl WOULD YOU REMEMBER IT BETTER IF THIS WERE A CLASSIFIED SET?
00:11:52 Haynes, William I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DISCUSS IT.
00:11:59 Levin, Carl BUT YOU SAY YOUR MEMORY'S NOT --
00:12:01 Haynes, William I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE TRANSCRIPT MIGHT SAY, BUT WHAT I'M TRYING TO RESPOND TO YOUR QUESTION IS DID I EVER DISCUSS SERE TECHNIQUES WITH OTHERS IN THE ADMINISTRATION, AND THE ANSWER IS YES. AND MAYBE THAT'S THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION.
00:12:19 Levin, Carl NO, YOU ANSWERED THAT CLEARLY. THE OTHER ONE WAS WHAT WAS THE GIST OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS?
00:12:27 Haynes, William I COULD NOT -- I COULD NOT TELL YOU THE GIST OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS WITHOUT GOING INTO CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.
00:12:36 Levin, Carl BUT YOU DO REMEMBER THEM?
00:12:37 Haynes, William I DON'T REMEMBER THEM ANYMORE CLEARLY THAN WHAT I'VE ALREADY SAID. I HAVE SEEN INFORMATION OF THIS NATURE BEFORE. I DON'T KNOW PRECISELY WHEN. AND I CANNOT DISCUSS IT FURTHER WITHOUT GETTING INTO CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.
00:12:58 Levin, Carl YOU SAY YOU DON'T REMEMBER IT ANYMORE CLEARLY THAN WHAT YOU'VE SAID. GOING INTO CLASSIFIED SESSION ISN'T GOING TO GIVE US ANYMORE INFORMATION THAN WHAT YOU'VE SAID, YOUR MEMORY'S BAD. THAT'S ALL YOU'VE SAID.
00:13:11 Haynes, William CORRECT.
00:13:12 Levin, Carl THAT'S ALL YOU REMEMBER?
00:13:14 Haynes, William CORRECT.
00:13:17 Levin, Carl I DON'T KNOW WHAT GOING INTO CLASSIFIED SESSION WOULD GO ADD TO IT THEN?
00:13:21 Haynes, William OKAY.
00:13:23 Graham, Lindsey THANK YOU. AND I APPRECIATE SIX YEARS AGO IS A VERY LONG TIME. TRY TO PUT THIS IN CONTEXT OF THIS PUZZLE, SO TO SPEAK, AT LEAST FROM MY POINT OF VIEW. THE GOAL WAS TO GET BETTER INFORMATION FROM PEOPLE AT GUANTANIMO BAY, THAT WAS THE DESIRE OF THIS WHOLE PROJECT. WE'RE AFRAID WE'RE GOING TO BE ATTACKED AGAIN, WE WEREN'T GETTING THE INFORMATION WE WERE HOPED TO OBTAIN. SO WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO COME UP WITH A NEW PROGRAM TO GET BETTER INFORMATION. THAT WAS SORT OF THE TASK AT HAND. I THINK THE GOAL WAS BROADER THAN -- WELL, THE GOAL WAS NOT GUANTANIMO BAY. THE GOAL WAS TO GET BETTER INFORMATION.
00:14:13 Haynes, William THE GOAL WAS TO UNDERSTAND WHAT CAPABILITIES THE COUNTRY HAD TO ELICIT INFORMATION FROM TERRORISTS WHO HAD ATTACKED AND MIGHT HAVE ATTACKED THE COUNTRY.
00:14:24 Graham, Lindsey I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THAT. I'M NOT SAYING THAT'S NOT A BAD GOAL. I JUST WANT TO KNOW -- THERE'S A REASON FOR EVERYTHING. THE REASON THIS PROJECT AND ALL OF THIS TALK ABOUT INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES AND WHAT WE CAN AND CAN'T DO WAS A RESULT OF TRYING TO GET BETTER INFORMATION FROM HIGH VALUE TARGETS.
00:14:43 Haynes, William WELL, THAT WOULD BE AN OBJECTIVE OF PEOPLE WHO WERE INVOLVED IN THE INTERROGATION, YES, SIR.
00:14:50 Graham, Lindsey OKAY. SO YOU AND OTHERS WERE TASKED WITH THE JOB OF TRYING TO COME UP WITH NEW PROGRAMS THAT WERE NOT ON THE BOOKS AT THAT TIME. THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO GET BETTER INFORMATION. IS THAT NOT WHAT STARTED ALL OF THIS?
00:15:06 Haynes, William NO, SIR, I WASN'T TASKED WITH SUCH A PROJECT. I WAS A SENIOR LAWYER, THE SENIOR LAWYER IN THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT. AND ONE OF THE MISSIONS THAT OUR DEPARTMENT HAD WAS THE DETENTION AND QUESTIONING OF TERRORISTS CAPTURED IN THE WAR ON TERROR. AS THE SENIOR LAWYER, I HAD TO BE -- FELT I NEEDED TO BE AWARE OF WHAT MY CLIENT WAS UP TO. I WAS ALSO SENIOR MEMBER OF THE ADMINISTRATION INVOLVED IN INNER AGENCY.
00:15:39 Graham, Lindsey RIGHT, I MEAN --
00:15:41 Haynes, William ACTIVITIES.
00:15:42 Graham, Lindsey THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH DOING THIS. I'M NOT TRYING TO SAY ANYBODY DID ANYTHING WRONG. IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE WE'RE BEGINNING TO TRY. IF WE DON'T HAVE ADEQUATE INFORMATION, LOOK FOR A WAY TO GET BETTER INFORMATION. AND THE -- ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE MEMO? THE LEGAL ANALYSIS ABOUT THE CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE AND OTHER STATUTES AND TREATIES?
00:16:05 Haynes, William I BELIEVE I AM, YES, SIR. I THINK THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF LABELS AND NAMES ASSOCIATED WITH A MEMO THAT I UNDERSTAND TO BE IN AUGUST.
00:16:14 Graham, Lindsey WERE YOU AWARE IT WAS THE OPINION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL THAT UNLESS THERE WAS MAJOR ORGAN FAILURE INVOLVED IT WOULD NOT BE A VIOLATION OF THE CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE?
00:16:25 Haynes, William YES, SIR.
00:16:27 Graham, Lindsey SO THERE A LINE OF LEGAL REASONING THAT YOU'RE AWARE OF THAT WAS PRETTY AGGRESSIVE WHEN IT CAME TO THE EXISTING FLAWS IN TERMS OF, WELL, I WOULD THAT SOMETHING SHORT OF MAJOR ORGAN FAILURE, NOT BEING TORTURED IS A PRETTY AGGRESSIVE POINT OF VIEW. WERE YOU AWARE OF THAT BEFORE SECRETARY RUMSFELD APPROVED THE INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES?
00:16:51 Haynes, William I DON'T KNOW WHEN I BECAME AWARE OF THAT, SENATOR.
00:16:56 Graham, Lindsey FAIR ENOUGH. NOW, THESE INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES.
00:16:58 Haynes, William I DON'T REMEMBER THAT.
00:16:59 Graham, Lindsey I UNDERSTAND. THESE INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES THAT SECRETARY RUMSFELD INITIALLY SIGNED OFF ON, THE THREE GROWERS, I THINK THEY WERE 35, IS THAT CORRECT?
00:17:08 Haynes, William NO, SIR, I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF CONFUSION.
00:17:10 Graham, Lindsey OKAY.
00:17:11 Haynes, William OUT THERE, AND PERHAPS IN THIS ROOM. WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT 35 TECHNIQUES, WHAT I THINK ABOUT IS A PRODUCT OF THE WORKING GROUP, WHICH OPERATED FROM JANUARY OF 2003 UNTIL SOMETIME IN THE END OF MARCH, 2003. WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT WHAT SECRETARY RUMSFELD APPROVED FOR THE INTERROGATION OF THE 20th HI-JACKER, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A DECISION IN 2002. THERE WERE NOT 35 TECHNIQUES THAT I KNOW OF ASSOCIATED WITH THAT ANALYSIS.
00:17:47 Graham, Lindsey RIGHT. NO, I UNDERSTAND. SO THAT'S A GOOD POINT. THE INTERROGATION OF THE 20th HI-JACKER, AL ZATANI -- IF I GOT HIS NAME RIGHT. THAT INVOLVED THE USE OF DOGS AND HAVING HIM STRIPPED NAKED IN FRONT OF FEMALE PERSONNEL. WAS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S WHAT THIS REPORT FOUND?
00:18:14 Haynes, William WHICH REPORT ARE YOU REFERRING?
00:18:19 Graham, Lindsey THE SCHMITT-FURLOW REPORT.
00:18:22 Haynes, William LET ME UNTANGLE THAT. I SAT THROUGH THE EARLIER TESTIMONY OF THE EARLIER PANELS, AND FRANKLY, WAS ENLIGHTENED FROM SOME THINGS I DON'T THINK I EVER KNEW AND SOME THINGS I'D FORGOTTEN. BUT THE PREVIOUS PANEL WENT INTO GREAT DETAIL ABOUT WHAT WAS APPROVED BY THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE IN DECEMBER OF 2002 FOR USE OF THE 20th HI-JACKER. AND TWO OF THE ITEMS IN CATEGORY TWO, IF I RECALL, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THOSE DOCUMENTS ARE IN HERE IF I CAN LOOK AT OR NOT. IF IT'S IMPORTANT, YOU CAN POINT THEM TO ME. INVOLVED CLOTHING AND USE OF PHOBIA.
00:19:04 Graham, Lindsey RIGHT.
00:19:07 Haynes, William AND CAPTAIN DALTON AND COLONEL -- EXCUSE ME ADMIRAL DALTON AND COLONEL BEAVER, TESTIFIED AT GREAT LENGTH FOR THIS PANEL ABOUT WHAT WAS APPROVED BY THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE AND WHAT WAS NOT APPROVED BY THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE. AND I THINK THEY WERE VERY CLEAR THAT THE VERY WIDELY HELD UNDERSTANDING AMONG PEOPLE WHO WERE KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT WHAT WAS APPROVED IN EACH OF THOSE TWO CATEGORIES IS NOT AS YOU'VE DESCRIBED IT. THE USE OF DOGS WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE OR AUTHORIZED TO BE DOGS IN AN INTERROGATION ROOM WITH A DETAINEE. IT WAS TO BE MUZZLED DOGS
00:19:47 Graham, Lindsey OKAY. THE REPORT, THE REPORT FOUND THAT IT WAS A MUZZLED DOG IN A ROOM.
00:19:54 Haynes, William LET ME GET TO THAT IN A MINUTE. AND THE OTHER THING THAT WAS AUTHORIZED AND WIDELY UNDERSTOOD BY PEOPLE KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT THE DECISION WAS THAT REMOVAL OF CLOTHING, CLOTHING WAS NOT NEWTY. NUDITY.
00:20:11 Graham, Lindsey OKAY.
00:20:12 Haynes, William I HAVEN'T RESPONDED TO YOUR QUESTION. YOU THEN JUMPED TO SAY THAT IT INVOLVED USE OF DOGS IN A ROOM AND NAKED PEOPLE.
00:20:20 Graham, Lindsey RIGHT.
00:20:22 Haynes, William AND WHAT I THINK YOU'RE REFERRING TO AND I'VE LOOKED AT IT SINCE THIS EXCHANGE THAT YOU HAD WAS A -- AN INVESTIGATION BY LIEUTENANT GENERAL SCHMITT IN CONJUNCTION WITH FURLOW YEARS AFTER THE FACT LOOKING INTO SOME DISCLOSED E-MAILS THAT CAME TO LIGHT AT THE HEADQUARTERS LEVEL TWO YEARS AFTER THE FACT. AND GENERAL SCHMITT INVESTIGATED SOME 24,000 INTERROGATIONS CONDUCTED BETWEEN EARLY 2002 AND EARLY 2005 WHEN HE ISSUED HIS REPORT AND IDENTIFIED LESS THAN A HANDFUL OF PROBLEMATIC INTERROGATIONS. TWO OF WHICH YOU'VE IDENTIFIED. ONE WAS WHEN SOMEBODY WALKED INTO A ROOM WITH A DOG AND I'VE GOT THE PAGES HERE.
00:21:22 Graham, Lindsey YOUR TESTIMONY IS THAT THEY WERE NEVER AUTHORIZED. IF IT HAPPENED, IT WAS UNAUTHORIZED.
00:21:27 Haynes, William THAT IS, BUT I REFER YOU TO PAGES 15 AND PAGE 19.
00:21:34 Graham, Lindsey RIGHT, BUT THAT'S MY POINT. YOU AGREE IF IT DID HAPPEN IT WAS NEVER AUTHORIZED BY YOU OR SECRETARY RUMSFELD?
00:21:40 Haynes, William YES, SIR.
00:21:41 Graham, Lindsey FAIR ENOUGH. NOW, THESE TECHNIQUES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT WERE APPROVED IN DECEMBER AND LATER MODIFIED, THE SERE PROGRAM IN AN UNCANNY WAY WAS MIRRORED.
00:21:55 Haynes, William WELL, I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT, SENATOR.
00:21:57 Graham, Lindsey WHERE DID THEY COME FROM? SOMEBODY SOMEWHERE HAD TO SIT DOWN AND MAKE A LIST OF THESE ARE THE THREE CATEGORIES, THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT YOU CAN USE IN DIFFERENT COMBINATIONS. SOMEBODY SOMEWHERE HAD TO WRITE THIS STUFF DOWN. WHO WAS THAT SOMEBODY? AND WHERE DID THEY GET THIS INFORMATION FROM?
00:22:14 Haynes, William WELL, I THINK THE LAST PANEL TALKED TO THAT. AND I WOULD JUST REFER YOU TO THE PEOPLE WHO WERE INVOLVED CLOSER TO GUANTANIMO THAN I WAS. I'D ALSO SAY -- I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN POINT ME TO SOMETHING ELSE. I'VE NOT SEEN ANY OTHER DOCUMENTS OR ANY OTHER CATEGORIZATION, LIKE CAME FROM GUANTANIMO, ONE, TWO, AND THREE, WITH THOSE PARTICULAR GROUPINGS. THERE WERE A COUPLE, AS I RECALL, A COUPLE OF ITEMIZATIONS THAT FALL IN SOME CATEGORIES.
00:22:56 Graham, Lindsey WHO MADE UP THE LIST?
00:22:57 Haynes, William I DON'T HAVE FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE OF WHO MADE UP THE LIST. COLONEL BEAVER TESTIFIED TO HOW
00:23:03 Graham, Lindsey OKAY.
00:23:06 Haynes, William I THINK THERE'S ALSO, IF I MAY, SENATOR, SOME DOCUMENTATION THAT THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT HAS PROVIDED TO THE COMMITTEE THAT I CAN REFER YOU TO THE DATE STAMP. THAT TALKED ABOUT HOW THEY CAME UP WITH THEIR LIST. AND THE STAMP NUMBERS ARE 008771 AND 00879.
00:23:42 Graham, Lindsey I KNOW MY TIMES, BUT THIS LIST THAT YOUR CLIENT CAME UP WITH, SOMEBODY APPROVED. SECRETARY RUMSFELD?
00:23:52 Haynes, William SECRETARY RUMSFELD APPROVED A SUBSET PROPOSED BY GENERAL HILL.
00:23:54 Graham, Lindsey AND YOU HAD KNOWLEDGE OF THAT LIST?
00:23:56 Haynes, William OH, YES, SIR.
00:24:01 Graham, Lindsey OKAY, THANK YOU.
00:24:06 Levin, Carl THANK YOU.
00:24:08 McCaskill, Claire YOU'VE JUST SAID MR. HAYNES, YOU WERE THE SENIOR LAWYER FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE? CORRECT?
00:24:17 Haynes, William YES, MA'AM, THAT'S CORRECT.
00:24:18 McCaskill, Claire AND SO YOU HAD THAT LOT OF LAWYERS UNDER YOU?
00:24:23 Haynes, William I'LL PUT IT THIS WAY, THERE ARE OVER 10,000 LAWYERS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.
00:24:28 McCaskill, Claire YOU KNOW A YEAR AND A HALF AGO, THAT WOULD HAVE SHOCKED ME. IT DOESN'T SURPRISE ME TODAY. I'M NOT SURE THAT'S A GOOD THING. YOU HAD RECEIVED INFORMATION ABOUT THIS REQUEST FOR MORE AGGRESSIVE INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES, YOU'VE RECEIVED LEGAL INPUT ABOUT THIS PRIOR TO YOU PRESENTING THIS DOCUMENT FOR APPROVAL BY SECRETARY RUMSFELD, CORRECT? YOU HAD RECEIVED THE INFORMATION FROM THE VARIOUS LAWYERS IN THE SERVICES AND OTHER LAWYERS CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION TASK FORCE? YOU HAD RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM A NUMBER OF LAWYERS THAT WERE ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT THESE TECHNIQUES, LEGAL QUESTIONS ABOUT THESE TECHNIQUES.
00:25:11 Haynes, William WELL, LET ME TRY TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION. THIS IS AGAIN, SIX YEARS AGO, SO MY MEMORY'S NOT PERFECT. BUT I DO NOT RECALL SEEING THE MEMORANDA THAT I THINK WERE REFERENCED IN THE EARLIER PANEL'S TESTIMONY. THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT I WASN'T AWARE THAT THERE WAS A LOT OF ANXIETY ABOUT HOW THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT WOULD QUESTION TERRORISTS. THAT CONCERN WAS PRESENT FROM THE MOMENT THE WAR BEGAN. AND IT REMAINS A VERY INTERESTING AND DIFFICULT ISSUE. AND IT TENDS TO BE FUELLED BY TWO DIFFERENT APPROACHES. IT TENDS TO BE FUELLED ON THE ONE HAND BY LAW ENFORCEMENT-MINDED PEOPLE, PEOPLE OF GOOD FAITH, INTELLIGENT, WITH GREAT INTENTIONS WHO COME AT A PROBLEM WITH A LAW ENFORCEMENT MIND. AND FROM THE OTHER PERSPECTIVE, PEOPLE INTEREST IN THE COLLECTION OF INTELLIGENCE DURING THE CONDUCT OF WARFARE WHO ARE LESS CONCERNED ABOUT PRESERVING A RECORD FOR ULTIMATE CRIMINAL TRIAL.
00:26:31 McCaskill, Claire I DON'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT YOU, BUT I DON'T HAVE A LOT OF TIME AND I HAVE TO GO PRESIDE. I APOLOGIZE IF I APPEAR TO BE RUDE. YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE SAID THAT YOU HAVE RELIED ON THE LEGAL ANALYSIS OF LIEUTENANT COLONEL BEAVER, IS THAT CORRECT?
00:26:48 Haynes, William I READ HER OPINION AND I MADE MY OWN DECISION BASED ON MY OWN ANALYSIS, WHICH WOULD HAVE INCLUDED CONSIDERING HER MEMORANDUM.
00:26:59 McCaskill, Claire DO YOU HAVE ANY THAT YOU PREPARED THAT WOULD HAVE AUGMENTED HER OPINION?
00:27:04 Haynes, William MINE OPINION IS REFLECTED IN THE MEMO YOU HAVE.
00:27:08 McCaskill, Claire THE ONE-PAGE MEMORANDUM THAT DOES NOT CITE ANY LEGAL PRECEDENT WHATSOEVER. IN FACT, IT DOESN'T TALK ABOUT ANY LEGAL PRECEDENT OR GENEVA OR OUR CONSTITUTION OR OUR LAWS?
00:27:19 Haynes, William THAT'S CORRECT.
00:27:20 McCaskill, Claire IS THERE ANY LEGAL DOCUMENT YOU CAN REFER TO TODAY OTHER THAN THE MEMO WRITTEN BY LIEUTENANT COLONEL BEAVER?
00:27:27 Haynes, William WELL, THERE WAS THE PACKAGE THAT CAME UP WITH IT.
00:27:30 McCaskill, Claire WAIT, WAIT, THERE WAS NO LEGAL OPINION IN THAT PACKAGE OTHER THAN HER LEGAL OPINION. WAS THERE ANY OTHER LEGAL OPINION YOU RELIED ON OF THOSE 10,000 LAWYERS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE? WAS THERE ANY LEGAL OPINION WRITTEN LEGAL OPINION, WRITTEN ANALYSIS THAT LAWYERS DO BASED ON LAW AND PRECEDENT THAT YOU RELIED ON OTHER THAN LIEUTENANT COLONEL BEAVER'S OPINION?
00:27:54 Haynes, William I'D LIKE TO RESPOND TO YOUR QUESTION, SENATOR. IT'S IMPORTANT THAT YOU UNDERSTAND HOW THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT WORKS. D.O.D. HAS 2 1/2 MILLION EMPLOYEES, WORLDWIDE OPERATIONS, AND I WAS THE CHIEF OF LEGAL OFFICER OF THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT. WHEN I WOULD PUT MY INITIALS ON A DOCUMENT THAT WAS PASSING ON ITS WAY TO THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, THAT WAS AN INDICATION THAT I HAD REVIEWED IT AND I FOUND IT LEGALLY SUFFICIENT. I DIDN'T HAVE TIME, IT WASN'T MY PRACTICE. IN FACT, THAT MEMORANDUM THAT YOU HAVE IS ONE OF THE LONGER REFLECTIONS OF SOMETHING THAT I WOULD HAVE DONE PERSONALLY. I TYPED THAT MEMO MYSELF.
00:28:36 McCaskill, Claire OKAY.
00:28:37 Haynes, William IF I MAY, SENATOR, THE PACKAGE IS IMPORTANT. BECAUSE IT REFLECTS NOT ONLY WHERE IT COMES FROM, WHO'S EMPOWERED, BUT ALSO AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE PATTERN AND PRACTICE AND STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES AND JUDGMENT EMPLOYED BY THE PEOPLE WHO ARE USING IT. THE SECRETARY HAS LESS TIME THAN THE GENERAL COUNSEL DOES. SAME THING WITH THE CHAIRMAN OF JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF, HE DOESN'T WRITE LONG MEMORANDUMS, HE INITIALS THINGS. THE FACT THERE'S NOT A DETAILED MEMORANDUM ASSOCIATED WITH THAT IS NOT UNUSUAL.
00:29:19 McCaskill, Claire I'M NOT SAYING IT WAS. I AM JUST TRYING TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF WHETHER OR NOT THE LEGAL ANALYSIS THAT YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO BE PERFORMING AS YOUR JOB, WHETHER YOU RELIED. WE HAVE A LOT OF LAWYERS THAT WERE EXPERTS IN MILITARY LAW THAT HAVE BEEN SAYING RED LIGHT, RED LIGHT, PROBLEM, THE ONLY ANALYSIS I CAN FIND IN ALL OF THE MATERIAL I'VE REVIEWED AND I'VE REVIEWED A LOT THAT LEGALLY TRY TO LAY DOWN A PREMISE SUPPORTING THIS WAS LIEUTENANT COLONEL BEAVER'S ANALYSIS. AND I AM TRYING TO GET YOU TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WAS, IN FACT, WHAT YOU USED.
00:29:57 Haynes, William THERE WAS THAT, THE COMMANDER OF JOINT TASK FORCES, 170 AT THE TIME WHO EXPRESSED HIS OPINION. HE DIDN'T WRITE HIS OPINION AS --
00:30:08 McCaskill, Claire I THINK HE REFERRED TO HER OPINION, DIDN'T HE?
00:30:11 Haynes, William YOU CAN LOOK AT IT.
00:30:13 McCaskill, Claire I THINK WHAT HE SAID IN HIS WAS I'M RELYING ON LIEUTENANT COLONEL BEAVER'S OPINION.
00:30:17 Haynes, William MAY I FINISH?
00:30:18 McCaskill, Claire YES, YOU MAY.
00:30:19 Haynes, William I BELIEVE HE ALSO SAID I THINK THESE ARE LEGAL. GENERAL HILL MADE A SIMILAR ASSERTION. HE MADE THE ASSERTION, AS I RECALL THAT HE BELIEVED ALL OF CATEGORY ONE AND CATEGORY TWO WERE LEGAL AND HE HAD SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT CATEGORY THREE. SO THOSE THREE LAYERS COMING UP TOGETHER WITH MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE PACKAGE, MY DISCUSSIONS WITH MY STAFF AND CAPTAIN DALTON AND HER STAFF TO THE EXTENT THIS WAS ONE. LED ME TO MAKE THE CONCLUSION
00:30:55 McCaskill, Claire OKAY. . AND I DON'T BELIEVE GENERAL HILL IS A LAWYER, IS HE?
00:31:02 Haynes, William NO.
00:31:03 McCaskill, Claire AND I DON'T BELIEVE MAJOR DUNLEAVY IS A LAWYER, IS HE?
00:31:08 Haynes, William HE'S A JUDGE. AND GENERAL HILL HAS A LAWYER. HAD A LAWYER. HE WAS THE COMMANDER. HE HAD A LEGAL STAFF, A STAFF -- AND HE WROTE THE MEMORANDUM AS IS REFLECTED IN YOUR FILES. AND YOU CAN READ IT. BUT I HEARD THE EKE CHANGE ON THE EARLIER PANEL ABOUT --
00:31:33 McCaskill, Claire I IMMUNITY.
00:31:35 Haynes, William NO, THE DIFFICULTIES WITH THE STAFF, WHICH WAS NEWS TO ME.
00:31:38 McCaskill, Claire OKAY. A MINUTE AGO YOU TALKED ABOUT THE TWO APPROACHES. AND YOU SAID THERE'S THE PEOPLE FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THEN THERE'S THE PEOPLE THAT ARE IN A TIME OF WAR AND THEY'RE TRYING TO GET INTELLIGENCE. YOU KNOW THE IDEA OF GETTING INTELLIGENCE IS GETTING RELIABLE INFORMATION. AND IT APPEARS TO ME THAT THE MOST EXPERIENCED PEOPLE IN OUR COUNTRY AT GETTING RELIABLE INFORMATION FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE WANTING TO HARM OTHER PEOPLE ARE, IN FACT, LAW ENFORCEMENT. THAT'S WHAT THEY DO.
00:32:12 Haynes, William SENATOR --
00:32:16 McCaskill, Claire THEY UNDERSTAND INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES, MUCH BETTER. AND THAT'S WHAT THEIR PROFESSION EMBRACES IS INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES. AND I CAN ENSURE YOU THAT THERE ARE MANY INSTANCES OF TOUGH, TOUGH INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF CRIMINAL INTERROGATION WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL FRAME BWORK OF OUR COUNTRY, BUT NONETHELESS, WE HAVE TO GET REALLY SOLID GOOD INFORMATION IN ORDER TO KEEP PEOPLE FROM DYING, IN ORDER TO KEEP PEOPLE FROM BEING HURT ON A CONSTANT ONGOING BASIS, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHY THERE SHOULD BE TWO SETS OF LAWS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT. IF THE GOAL IS TO GET GOOD INFORMATION, WHY THERE WOULD BE TWO DIFFERENT SETS OF RULES.
00:32:58 Haynes, William IT'S A VERY INTERESTING PROPOSITION WITH A LOT OF PIECES. LET ME TRY TO ADDRESS THAT. FIRST, LET ME TELL YOU THAT I HAVE ONLY THE HIGHEST REGARD FOR THE LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMUNITY. I AGREE WITH YOU THAT THEY'RE SKILLED, PROFESSIONAL, WELL-INTENTIONED PEOPLE WHO DO GREAT WORK IN A PARTICULAR ENVIRONMENT. AND OH, BY THE WAY, THERE WERE LOTS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT PEOPLE AT GUANTANIMO WHO WERE EQUALLY FRUSTRATED, INCLUDING THE FBI. SO I DON'T MEAN FOR A MINUTE IN TRYING TO DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENT THAT THE COUNTRY FACED AT THE TIME AND STILL FACES FRANKLY. AS FAVORING ONE OVER ANOTHER. I'M JUST DESCRIBING THE EXISTENCE OF A SET OF CONFLICTING PHILOSOPHICAL APPROACHES THAT ARE FUELLED BY VERY DIFFERENT PURPOSES. THE LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMUNITY TO BE SURE, AS YOU SAY, IS THERE TO PROTECT US. THERE TO ENFORCE THE LAWS AND TO PROTECT US AND ULTIMATELY TO DEVELOP A RECORD TO PROSECUTE AND PUNISH WRONG-DOERS. BECAUSE OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM AND OUR FANTASTIC SYSTEM OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN OUR COUNTRY, WE HAVE A VERY GENEROUS SET OF PROCEDURAL UNDERPINNINGS THAT THE LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMUNITY HAS TO BE MINDFUL OF IN THE WAY IT INTERROGATES PEOPLE.
00:34:21 McCaskill, Claire I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT, SIR, I'M TALKING ABOUT WHAT WORKS. I'M TALKING ABOUT WHAT'S EFFECTIVE. I'M TALKING ABOUT HOW YOU GET GOOD INFORMATION. YOU KNOW, WHAT HAS BEEN TALKED ABOUT OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN IN THE SENATE, IN THIS ROOM, IN OTHER ROOMS LIKE THIS THROUGHOUT THIS CAPITAL IS NOT -- IT'S NOT JUST A MATTER OF LEGAL ANALYSIS.
00:34:42 Haynes, William I AGREE --
00:34:44 McCaskill, Claire PEOPLE WILL TELL YOU WHAT YOU WANT TO HEAR, IF YOU'RE TORTURING THEM. IT'S NOT AN EFFECTIVE WAY TO GET INFORMATION AND LAW ENFORCEMENT KNOWS THAT. AND, YOU KNOW, FRANKLY, I WISH I DIDN'T HAVE TO GO PRESIDE, BUT MY TIME IS UP.
00:35:00 McCaskill, Claire BUT SENATOR, I NEED TO RESPOND THAT. NOBODY HAS ADVOCATED TORTURE, PERIOD. I DON'T ADVOCATE TORTURE. I DON'T QUESTION YOUR APPRECIATION THAT EFFECTIVE INTERROGATION IS WHAT WE'RE AFTER. I AGREE WITH THAT. I'M NOT AN INTERROGATOR. I'M NOT AN INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, I'M NOT AN FBI PERSON, I'M A LAWYER. AND MY JOB IN THIS EXERCISE THAT WE'RE PROBABLY GOING TO GET INTO AT THIS POINT IS WHAT DOES THE LAW PERMIT AND PROHIBIT? AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THOSE TWO CON TLIKTING APPROACHES FROM THE EXPERTS OF WHICH I AM NOT. IN APPRECIATING HOW I CAN RESPOND TO YOUR QUESTION, DID I KNOW THAT THERE WERE PEOPLE WHO HAD PROBLEMS WITH THE APPROACHES? ABSOLUTELY. AND I BELIEVE AND BELIEVED AT THE TIME THAT IT SPRANG FROM THOSE THINGS BECAUSE I SAW IT REPEATEDLY AND I SEE IT NOW. AND THE EFFECTIVENESS OF INTERROGATION APPROACHES IS SOMETHING THAT WE ALL WANT. BUT MANY -- IN MY EXPERIENCE AS AN OBSERVER, A RELUCTANT OBSERVER OVER THE LAST SIX YEARS OF GENERAL COUNSEL DOING THESE KINDS OF THINGS I HAD NO IDEA I WAS GOING TO GET INTO WHEN I TOOK THE JOB IS THAT IT IS CASE BY CASE, PERSON BY PERSON, SITUATION BY SITUATION, AND TYPE OF INFORMATION BY TYPE OF INFORMATION AS TO WHAT IS THE BEST AND WHAT IS THE MOST APPROPRIATE APPROACH.
00:36:36 Levin, Carl THANK YOU, SENATOR.
00:36:42 Inhofe, James THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
00:36:44 Inhofe, James THERE WE GO, GOT IT WORK. MR. HAYNES, HOW ARE YOU? HI, APPRECIATE YOU'RE BEING HERE TODAY. IF WE COULD ALL REMEMBER RIGHT AFTER 9/11, EVERYONE WAS EXPECTING SOMETHING ELSE TO HAPPEN, AND I THINK WE HAVE DOCUMENTATION NOW THAT THERE WERE A LOT OF PLANS OUT THERE THAT WERE SUCCESSFULLY ABLE TO STOP IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. THE FT. DIX PLOT, THE JFK AIRPORT PLOT, AND THE MEDIA HAD QUITE A FEW THINGS FROM THE WASHINGTON POST, DIRTY BOMB TERRORIST PLOT. A YEAR AFTER, THIS WAS IN THE L.A. TIMES BY JOSH MYER, SIGNALS HIGH RISK ON NEW ATTACKS, TERRORISM ALERTS AND ALL OF THAT. I WOULD ASSUME THAT A NUMBER OF THINGS LED TO AND PROMPTED THE USE OF NEW TECHNIQUES. I ASSUME THAT'S A PART OF WHAT LED TO THE NEW TECHNIQUES. WILL YOU KIND OF TELL US, HOW DOES D.O.D. CHANGE TECHNIQUES? AND WHERE DO THE NEW TECHNIQUES COME FROM?
00:37:50 Haynes, William I'LL TRY TO ANSWER THAT, SENATOR, BUT LET ME RESPOND TO YOUR OPENING. YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT THAT THE CONTEXT IS VERY IMPORTANT. YOU'VE LISTED A NUMBER OF INCIDENTS I'D FORGOTTEN ABOUT, FRANKLY, BUT THE TIME THIS PARTICULAR PROPOSAL WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY CAME UP, THE FALL OF 2002, THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT HAD DISCOVERED MONTH AFTER HE HAD ARRIVED THAT A PERSONAL PERSON WAS LIKELY THE 20th HI-JACKER THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE PILOT ON THE PLANE THAT WENT DOWN IN PENNSYLVANIA. NOW IN THE FALL OF 2002, WE HAD JUST PAST THE ANNIVERSARY OF 9/11. AND OUR INTELLIGENCE PEOPLE TELL US THAT ANNIVERSARY DATES ARE IMPORTANT TO AL QAEDA. THE BOMBINGS, WHICH KILLED HUNDREDS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE HAPPENED ON OCTOBER 12th, 2002, THE D.C. SNIPERS, WHICH TERRORIZED THIS CITY HAD JUST BEEN CAPTURED, AND PEOPLE WEREN'T CERTAIN WHERE THEY WERE FROM, WHETHER THEY WERE ASSOCIATED WITH THE EXTERNAL THREAT OR WHETHER THEY WERE WHAT THEY TURNED OUT TO BE. THE ANTHRAX CASES OF A YEAR EARLIER HAD STILL NOT BEEN SOLVED. ISSUED A VIDEO THREAT ON OCTOBER 8th, 2002 SAYING, QUOTE, GOD WILLING, WE WILL CONTINUE TARGETING THE KEYS TO THE AMERICAN ECONOMY. IN EARLY IN THE SUMMER OF 2002, THERE WERE DEADLY ATTACKS IN PAKISTAN AND TY NEARBY YA, THERE WAS A CAPTURE EARLIER THAT YEAR OF AN AMERICAN CITIZEN WHO WAS WHO WAS SUSPECTED OF BEING INVOLVED IN A DIRTY BOMB PLOT AND PLENTY OF OTHER CLASSIFIED INFORMATION. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY WAS CONCERNED ABOUT WAS THAT THE PERSON WHO CAME INTO ORLANDO AIRPORT IN AUGUST OF 2001, A MONTH BEFORE 9/11 TO BE MET BY MUHAMMAD -- THE PILOT -- THE RING LEADER OF 9/11 ATTACKS AND HAD BEEN TURNED AWAY, WHETHER HE HAD A COMPANION ON THAT PLANE, BECAUSE OTHERS HAD COME INTO THE COUNTRY IN PAIRS. AND THERE WERE PEOPLE ROAMING AROUND THE COUNTRY AND WHETHER HE HAD INFORMATION ABOUT OTHER PLOTS. SO THERE WAS A HIGH DEGREE OF URGENCY TO DEAL WITH THIS. NOW YOUR QUESTION, HOW DO THEY COME UP WITH OTHER INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES? AGAIN, I WOULD REFER IN THIS CASE TO THE PREVIOUS PANEL THAT TALKED ABOUT THAT AND TO THE DATE STAMP DOCUMENTS I TOLD YOU ABOUT. BUT THE BOTTOM LINE UNDERSTANDING THAT I HAVE, SENATOR, IS THAT THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY DIDN'T KNOW HOW TO DEAL WITH THIS, NOR DID THE LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMUNITY KNOW HOW TO DEAL WITH THIS. FOR ALQATANI HIMSELF --
00:40:51 Inhofe, James WE'RE DEALING WITH SOMETHING HERE THAT NO ONE HAD DEALT WITH BEFORE. THIS WAS NEW TO US. NOW ON THE RESISTANCE PORTION OF THE SERE PROGRAM, DO OTHER COUNTRIES TRAIN THEIR PEOPLE? WHAT ABOUT ISRAEL, GREAT BRITAIN, AND SOME OF THE OTHERS? DO THEY HAVE A SIMILAR TYPE OF PROGRAM?
00:41:13 Haynes, William SENATOR, I SUSPECT THAT THEY DO BECAUSE THEY'RE SOPHISTICATED -- THEY HAVE SOPHISTICATED MILITARIES. BUT I AM NOT AN EXPERT IN THAT.
00:41:21 Inhofe, James ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE MANCHESTER DOCUMENT FOUND IN MANCHESTER, ENGLAND?
00:41:25 Haynes, William I AM. I'VE SEEN IT. IT'S WIDELY REPORTED AND AVAILABLE. AND IT TALKS ABOUT AMONG OTHER THINGS TRAINING FOR AL QAEDA'S MEMBERS WHO MAY BE CAPTURED, HOW TO RESIST INTERROGATION, AND WHAT THINGS THEY SHOULD CLAIM, SUCH AS TORTURE, WHENEVER THEY'RE CAPTURED CLAIM THEY'RE TORTURED.
00:41:49 Inhofe, James HOW DOES AN INTERROGATOR -- I WONDER HOW AN INTERROGATOR DETERMINES WHETHER OR NOT RESISTANCE TECHNIQUES ARE BEING USED BY A DETAINEE.
00:42:01 Haynes, William I DON'T KNOW.
00:42:02 Inhofe, James OKAY, THAT'S FINE.
00:42:03 Haynes, William I ASSUME THEY DON'T TALK FOR ONE THING.
00:42:08 Inhofe, James OKAY.
00:42:10 Inhofe, James IN A FRONT LINE INTERVIEW WITH MARK JACOBSON, YOU ANSWERED SEVERAL PROBING QUESTIONS THAT -- ABOUT THE FIELD MANUAL 3452 AND THE NEW TECHNIQUES THAT SECRETARY RUMSFELD APPROVED. DID YOU AGREE WITH ALL OF THE NEW TECHNIQUES APPROVED BY SECRETARY RUMSFELD, I THINK IN DECEMBER OF '02?
00:42:31 Haynes, William OH, YES, SIR. THE ONES THAT HE APPROVED IN SEPTEMBER OF '02, I DID AGREE WITH.
00:42:40 Inhofe, James YOU TALK ABOUT TIERS AND PERCENTAGES RELATED TO THE DIFFERENT TECHNIQUES AND DETAINEES THEY WERE USED. CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO THE COMMITTEE WHICH OF THESE TIERS AND WHAT PERCENTAGES OF DETAINEES THEY WERE USED AGAINST THAT RESULTED FROM THE 2002 MEMO?
00:42:59 Haynes, William SENATOR, I'M NOT SURE I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING --
00:43:02 Inhofe, James OKAY, TALKING ABOUT THE TIERS AND THE PERCENTAGES OF DETAINEES THAT HAD USED THE -- LET ME REPHRASE THAT, WHAT RULES AND REGULATIONS OF GUIDANCE WAS PUT IN PLACE TO THE USE OF THESE TECHNIQUES AT THAT TIME?
00:43:21 Haynes, William WELL, THE -- I BELIEVE BEFORE THE SECRETARY APPROVED THE TECHNIQUES LISTED IN THAT PROPOSAL FROM SOUTHERN COMMAND, I BELIEVE WHAT THE COMMAND WAS USING WAS EXISTING DOCTRINE, WHICH WAS THE OLD ARMY FIELD MANUAL AND THEN WHATEVER THE LAW ENFORCEMENT USED.
00:43:42 Inhofe, James WE HEAR A LOT ABOUT THE CATEGORY THREE TECHNIQUES. ARE YOU -- WERE THESE EVER USED TO GET -- AT GITMO OR DO YOU KNOW?
00:43:54 Haynes, William IF YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE PROPOSAL FROM GUANTANIMO IN THE FALL OF 2002, THERE WERE I BELIEVE FOUR CATEGORY THREE TECHNIQUES, ONLY ONE OF WHICH WAS APPROVED BY THE SECRETARY. AND I'M TOLD THAT WAS NOT USED AT ALL. SO IF THEY DID WHAT THEY WERE AUTHORIZED TO DO, NONE OF THE CATEGORY THREE TECHNIQUES WOULD HAVE BEEN USED.
00:44:17 Inhofe, James MR. HAYNES, LET ME TELL YOU, ONE OF CONCERNS I HAVE AND SEVERAL OF US HAVE ABOUT THE HEARINGS WE'VE HAD ARE HOW THEY CAN BE USED POLITICALLY. I SAW A ONE-HOUR SUPPOSEDLY DOCUMENTARY. I UNDERSTAND THIS DOCUMENTARY'S GOING TO BE SHOWN SOMETIME PRIOR TO THE ELECTION. IT WAS CALLED "TAXI TO THE DARK SIDE." YOU WATCH THIS FOR AN HOUR, GET THE IMPRESSION THAT THE LEADERSHIP OF THE COUNTRY WAS ENCOURAGING TORTURE, THAT OUR TROOPS -- IT'S A REAL SLAM AT THEM, ARE USING IT ON A REGULAR BASIS. I REMEMBER SO VIVIDLY THE LAST SCENE OF THIS MOVIE WAS SOMEONE BEING HUNG UP BY HIS ARMS, THE SHIRT OFF, BEING STABBED WITH ELECTRIC PROBES AND SCREAMING AND ALL OF THAT. THAT WAS JUST A HOLLYWOOD -- JUST LIKE A RAMBO MOVIE. A LOT OF US ARE VERY MUCH CONCERNED THERE IS A LOT OF POLITICAL USE OF THIS THAT I DON'T THINK IS VERY APPROPRIATE. I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE YOU COMMENT ON THE ABUSES AT ABU GHRAIB. WAS THIS SORT OF THING HAPPENING EVERYWHERE SO YOUR KNOWLEDGE? AND IF-IN YOUR FORMER CAPACITY, WERE THE TECHNIQUES THAT WERE USED ABU GHRAIB IN ANY WAY ENCOURAGED, APPROVED, ENDORSED BY SECRETARY RUMSFELD OR ANYONE ELSE IN D.O.D.? TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE?
00:45:46 Haynes, William WELL, THERE ARE A FEW THINGS IN THAT. FIRST OFF, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, NO, THEY WERE NOT ENDORSED OR APPROVED OR EVEN REVIEWED BY ANYONE ABOVE THE CENTRAL COMMAND LEVEL. BUT I THINK IT'S ALSO VERY IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT THAT WHAT MOST PEOPLE THINK ABOUT WHEN THEY THINK ABOUT ABU GHRAIB IS THE ABUSES THAT OCCURRED THAT WERE NOT INTERROGATION AT ALL. AND I SHOULD ADD THAT THESE INCIDENTS HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATED TO A DEGREE PROBABLY GREATER THAN ANY OTHER INCIDENT IN THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT HISTORY. SO THERE A LOT OF DATA ABOUT WHAT DID HAPPEN AND WHAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. AND I THINK IT'S CONSISTENTLY DETERMINED THAT THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT WERE SO WIDELY BROADCAST IN 2003 AND EVEN TO THIS DAY REFLECT NOTHING THAT WAS APPROVED INTERROGATION. IT WAS JUST FLAT OUT ABUSE BY PEOPLE WHO WERE NOT BEING SUPERVISED.
00:46:47 Inhofe, James THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND THAT'S MY FEELINGS EXACTLY. BUT I WOULD ALSO ADD THAT PRIOR TO THE TIME WE HAD OUR VERY FIRST HEARING ON ABU GHRAIB, THE ARMY HAD STARTED CONDUCTING ITS OWN INVESTIGATION, TAKEN SOME STEPS TO DISCIPLINARY ACTION, THAT WAS MY MEMORY.
00:47:06 Haynes, William THANK YOU, SENATOR.
00:47:10 Levin, Carl THANK YOU, SENATOR.
00:47:12 Reed, Jack THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. HAYNES, YOU WERE AWARE OF THE MEMORANDUM PREPARED BY THE SERVICE BRANCHS, WHICH EXPRESSED SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS ABOUT MOST, IF NOT ALL OF THESE TECHNIQUES?
00:47:29 Haynes, William WELL, SENATOR, YOU'RE REFERRING TO --
00:47:32 Reed, Jack MEMORANDUMS THAT THE CHAIRMAN OF JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF.
00:47:36 Haynes, William WELL, LET ME IF I MAY TRY TO GET SOME CLARITY. YOU'RE REFERRING TO A GROUP OF MEMORANDA THAT I DO NOT RECALL SEEING AT THE TIME. I BELIEVE I WAS SHOWN A COUPLE OF THEM WHEN I APPEARED BEFORE YOUR COMMITTEE IN A CLOSE SESSION ABOUT A MONTH AGO AND THAT'S THE FIRST TIME I RECALL SEEING THOSE MEMORANDA. BUT AS I WAS TRYING TO DESCRIBE TO YOU, I DON'T WANT ANYONE TO WALK AWAY FROM MY STATEMENT ABOUT THAT TO SUGGEST THAT I DON'T OR DIDN'T KNOW THERE WERE CONCERNS ABOUT HOW THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT SHOULD INTERROGATE PRISONERS. THAT'S WHAT I WAS YOU PROBABLY MISSED IT, BUT WE HAD A LONG EXCHANGE ABOUT THIS CHRONIC DEBATE ABOUT HOW TO INTERROGATE.
00:48:29 Reed, Jack WELL, I'M LESS CONCERNED ABOUT THIS CHRONIC DEBATE. BUT THE SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF, THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE SERVICES TO COMMENT ON THIS SPECIFIC REM RAN DUMB THAT COLONEL BEAVER PREPARED, THAT WAS THE SUBSTANCE, THE FOUNDATION OF YOUR RECORD THAT THEY PREPARED WRITTEN STATEMENTS EXPRESSING SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS ABOUT ALL THESE TECHNIQUES. AND THIS IS THE OPINION OF AT LEAST FOUR UNIFORMED OFFICERS AND SOME LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL WHO SPENT THEIR CAREERS IN THE UNIFORM OF THE UNITED STATES, BOTH AS LAWYERS AND AS MILITARY PERSONNEL. AND YOU WERE AWARE OF THOSE, BUT YOU WEREN'T CURIOUS ENOUGH TO ASK FOR THEM TO READ?
00:49:19 Haynes, William I DON'T KNOW THAT I WAS WORRIED ENOUGH.
00:49:21 Reed, Jack YOU WERE EITHER WORRIED OR YOU WERE NOT.
00:49:24 Haynes, William I DON'T RECALL BEING AWARE OF ANY PARTICULAR MEMORANDA. NOW, LET ME --
00:49:31 Reed, Jack SO YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE A JUDGMENT ABOUT A VERY SOPHISTICATED JUDGMENT ABOUT THE GENEVA CONVENTION, LAW OF TORTURE, UCMJ, AND YOU'RE AWARE OF A DEBATE GOING ON WITHIN THE SERVICES, WHICH EXPRESSED SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS. BUT YOU HAVE NO -- FORGET LEGAL OBLIGATION, NO INTELLECTUAL CURIOSITY TO ASK WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?
00:49:54 Haynes, William I'VE GOT LOTS OF CURIOSITY, AND I TAKE MY RESPONSIBILITIES AND TOOK MY RESPONSIBILITIES VERY SERIOUSLY. THIS WAS A VERY SERIOUS ISSUE. ABSOLUTELY, THERE WERE A LOT OF FACTORS INVOLVED. VERY IMPORTANT QUESTIONS, INCOLLUDING THE SAFETY OF THE COUNTRY AND THE URGENCY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES TO TRY TO GET INFORMATION FROM THIS INDIVIDUAL WHO WE KNEW --
00:50:21 Reed, Jack NO, NO.
00:50:24 Haynes, William WHO WE KNEW WAS A HI-JACKER ON THE 20th PLANE. WHO CONTINUED TO CLAIM HE WAS A FALCONTER.
00:50:35 Reed, Jack HIS RESPONSIBILITIES INCLUDED MANY OF THE THINGS YOU REFER TO. THE OVERALL DANGER OF THE COUNTRY, IN FACT, YOU COULD VERY CERTAINLY HAD GIVEN HIM AN OPINION IN YOUR VIEW THAT THERE WERE CERTAIN MATTERS WHICH WOULD NOT BE CONSISTENT. HE COULD HAVE OVERRULED YOU. LET'S JUST STICK TO THAT. AND THE OTHER FACTOR HERE IS WHERE IN YOUR MEMORANDUM IS THERE A REFERENCE TO THIS IS RESTRICTED TO THE THIS CASE ONLY?
00:51:03 Haynes, William WELL, YOU CAN READ MY MEMORANDUM?
00:51:05 Reed, Jack I DID, ASK THERE WAS NO SUCH REFERENCE. CATEGORY ONE AND CATEGORY TWO ARE GIVEN A BLANKET APPROVAL. THE ONLY RESERVATION IN CATEGORY THREE IS NOT THAT IT'S ILLEGAL, YOU CLAIM THEY'RE ALL LEGAL, IT'S A MATTER OF POLICY WE WON'T DO A BLANKET. THERE'S NOTHING HERE REFERENCING. AND YOU'RE CONTINUALLY REFERENCING THAT THE ONLY THING YOU WERE CONCERNED ABOUT WAS QUATANI. BY THE WAY, IF THAT WAS THE CASE, I THINK YOUR MEMORANDUM WOULD SAY IN THE CASE OF -- THIS, THIS, AND THIS.
00:51:42 Haynes, William THAT WAS THE CATALYST AND THE PURPOSE.
00:51:44 Reed, Jack BUT THAT'S NOT THE OPINION --
00:51:47 Haynes, William WELL, SENATOR, WE DON'T DO THESE THINGS IN A VACUUM. AND YOU MISSED MY EXCHANGE.
00:51:53 Reed, Jack EXCUSE ME, MR. HAYNES, I THINK YOU DID IT IN A VACUUM. EWE KNEW THERE WAS A DEBATE GOING ON IN THE MILITARY LEGAL OFFICE, YET YOU DID NOT ASK FOR THEIR WRITTEN MEMORANDUM? IN FACT, UNDER DALTON'S TESTIMONY, YOU COMMUNICATED THROUGH GENERAL MYERS THAT SHE SHOULD CEASE HER FORMAL ANALYSIS IN RESPONSE TO THESE CONCERNS. IS THAT ACCURATE?
00:52:18 Haynes, William WELL, I HAVE THE HIGHEST REGARD FOR ADMIRAL DALTON AND I'M SURE WHATEVER SHE SAID IS ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF HER RECOLLECTION. I DON'T HAVE PERFECT RECOLLECTION OF THAT TIME, BUT I ACCEPT HER WORD.
00:52:31 Haynes, William LET ME FINISH, SENATOR, YOU SAID I ACTED IN A VACUUM, THAT IS NOT TRUE. I LOOKED AT THIS HARD, THERE WAS A -- YOU KNOW THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT, YOU'RE A WEST POINT GRADUATE, AND I HAVE THE HIGHEST REGARD FOR YOU, BUT YOU KNOW HOW THAT PLACE WORKS. THERE ARE THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF DECISIONS MADE EVERY DAY. THIS WAS ONE. WAS ONENE THAT CAME IHE COCONTEXT I DESCRED A A MOMEN AGO THTH AN EXTRAORDINARY DEGREE OF URGENCY. MY BOS OF THEECECRETARY OF DEFEEE NEEDED A RECOMMENDATION. ITADAD BEEN SITTING IN THE HEADQUARRSRS FOR A MONTH. WHEN HEHE, THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE SAID I NEED A RECOMMENDATION TO HIS SENIOR, TO HIS SENIOR ADVISORS. ME, THE CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS, THE UNDER SECRETARY OF POLICIES AND OTHERS WHO MET WITH HIM EVERY DAY. I NEED A RECOMMENDATION. I TOOK IT, I LOOKED AT IT, I LOOKED AT THE PACKAGE, LOOK ADD THE THE CIRCUMSTANCES, I MADE A LEGAL JUDGMENT. I RENDERED MY --
00:53:49 Reed, Jack IT DOESN'T REMIND YOU OF WHETHER OR NOT IF YOU TOLD FORMAL ANALYSIS?
00:53:53 Haynes, William I DON'T REMEMBER THAT SPECIFICALLY, BUT SENATOR, LET ME SAY, IT MAKES SENSE TO ME EVEN IN THIS REMOTE TIME. THERE ARE 10,000 LAWYERS IN THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT. THERE HAS BEEN A PORTRAYAL OF THIS EVENT IN THE PRESS AND IN TODAY'S HEARINGS BY SOME PEOPLE AS IF THE MILITARY LAWYERS ALL OBJECTED AND THE CIVILIANS OR SOMEBODY JUST IGNORED THEM. THERE WERE MILITARY LAWYERS WHOSE JOB IT WAS TO ADVISE THOSE PEOPLE IN THAT CHAIN OF COMMAND, THE COMMANDER OF GITMO, SOUTHERN COMMAND, THE CHAIRMANS LAWYER AND ME FOR THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE. THE TESTIMONY EARLIER MENTIONED THE CENTRAL OR THE SOUTHERN COMMAND LAWYER WAS PERHAPS NOT AS INVOLVED AS ME MIGHT HAVE BEEN. BUT THE OTHER THREE PEOPLE IN THE CHAIN OF COMMAND WHOSE JOB IT WAS TO ADVISE THOSE LEADERS LOOKED AT IT CAREFULLY, LOOKED AT IT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE IS A LAW THAT WAS APPLICABLE AT THE TIME. MY JOB IS NOT JUST TO SAY NO, BUT TO SAY WHERE IS THE AREA OF DISCRETION AVAILABLE TO THE CLIENT? AND IN THIS CASE, THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE. AND THAT WAS MY DETERMINATION AND I STANDBY IT.
00:55:13 Reed, Jack WHAT DID YOU RELY UPON? WHAT LEGAL ANALYSIS SPECIFICALLY? NOT JUST THINKING --
00:55:19 Haynes, William WELL, I'LL TRY TO GO THROUGH IT RIGHT NOW. THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, WE BELIEVED UNDER THE CASE DID NOT APPLY AT GUANTANIMO. THE PRESIDENT HAD ALREADY DETERMINED THAT THE GEE NEVA CONVENTIONS DID NOT APPLY TO THE AL QAEDA DETAINEES, THE CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE WOULD APPLY, BUT IT'S NOT A NONSELF-EXECUTING TREATY. THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THAT WAS THE STATUTE PASSED BY THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES SIGNED BE THE PRESIDENT. SO THE PROHIBITION AGAINST TORTURE IN THAT STATUTE APPLIED. AND THE ARTICLE 16 OF THE CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE PROHIBITING OR IMPOSING ON THE UNITED STATES AND UNDERTAKING TO PROHIBIT CRUEL AND INTEGRATING TREATMENT WAS APPLICABLE. THE PRESIDENT'S ORDER TO TREAT DETAINEES HUMANELY WAS A RESTRICTION. AND IN THE APPLICATION OF -- AND THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE TO SOME DEGREE WOULD APPLY, AS WELL. AND THE APPLICATION OF THOSE STRICTURES UNDER THE OPERATING PROCEDURES THAT ALL OF THE DECISION MAKERS AND ADVISORS UNDERSTOOD TO BE APPLICABLE LED ME TO BELIEVE THAT THE SECRETARY HAD THE DISCRETION TO AUTHORIZE THE TECHNIQUES THAT WE RECOMMENDED.
00:56:40 Reed, Jack IF THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE APPLIES, DO YOU AGREE WITH COLONEL BEAVER'S ANALYSIS THAT IT WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 128 TO ENGAGE IN THE POKING AND LIGHT PUSHING?
00:56:54 Haynes, William I DID NOT THINK SO.
00:56:57 Reed, Jack DID YOU MAKE THAT -- ANY CLARIFICATION WHY SHE DIDN'T AGREE?
00:57:01 Haynes, William WELL, I DIDN'T WRITE A MEMORANDUM TO THAT EFFECT?
00:57:05 Reed, Jack DID YOU WRITE ANY?
00:57:06 Haynes, William THAT THAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU. AND THAT WAS ACTUALLY MORE EXPANSIVE THAN THE GENERAL COUNSEL THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE USUALLY DOES IN DECISIONMAKING.
00:57:21 Reed, Jack HOW DID YOU COMMUNICATE THIS DECISION TO GUANTANIMO? DID YOU SEND THEM A COPY?
00:57:26 Haynes, William I DID NOT. AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT ALSO TO NOTE, SENATOR, I'M SURE YOU'LL APPRECIATE THIS. AS THE LAWYER, I WAS NOT THE DECISION-MAKER, I WAS AN ADVISOR. BASED IN PART OF MY ADD VIGS AS WELL AS THE JOINT CHIEF'S ADVICE. AND THE NORMAL TRANSMITTAL OF A DECISION OF THAT NATURE WOULD BE THROUGH THE JOINT STAFF. AND I WOULD ASSUME THAT'S HOW IT WAS --
00:57:51 Reed, Jack SO ONCE THIS SECRETARY SIGNED OFF AND YOU HAD NO FOLLOW-UP ON THIS AT ALL? YOU DON'T KNOW HOW IT WAS COMMUNICATED?
00:57:59 Haynes, William WELL, I WOULD THINK IT WAS COMMUNICATED IN THE NORMAL FASHION.
00:58:03 Reed, Jack WAS THIS MEMORANDUM SENT DOWN?
00:58:08 Haynes, William SENATOR, I DON'T KNOW --
00:58:12 Reed, Jack ADMIRAL DALTON WENT TO GREAT LENGTHS SO SAY THAT HER RECOMMENDATION WAS BASED ON THE CONDITIONS. CAN YOU POINT TO THE CONDITIONS -- HOW WILL THESE COMMUNICATIONS?
00:58:27 Haynes, William THEY'RE NOT IN MY MEM MOE. BUT AS I TOLD YOU, MOST DECISION DOCUMENTS THAT WOULD GO TO THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE I WOULDN'T WRITE NOR WOULD MOST OF THE OTHER STAFF PEOPLE WHO WOULD SIGN ON A BLOCK. WOULD NOT WRITE EXTENSIVE.
00:58:45 Reed, Jack IF THOSE CONDITIONS WERE CENTRAL TO THE LEGALITY OF YOUR ADVICE, WOULDN'T YOU HAVE A LEGAL OBLIGATION TO MAKE THE SECRETARY AWARE OF THEM? DID YOU TELL THE SECRETARY HOW DIFFICULT AND CLOSE A CALL THIS WAS? AND HOW THERE WAS SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE CONCLUSIONS BY SUE BOARD SUBORDINATES AND IF YOU FOLLOW ADMIRAL DALTON'S LOGIC, THAT HIS CONCURRENCE WOULD REQUIRE SIGNIFICANT CONDITIONS HE MUST ALSO APPROVE OR AT LEAST BE AWARE OF?
00:59:18 Haynes, William WELL, SENATOR, YOU'RE ASSUMING SOMETHING THAT'S NOT SO. YOU'RE ASSUMING THAT THERE WERE NO UNDERSTOOD CONDITIONS.
00:59:27 Reed, Jack BY WHOM?
00:59:29 Haynes, William BY EVERYBODY INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS, PEOPLE WHO WERE KNOWLEDGEABLE BY THE PROPOSAL AND HOW IT WOULD BE APPLIED, ALL UNDERSTOOD, WHAT WAS MEANT BY THE PROPOSAL. CAPTAIN DALTON TALKED AT LENGTH ABOUT THAT IN THE PANEL. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WERE HERE TO LISTEN TO IT.
00:59:47 Reed, Jack CAN YOU LIST THE CONDITIONS? COULD YOU LIST THE CONDITIONS THAT AN INTERROGATOR HAD TO FOLLOW?
00:59:53 Haynes, William COULD I LIST THEM?
00:59:54 Reed, Jack YES. THEY WERE CLEAR TO THE INTERROGATORS, CLEAR TO EVERYONE ELSE.
00:59:59 Haynes, William SENATOR, YOU'VE PROBABLY GOT MORE ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS THAN I. IF YOU'D LET ME FINISH, I'D SAY YOU'VE GOT MORE DOCUMENTS THAN I'VE EVER HAD, AND YOU WILL IN THE DOCUMENTS YOU'VE GOT, THE STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES, THE PEOPLE ASSIGNED TO MONITOR -- YOU'VE HAD TESTIMONY EARLIER THERE WERE INTERROGATION PLANS THAT WERE SUPPOSED TO BE DESIGNED FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL DETAINEE WHO WAS TO BE INTERROGATED THAT WOULD INVOLVE A PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW, HAD TO BE A LEGAL REVIEW, HAD TO BE SUBSTANTIAL COMMAND MONITORING. THERE WAS A STEP PROCESS THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO GO THROUGH. THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO STOP IF ANYTHING CAME UP. THERE WERE ALL SORTS OF
01:00:51 Reed, Jack WHERE IN THIS --
01:00:55 Haynes, William NOT TO MENTION, AS YOU KNOW, THE TRAINING AND THE QUALITY OF THE SOLDIERS THAT I THINK THESE QUESTIONS MALIGN.
01:01:03 Reed, Jack I OBJECT STRENUOUSLY TO THAT. YOU DID US A SERVICE TO THE SOLDIERS OF THIS NATION. YOU EMPOWERED THEM TO VIOLATE CONDITIONS THAT EVER SOLDIER RESPECTS. HERE'S WHAT SOLDIERS DO. YOU SAID THE GENEVA CONVENTION DOESN'T APPLY, AND WHAT DOES APPLY? AND THE ONLY THING YOU SENT THEM WAS THESE TECHNIQUES APPLY. NO CONDITIONS, NOTHING. SO DON'T GO AROUND WITH THIS ATTITUDE OF YOU'RE PROTECTING THE INTEGRITY OF THE MILITARY. YOU DEGRADED THE INTEGRITY OF THE MILITARY.
01:01:37 Haynes, William I OBJECT TO THAT AND DISAGREE WITH THAT, AND I WOULD ALSO POINT OUT THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WITH ADVICE TO THE ENTIRE CABINET MADE THE DETERMINATION ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS.
01:01:55 Sessions, Jeff THANK YOU, MR. HAYNES, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. YOU'VE SERVED YOUR COUNTRY IN THE UNIFORM. I KNOW YOUR SON IS ROTC NOW AND SEEKING TO BE A MILITARY OFFICER. I KNOW YOU CARE ABOUT GETTING THIS MATTER RIGHT. BUT I WOULD JUST ASK YOU THIS QUESTION BECAUSE DESPITE WHAT THE ACCUSATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE HERE TODAY AND CRITICISMS AND SECOND GUESSINGS, I THINK THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT IT WAS INTENTIONALLY LEGALLY STUDIED ALL THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS. AND I BELIEVE MR. GOLDSMITH WHO THOUGHT THAT PRESIDENT BUSH WAS TOO AGGRESSIVE IN SOME OF THESE MATTERS AND AFTER HE LEFT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE LEFT A BOOK AND I'LL ASK YOU IF YOU AGREE WITH HIM. MANY PEOPLE BELIEVE THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAD BEEN INDIFFERENT TO THESE LEGAL CONSTRAINTS. IN MY EXPERIENCE, THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE, THE ADMINISTRATION HAS PAID CLOSE ATTENTION TO LAW. DO YOU THINK YOU PAID SCRUPULOUS ATTENTION TO LAW AND TRYING TO GET THIS RIGHT?
01:03:06 Haynes, William EVERY TIME I ACTED I UNDERSTOOD THE ENORMOUS RESPONSIBILITIES OF MY JOB AND TRIED TO DO THAT.
01:03:12 Sessions, Jeff AND HE ALSO WROTE QUOTE MANY PEOPLE THINK THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN INDIFFERENT THROUGH WARTIMES, LEGAL CONSTRAINTS, BUT THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE THAT THE ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN STRANGLED BY LAW AND SINCE SEPTEMBER 11th, 2001, THIS LAW HAS BEEN LAWYERED TO DEATH, CLOSE QUOTE. IS THERE SOME TRUTH IN THAT?
01:03:35 Haynes, William I THINK SO.
01:03:37 Sessions, Jeff AND WITH REGARD TO THESE TECHNIQUES THAT WERE DISCUSSED AND APPROVED. DID YOU SAY THAT MAJOR GENERAL TWO-STAR GENERAL DONNELLY THAT HEADED THE GUANTANIMO TASK FORCE WAS A JUDGE?
01:03:56 Haynes, William HE'S A JUDGE IN CIVILIAN LIFE.
01:03:59 Sessions, Jeff THIS IS A LAWYER AND A JUDGE. AND HE HAS THE ADVICE OF A JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL ATTORNEY ON HIS STAFF. AND THEY CONCLUDED THAT THEY HAD A HIGH VALUED INDIVIDUAL THERE WHO CLAIMED TO BE A FALCONER WHO HAD MET WITH MOHAMMED -- WHO HAD BEEN ARRESTED IN AFGHANISTAN. AND THEY -- THE NORMAL INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES HAD NOT WORKED AND THEY SUBMITTED A REQUEST TO DO ENHANCED TECHNIQUES, IS THAT RIGHT?
01:04:33 Haynes, William YES, SIR.
01:04:35 Sessions, Jeff AND THAT CAME UP THROUGH GENERAL HILL, AND HE'S THE SOUTH COM COMMANDER, A FOUR-STAR GENERAL.
01:04:42 Haynes, William YES, SIR.
01:04:44 Sessions, Jeff AND YOU EVALUATED THE CATEGORIES AND THE REQUESTED TECHNIQUES TECHNIQUES. AND YOU HAD TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.
01:04:53 Sessions, Jeff YOU WERE HIS LAWYER. YOU HAD TO RECOMMEND THAT.
01:04:55 Haynes, William YES, SIR.
01:04:57 Sessions, Jeff NOW, YOU HAD OTHER THINGS ON YOUR PLATE AT THIS TIME TOO, DID YOU NOT?
01:05:01 Haynes, William I DID.
01:05:04 Sessions, Jeff BUT YOU EVALUATED, DID YOU? RUBBER STAMP, ASK YOU, OR DID YOU PAIR BACK IN ANY WAY? THE REQUESTS THEY HAD MADE?
01:05:13 Haynes, William I DID NOT RUBBER STAMP, INDEED I RECOMMENDED THAT ONLY A SUBSET OF THE REQUESTED TECHNIQUES BE APPLIED.
01:05:22 Sessions, Jeff YOU SAY A SUBSET, BUT YOU REJECTED THE CATEGORY FOR TECHNIQUES AND THE CATEGORY THREE TECHNIQUES. SO IT ALL -- I THINK ALL OF THEM. IS THAT CORRECT?
01:05:31 Haynes, William THERE WERE THREE CATEGORY THREE TECHNIQUES THAT I DIDN'T RECOMMEND BE USED.
01:05:39 Sessions, Jeff AND THAT WAS YOUR RECOMMENDATION TO THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE? AND HE APPROVED THAT?
01:05:43 Haynes, William YES, SIR.
01:05:48 Sessions, Jeff NOW, AFTER THAT, IS IT NOT SO THAT OTHER JAG OFFICERS RAISED QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS? AND THE WISDOM OF SOME OF THESE TECHNIQUES IN A WORKING GROUP CAME TOGETHER?
01:05:59 Haynes, William WELL, SIR, THAT REQUIRES SOME EXPLANATION. AS I'VE SAID IN RESPONSE TO SOME OTHER QUESTIONS, THE DIFFICULTY OF THESE ISSUES NEVER ABATED. AND AFTER THE SECRETARY -- IN OTHER WORDS, THERE WAS A DIFFICULT DECISION LEADING UP TO THE ONE THAT THE SECRETARY MADE, AND THEN AFTER -- AFTER THAT DECISION, THAT CONTINUED. INCLUDING IN MY OWN -- THESE ARE NOT EASY QUESTIONS. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT I DID AS YOU SAY AS A RUBBER STAMP OR DID LIGHTLY. I CONTINUE TO STEW ON THAT, FRANKLY. AND I TALK WITH PEOPLE AND I HEARD FROM MR. MORA. MADE SURE THAT I ALERTED THE SECRETARY, HAD DAILY MEETINGS WITH THE SECRETARY AND THE CHAIRMAN AND SO FORTH AND MADE SURE THEY WERE AWARE OF THIS CONTINUING CONCERN. OVER TIME, I WENT BACK FROM TIME TO TIME TO THE SECRETARY AND ULTIMATELY CONVINCED HIM WE NEEDED TO TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT WHAT HE HAD RECOMMENDED OR WHAT HE HAD APPROVED, PARDON ME. AND CONVINCED HIM THAT HE SHOULD RESEND HIS APPROVAL, WHICH HE DID ON THE 12th OF JANUARY, I RECALL. I BELIEVE IT WAS A SUNDAY BECAUSE I GOT A CALL FROM GENERAL HILL. THAT DECISION WAS MEMORIALIZED ON THE 15th OF JANUARY. IN PREPARING THAT RECESSION RESCISSION DOCUMENT, I RECOMMEND HE INSTRUCT ME TO SET UP A WORKING GROUP TO LOOK AT THIS MORE THOROUGHLY, WHICH I DID. AND I DON'T WANT TO TAKE UP ALL OF YOUR TIME, BUT THE POINT IS THAT THERE WAS A VERY, VERY THOROUGH BROAD-GAUGED MULTI-DISCIPLINED LOOK AT HOW, WE THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, SHOULD DEAL WITH THIS PROBLEM GOING FORWARD.
01:08:04 Sessions, Jeff YOU THINK YOU WERE WARE OF THE TENSIONS BETWEEN TOO MUCH AGGRESSIVENESS AND THE NEED TO GET INFORMATION AND THE LET GALTY AND THE TREATIES AND THE LAW AND THE POLICIES OF THE UNITED STATES? YOU FEEL LIKE YOU WERE WRESTLING WITH ALL OF THOSE ISSUES AS YOU MADE THESE DECISIONS IN A FAIR AND OBJECTIVE WAY?
01:08:26 Haynes, William WELL, SIR, LET ME POINT OUT AGAIN. THE DECISION TO EMPLOY PARTICULAR TECHNIQUES WAS NOT MINE TO MAKE. BUT IN THE COURSE OF TRYING TO COME UP WITH RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE SECRETARY, ALL OF THOSE THINGS THAT YOU'VE DESCRIBED WERE IN THE MIX SO TO SPEAK.
01:08:40 Sessions, Jeff YOU CONCLUDED THEY WERE LAWFUL.
01:08:48 Haynes, William WELL, YES, SIR, BUT THE THEY YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW IS A DIFFERENT SET OF INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES THAT THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE APPROVED IN APRIL OF 2003.
01:08:57 Sessions, Jeff OKAY, WELL, LET'S GET THAT STRAIGHT. SO AFTER THE FIRST APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF A NUMBER OF THE REQUESTED TECHNIQUES AND YOU APPROVED A CERTAIN NUMBER, YOU CONTINUE TO LOOK AT THAT AND YOU RECOMMENDED TO THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE THAT SOME OF THOSE NOT BE APPROVED IN THE FUTURE. YOU RESTRICTED FURTHER THE REQUEST OF THE GUANTANIMO TASK FORCE FOR APPROVAL OF TECHNIQUES.
01:09:30 Haynes, William YES, SIR, THAT'S GENERALLY CORRECT. THERE WERE OTHER PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THAT, THAT WAS MY VIEW. NOW, THE PERSON -- TAKE A MOMENT AND EXPLAIN WHAT YOU MEANT WHEN SENATOR REID AND YOU DISCUSSED THE QUESTION OF MEDICAL REVIEW BEING -- THE PEOPLE BEING INTERROGATED, BEING MONITORED FOR MEDICAL REVIEW OR PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW, OR THERE BE A COMMAND REVIEW. AND OF THESE CONDITIONS. AND WHAT ROLE OF APPROVAL DID GENERAL HILL, THE FOUR-STAR COMMANDER OF SOUTH COM, WHAT ROLE DID HE PLAY IN HAVING TO APPROVE THE UTILIZATION OF EXTRAORDINARY TECHNIQUES?
01:10:20 Haynes, William WELL, THERE IS A DOCUMENT THAT LAYS THAT OUT. THAT WAS EMBODYIES THE DECISION IN 2003, THAT LAYS OUT THE APPROVAL LEVELS. SOME THINGS COULD BE DELEGATED, SOME DECISIONS ABOUT INTERROGATION APPROACHES COULD BE DELEGATED BELOW GENERAL HILL, BUT SOME DECISIONS NEEDED TO BE APPROVED BY GENERAL HILL IN THAT CASE.
01:10:51 Sessions, Jeff DID THE INTERROGATORS, WHAT DID THEY REQUIRE -- DID THEY HAVE ON THEM WITH REGARD TO OBSERVING THE PHYSICAL CONDITION OF AN INDIVIDUAL BEING INTERROGATED OR -- DO THEY HAVE TO WATCH OUT FOR THEIR HEALTH? WHAT REQUIREMENTS WERE PLACED ON THAT?
01:11:08 Haynes, William WELL, THAT WAS A FUNDAMENTAL REQUIREMENT. THERE WAS AN OBLIGATION TO SAFEGUARD THE PEOPLE WHO HAD BEEN CAPTURED AND TO KEEP THEM HEALTHY AND SAFE AND SECURE. AND SO THERE WAS THE FUNDAMENTAL HUMANE TREATMENT REQUIREMENT THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD DEMANDED OF THE ARMED FORCES FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE WAR. BUT EVEN DURING THE INTERROGATIONS, OF COURSE, THERE WAS PARTICULAR ATTENTION REQUIRED OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO WERE INVOLVED IN THE INTERROGATIONS INCLUDING MEDICAL CARE AND PSYCHOLOGICAL CARE AS WELL AS THE INTERROGATOR AND LEGAL, LEGAL EVERSIGHT.
01:11:46 Sessions, Jeff AND FAILURE TO DO THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN IN VIOLATION OF MILITARY STANDARDS AND OF THE DIRECT ORDER. NOW, JUST TO SORT OF WRAP THAT UP, THERE WAS A MEMO BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, NOT THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND THAT MEMO HAS BEEN CRITICIZED AND THAT'S THE ONE THAT WAS WITHDRAWN, IS THAT NOT CORRECT? AS GOING TOO FAR?
01:12:14 Haynes, William I BELIEVE YOU'RE REFERRING TO A MEMORANDUM INTERPRETING THE UNITED STATES CODE PROVISION ON TORTURE, PROHIBITING TORTURE. AND IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, THAT MEMORANDUM, THAT LEGAL OPINION WAS RESCINDED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IN THE MIDDLE PART OF 2004 AND REPLACED WITH A DIFFERENT OPINION AT THE END OF 2004.
01:12:45 Sessions, Jeff LET ME JUST POINT, CATEGORY TWO TECHNIQUES THAT YOU APPROVED, POSITION, MAXIMUM FOUR HOURS STANDING. FALSIFIED DOCUMENTS, PRESUMING YOU COULD PRESENT FALSIFIED DOCUMENTS TO ENCOURAGE DISCUSSION OR ISOLATION OR UP TO 30 DAYS ONLY. FEDERAL PRISONERS ARE OFTEN KEPT IN ISOLATION LONGER THAN THAT. NON-STANDARD INTERROGATION, 20-HOUR INTERROGATION PERIOD, PERIODS AND SO FORTH. BUT THE TORTURE STATUTE THAT CONGRESS PASSED IN 1994, '92 TO '98. I JUST DON'T THINK THE THINGS MENTIONED IN THERE ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE CONGRESSIONAL DEFINITION OF TORTURE. I THINK THAT'S WHAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ASH KROFT SAID AT THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, I DIDN'T DEFINE TORTURE, SENATORS YOU DEFINED IT. SO CONGRESS DEFINED TORTURE, DID IT NOT?
01:13:48 Haynes, William YES, SIR, AND THEY USED THE WORDS YOU DESCRIBED.
01:13:53 Sessions, Jeff VERY PHYSICAL PAIN OR SUFFERING.
01:13:56 Sessions, Jeff THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD CONCLUDE AND SAY I'M NOT SURE WE GOT IT RIGHT. I KNOW PRESIDENT BUSH WAS CONCERNED ABOUT AMERICA, I KNOW HE WAS DETERMINED TO GET BETTER INTELLIGENCE AS WE ALL WERE. I'M NOT SURE WE'VE YET FIGURED IT OUT PRECISELY. BUT I OBJECT STRENUOUSLY TO THE SUGGESTION THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE WENT OUT WITH A POLICY OF RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR LAW AND SYSTEMATICALLY ABUSING PRISONERS, AND THOSE IN ABU GHRAIB WHO WERE NOT PART OF AN INTERROGATION, BUT REALLY ABUSED PRISONERS, MANY OF THEM WENT TO JAIL, TRIED AND CONVICTED IN THE MILITARY COURT-MARTIAL. SO I WANT TO EMPHASIZE IT'S NEVER BEEN OUR POLICY TO TORTURE OUR PEOPLE. THE DEFINITION OF WHAT'S PERMISSIBLE, WE CAN ALL AGREE OR DISAGREE. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.
01:14:56 Graham, Lindsey AS WE CONCLUDE HERE, AT LEAST MY PART OF IT WILL BE CONCLUDED, I WOULD LIKE TO GO THROUGH SOME SCENARIOS HERE AND MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOUR TESTIMONY IS. ACCORDING TO THE FBI IN OCTOBER-NOVEMBER TIME FRAME 2002, BEFORE THE RUMSFELD MEMO WAS APPROVED, FBI AGENTS INDICATED THEY WITNESSED INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES AGAINST THE 20th HI-JACKER, THAT INCLUDED MAKING HIM PRAY TO AN IDOL SHRINE, ABUSIVE CONDUCT. INCLUDING HAVING A DOG USED IN INTERROGATION. THAT'S WHAT THE SCHMITT-FURLOW REPORT REVEALED THAT YOUR TESTIMONY THAT SECRETARY RUMSFELD NEITHER SECRETARY RUMSFELD OR YOURSELF NEVER APPROVED ANY SUCH TECHNIQUES FOR THE 20th HI-JACKER.
01:16:00 Haynes, William THAT, I TELL YOU TODAY THAT TO MY KNOWLEDGE THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF THAT.
01:16:05 Graham, Lindsey THAT'S ALL I'M ASKING.
01:16:06 Haynes, William NOR DID I.
01:16:08 Graham, Lindsey THAT'S ALL I'M ASKING.
01:16:10 Haynes, William AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT GENERAL SCHMITT CONCLUDED IN HIS REPORT.
01:16:19 Graham, Lindsey NOW, THE -- THE GENERAL COUNSEL FOR THE NAVY CAME WITH YOU WITH CONCERNS BEFORE THE MEMO WAS SIGNED IN DEFENSE DECEMBER OR AFTER?
01:16:30 Haynes, William AFTER.
01:16:31 Graham, Lindsey DID HE THREATEN I WILL DRAFT UP A MEMO AND I WILL GO PUBLIC ABOUT THIS?
01:16:37 Haynes, William WELL, I'VE HEARD -- I THINK I HEARD HIM SAY THAT TODAY. AND I'VE SEEN ACCOUNTS OF THAT. I DON'T REMEMBER THAT EXCHANGE. I REMEMBER HIM COMING IN AT LEAST TWICE. VERY PASSIONATELY AND UNDERSTANDABLY CONCERNED BECAUSE HE HAD BEEN HEARING THINGS. AND IN EACH CASE, MY RECOLLECTION IN EACH CASE -- I LISTENED TO HIM, I REPORTED UP THE WHICH CHAIN, AND I ASKED CAPTAIN DALTON TO LOOK INTO IT TO SEE WHETHER THERE WAS ANYTHING GOING ON.
01:17:13 Graham, Lindsey IT'S YOUR TESTIMONY THAT HIS -- HE'S SAYING TODAY AND OTHER DAYS THAT HE HAD TO THREATEN THE RELEASE OF A OPINION, HIS OPINION ABOUT THESE INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES TO THE PUBLIC AT LARGE AND IT WOULD LOOK BAD FOR THE ADMINISTRATION THAT HE FELT COMPELLED TO GO ON THE RECORD SO TO SPEAK ABOUT THIS. THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU REVISITING THE DECEMBER MEMO?
01:17:43 Haynes, William THERE'S AN ASSUMPTION THAT I'M NOT REJECTING OR ACCEPTING. I DON'T REMEMBER THAT PARTICULAR EDGE TO THE DISCUSSIONS.
01:17:49 Graham, Lindsey FROM DECEMBER TO JANUARY, I BELIEVE IT IS, WHEN WAS THE MEMO
01:17:56 Haynes, William THERE ARE TWO SIGNIFICANT DATES. THE 12th OF JANUARY WHEN THERE
01:18:03 Graham, Lindsey OKAY.
01:18:05 Haynes, William AND THE 15th OF JANUARY WHEN THERE WAS A WRITING.
01:18:08 Graham, Lindsey I GOT YOU FROM DECEMBER THE 2nd I THINK WHEN HE APPROVED THE MEMO UNTIL JANUARY THE 12th. WHAT HAPPENED IN THAT INTERVENING PERIOD TO MAKE YOU RECOMMEND TO HIM WE NEED TO TAKE THIS THING OFF THE TAKE TABLE?
01:18:28 Haynes, William ALL THROUGH THIS PERIOD I HAD MY OWN MISGAVINGS. SO IT'S HARD TO IDENTIFY A SINGLE THING.
01:18:39 Graham, Lindsey BUT YOUR TESTIMONY IS THAT CERTAINLY YOU DON'T RECALL THAT IT WAS THE THREAT THAT MR. MORA MADE ABOUT GOING PUBLIC IF
01:18:48 Haynes, William I DON'T RECALL HIM DOING THAT, I DO RECALL HIM BEING VERY PASSIONATE ABOUT HIS OBJECTION TO WHAT WAS APPROVED. BUT SIR, I WANT TO BE RESPONSIVE. I ALSO HEARD --
01:19:04 Graham, Lindsey THAT'S A PRETTY QUICK TURN AROUND FROM DECEMBER THE 2nd TO JANUARY 12th. SOMETHING HAD TO HAVE HAPPENED THAT WAS FAIRLY EARTH SHATTERING TO CREATE A POLICY AND HAVE IT RESCINDED, YOU KNOW, SIX WEEKS LATER.
01:19:17 Haynes, William NO, SIR. I'VE TRIED TO -- I'VE TRIED TO IMPART THE CHRONIC AND VERY INTENSE PASSION ABOUT HOW ONE GOES ABOUT DOING THIS. AND IT'S ONE OF THE REASONS THAT I FETE VERY FELT VERY STRONGLY THAT THE SECRETARY OUGHT TO GET THIS WORKING GROUP WITH ALL OF THE PLAYERS INVOLVED. THERE WERE SO MANY COMPETING CONCERNS.
01:19:42 Graham, Lindsey THAT'S RIGHT. NOW DID THE WORKING GROUP THAT WAS FORMED EVER REVIEW THE FINAL PRODUCT THAT WAS LATER APPROVED?
01:19:51 Haynes, William WELL, WE'VE HAD -- YOU AND I HAVE HAD A DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS IN ANOTHER CONTEXT WHERE I THINK WE WERE TALKING PAST EACH OTHER. I CAN TELL YOU GREAT DETAIL ABOUT THAT. BUT LET ME TELL YOU WHAT MY RECOLLECTION WAS BRIEFLY. AND THE ANSWER WAS --
01:20:08 Graham, Lindsey WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT THAT WAY. I'M TIRED OF DOING IT THAT WAY. HERE'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO. WE'RE GOING TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS.
01:20:15 Haynes, William OKAY.
01:20:16 Graham, Lindsey THE POINT OF THE MATTER IS THAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE TESTIFIED THAT THEY WERE ASSEMBLED, GIVEN INPUT, A MEMO WAS ISSUED THEY NEVER SAW AND THEY DIDN'T FIND OUT ABOUT IT UNTIL A YEAR LATER. ARE THEY CORRECT WHEN THEY SAY THAT.
01:20:36 Haynes, William I DON'T HAVE FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THAT. MY UNDERSTANDING THEN --
01:20:39 Graham, Lindsey IF THERE'S SO MUCH PASSION ABOUT THIS AND EVERYBODY'S SO UPSET, YOU CAN'T VERIFY THE FACT THAT THE WORKING GROUP GOT TO LOOK AT THE FINAL PRODUCT?
01:20:50 Haynes, William WELL, I THOUGHT THEY DID. I THOUGHT THEY DID.
01:20:53 Graham, Lindsey WELL, THEY SAY THEY DIDN'T.
01:20:55 Haynes, William WELL, AND I WROTE A LETTER --
01:20:56 Graham, Lindsey WHERE DID ALL OF THE PASSION GO?
01:20:59 Haynes, William I DON'T KNOW HOW TO ANSWER THAT.
01:21:01 Graham, Lindsey WHERE DID YOUR PASSION GO?
01:21:04 Haynes, William WELL, MY PASSION WAS TO TRY TO GET THE SECRETARY SOME GOOD COUNSEL. AND WHAT THIS WORKING GROUP DID, WHICH I THINK WAS A GREAT EXERCISE OF GOVERNMENT, FRANKLY.
01:21:17 Graham, Lindsey FROM THEIR POINT OF VIEW WAS THEY WERE ASSEMBLED TO GIVE INPUT AND THEY READ ABOUT IN THE PAPER ABOUT WHAT THE FINAL PRODUCT WAS. THAT'S WHAT THEY'VE TESTIFIED UNDER OATH. THAT THESE GUYS HAD NO CLUE AND GALS HAD NO CLUE OF WHAT THE FINAL PRODUCT WAS. THEY WERE BROUGHT IN TO BE PART OF A WORKING GROUP. AND THEY READ IN THE PAPER A YEAR LATER -- AND THEY LOOKED AT IT AND STILL HAD CONCERNS.
01:21:42 Haynes, William I WASN'T B RUNNING THE WORKING GROUP, BUT I WILL TELL YOU THAT THE ENTIRE LEADERSHIP OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FELT LIKE THE WORK OF THE WORKING GROUP LED TO A VERY GOOD RESULT. AND WHEN I TALK ABOUT -- I'M NOT JUST TALKING ABOUT THE SECRETARY OR THE CHAIRMAN, BUT THE CHIEFS AND THE SERVICE SECRETARIES WHO ADVISED --
01:22:02 Graham, Lindsey ALL DUE RESPECT, I KNOW YOU HAD A DIFFICULT JOB. A LOT OF THIS IS UNCERTAIN. I'M WORRIED ABOUT THE PROCESS. THE PROCESS IS CLEAR THAT THE WORKING GROUP WAS FORMED BECAUSE YOU GOT CRITICISM AND YOU HAD TO DEAL WITH THAT CRITICISM AND YOU DID RESCIND THE MEMO, TO YOUR CREDIT YOU DID THAT. BUT THE WORKING GROUP NEVER REALLY GOT TO SEE THE FINAL PRODUCT. AND I'M NOT SO SURE THAT'S MUCH OF A WORKING GROUP. LET'S GO BACK TO THE DECEMBER 2nd MEMO. ONE OF THE TECHNIQUES THE CATEGORY THREE TECHNIQUES THAT WERE NEVER USED WAS WATERBOARDING, IS THAT CORRECT? WATERBOARDING WAS A CATEGORY THREE TECHNIQUE?
01:22:45 Haynes, William I THINK IT WAS DESCRIBED AS CLOTH WITH WATER DRIPPED ON IT. I'VE NEVER REALLY UNDERSTOOD WHAT THAT TECHNIQUE WAS. BUT IT WAS NOT APPROVED.
01:22:55 Graham, Lindsey DO YOU THINK THAT'S LEGAL? WOULD THAT VIOLATE THE UCMJ? FOR ONE OF OUR -- COUPLE OF OUR MILITARY PERSONNEL, GRAB SOMEBODY, HOLD THEM DOWN, PUT A CLOTHE OVER THEIR FACE AND SIMULATE DROWNING?
01:23:09 Haynes, William AS WE SIT HERE TODAY, ABSOLUTELY YES, IT WOULD BE ILLEGAL.
01:23:15 Graham, Lindsey OKAY.
01:23:17 Haynes, William AT THE TIME, I DON'T KNOW.
01:23:18 Graham, Lindsey OKAY.
01:23:19 Haynes, William BUT THE LAW IS VERY CLEAR NOW.
01:23:22 Graham, Lindsey YOU DON'T THINK IT WAS CLEAR THEN THAT WATERBOARDING A PRISON WAS A VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 128 IN MALTREATMENT OF PRISONER ARTICLE?
01:23:33 Haynes, William I DIDN'T REACH THAT QUESTION.
01:23:34 Graham, Lindsey THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. I KNOW YOU WERE DEALT A DIFFICULT HAND. AND MR. CHAIRMAN, I APPRECIATE THIS HEARING. AND I GUESS THE THING THAT I'M LEFT WITH IS THAT THERE CERTAINLY WAS AN ATTITUDE THAT WE MAY BE ATTACKED AGAIN AND PEOPLE WERE RIGHTLY CONCERNED AND THE LAW TOOK ON THE VIEW OF BEING AN IMPEDIMENT TO OUR SAFETY NOT OUR STRENGTH. AND I THINK WHAT GOT US TO THIS PROBLEM GOT US IN THIS MESS WAS THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE SAW THE LAWS THAT REGULATED CONDUCT WERE A -- MADE US MORE AT RISK, NOT SAFE. AND I GUESS WE'VE LEARNED. AND WE'VE LEARNED ANYTHING FROM THIS THAT WHEN THE LAW IN THIS OR THE RULE OF LAW IN THIS WAR IS A STRENGTH, NOT A WEAKNESS. AND NOW I THINK WE'VE GOT IT RIGHT AND I APPRECIATE THOSE WHO ARE TRYING TO DO THIS EARLY ON AFTER 9/11. IT IS CLEAR TO ME, MR. CHAIRMAN, THE MEMO WAS NEVER LIMITED TO ONE PERSON. IT IS CLEAR TO ME THAT THESE TECHNIQUES DO ENCOMPASS TECHNIQUES THAT WE WERE DEFENDING AGAINST AND BECAME AN OFFENSIVE WEAPON. IT IS CLEAR TO ME THEY MIGRATED ALL OVER THE MILITARY, AND IT IS CLEAR TO ME THAT WE CREATED CONFUSION FOR THOSE RECEIVER SERVING THIS COUNTRY AND IT WAS ONE OF THE GREAT TRAGEDIES OF AFTER 9/11 THAT WE ALLOWED OUR ENEMY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS SITUATION BECAUSE THEY SURELY HAVE. IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE US SAFE AND TO CONQUER OUR ENEMY, I THINK FOR A PERIOD OF TIME, WE COULD NOT HAVE DONE MORE TO HELP THEM BY CREATING THIS CONFUSION AND THIS MESS. IN THAT REGARD, THESE HEARINGS HAVE BEEN HELPFUL.
01:25:28 Levin, Carl THANK YOU, SENATOR GRAHAM. MR. HAYNES, I WANT TO GO BACK NOW TO OCTOBER 2002. THIS IS WHEN THE GUANTANIMO REQUEST WAS FORWARDED BY GENERAL HILL OF THE JOINT CHIEFS. ON OCTOBER 30th, GENERAL MYERS CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS CIRCULATED THAT QUESTION FROM GITMO TO THE MILITARY SERVICES FOR A COMMENT. I WANT TO GO THROUGH THOSE MILITARY SERVICES. TAB 12, THAT'S NOVEMBER 7th, 2002 MEMORANDUM FROM THE ARMY. PARAGRAPH TWO, THE MEMORANDUM SAYS THE ARMY INNER POSES SIGNIFICANT LEGAL POLICY AND PRACTICAL CONCERNS REGARDING MOST OF CATEGORY TWO AND ALL OF CATEGORY THREE TECHNIQUES. WERE YOU AWARE THAT THE ARMY HAD CONCERNS WITH THOSE TECHNIQUES?
01:26:31 Haynes, William SENATOR, I THINK I TESTIFIED TO THIS. I DON'T RECALL SEEING THIS MEMORANDUM BEFORE, AND I'M NOT EVEN SURE THIS IS ONE I'VE SEEN BEFORE. BUT YOU --
01:26:42 Levin, Carl WERE YOU AWARE AT THE TIME?
01:26:44 Haynes, William I DON'T RECALL SEEING THE MEMORANDUM AND DON'T RECALL SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS OF THIS NATURE.
01:26:49 Levin, Carl THE NEXT PAGE ON THAT TAB 12 IS A MEMO FROM THE CHIEF ARMY OPERATION. IT SAYS STRESS POSITIONS, DEPRIVATION OF LIGHT AND AUDITORY STIMULI, THE USE OF PHOBIAS TO INDUCE STRESS CROSSES THE LINE OF HUMANE TREATMENT AND WOULD LIKELY BE CONSIDERED MALTREATMENT AND MAY VIOLATE THE TORTURE STATUTE. WERE YOU AWARE OF THE ARMY'S OPERATION, THAT THEY HAD CONCERNS WITH THESE TECHNIQUES?
01:27:17 Haynes, William I'M SORRY, I LOST YOU, IS THIS THE THIRD?
01:27:20 Levin, Carl MEMO FROM THE CHIEF OF THE ARMY'S INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONAL DIVISION.
01:27:28 Haynes, William IS THAT THE ONE WITH I.O. AT THE TOP?
01:27:31 Levin, Carl YES, TAB 12.
01:27:33 Haynes, William THE THIRD ONE AT TAB 12. I'M SORRY AND YOUR QUESTION IS WAS I AWARE --
01:27:38 Levin, Carl WERE YOU AWARE?
01:27:39 Haynes, William I DON'T RECALL SEEING THIS MEMORANDUM.
01:27:45 Levin, Carl TAB 11 IS A MEMO FROM THE CHIEF LEGAL AID VISOR. CERTAIN CATEGORY TWO TECHNIQUES QUOTE MAY SUBJECT SERVICE MEMBERS TO PUNITIVE ARTICLES OF THE UCMJ, CLOSE QUOTE, CALLED THE QUOTE UTILITY QUESTIONABLE. THAT'S TAB 11. WERE YOU AWARE THAT THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE TASK FORCE HAD CONCERNS WITH THOSE TECHNIQUES?
01:28:11 Haynes, William THIS IS AN ASSIGNED THING WITH TAB 11. IS IT A THREE-PAGE DOCUMENT?
01:28:18 Levin, Carl TAB 11.
01:28:20 Haynes, William I'M AT TAB 11, BUT YOU READ A BUNCH OF THINGS I CAN'T FIND, SO. AM I LOOKING AT THE RIGHT DOUM DOCUMENT?
01:28:31 Haynes, William WELL, I DON'T RECALL SEEING THIS DOCUMENT.
01:28:35 Levin, Carl ALL RIGHT, TAB 10, SAYS THE AIR FORCE HAS SERIOUS CONCERNS REGARDING THE LEGALITY OF THE PROPOSED TECH TECHNIQUES, THAT'S IN QUOTE STATING THE TECHNIQUE MAY BE SUBJECT TO CHALLENGES OUTLINED IN THE MILITARY ORDERED TREAT DETAINEES HUMANELY. ARE YOU AWARE THE AIR FORCE HAD THOSE CONCERNS WITH THOSE TECHNIQUES?
01:28:57 Haynes, William I DON'T RECALL SEEING THIS MEMORANDUM EITHER.
01:29:01 Levin, Carl WERE YOU AWARE OF THEIR CONCERNS?
01:29:03 Haynes, William I DON'T RECALL SPECIFIC CONCERNS. I TOLD THE PANEL, SIR, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I KNEW THERE WERE CONCERNS. I DON'T RECALL THESE AND I DON'T RECALL SEEING THESE MEMORANDUMS.
01:29:14 Levin, Carl TAB 14 IS THE MARINE CORPS RESPONSE. MIND YOU, THEY'RE RESPONDING NOW TO A REQUEST. THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF TO COMMENT ON A RECOMMENDATION FOR TREATMENT RELATIVE TO TREATMENT OF DETAINEES. EACH ONE OF THE SERVICES NOW RESPONDING. TAB 14'S THE MARINE CORPS. SAYS IN THE THIRD FULL PARAGRAPH, QUOTE SEVERAL OF THE CATEGORY TWO AND THREE TECHNIQUES VIOLATE FEDERAL LAW, WOULD EXPOSE OUR SERVICE MEMBERS TO POSSIBLE CONTRIBUTION. WERE YOU AWARE OF THE MARINE CORPS'S CONCERNS?
01:29:48 Haynes, William I BELIEVE I'VE ANSWERED THAT BEFORE. I DON'T REMEMBER SEEING IT.
01:29:59 Levin, Carl OKAY. DO YOU RECALL ELIANA DAVIDSON WHO WORKED IN YOUR OFFICE SAYING SHE BELIEVED IT REQUIRED FURTHER
01:30:06 Haynes, William I DON'T RECALL.
01:30:07 Levin, Carl DO YOU KNOW WHO SHE IS?
01:30:09 Haynes, William ABSOLUTELY.
01:30:10 Levin, Carl YOU DON'T RECALL HER TELLING YOU THERE WAS FURTHER ASSESSMENT
01:30:14 Haynes, William I DON'T RECALL THAT SPECIFICALLY, BUT THERE WAS A LONG PERIOD OF TIME AND WE DID FURTHER ASSESSING. SO MAYBE SHE SAID THAT AT THE BEGINNING AND MAYBE WE DID IT.
01:30:35 Levin, Carl NOW -- BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, SIGNED AN ORDER APPROVING THESE ALL THE CATEGORY TWO AND SOME OF CATEGORY THREE TECHNIQUES, THE SERVICE'S LAWYERS LET YOUR OFFICE KNOW THAT THEY HAD SERIES SERIOUS PROBLEMS WITH THAT REQUEST. YOU VAGUELY REMEMBER THERE MAY HAVE BEEN SOMETHING BUT APPARENTLY YOU NEVER TOOK THE TIME TO ASK FOR THOSE DOCUMENTS? AND YET WHEN YOU WERE ASKED DID YOU PAY SCRUPULOUS ATTENTION TO THE LAW, YOU STUDIOUSLY IGNORED THE MEMOS FROM THE LAWYERS OF THE SERVICES THAT CAME TO YOUR OFFICE. YOU STUDIOUSLY IGNORED THEM.
01:31:22 Haynes, William I DISAGREE WITH THAT CHARACTERIZATION.
01:31:25 Levin, Carl AND THEN YOU CUT OFF THE REVIEW, WHICH YOU'D BEEN REQUESTED AND THAT ADMIRAL DALTON WAS CARRYING OUT. NOW, I DON'T KNOW HOW ANYBODY CAN TESTIFY THAT YOU PAID ATTENTION TO THE LAW WHEN YOU IGNORED THE LAWYERS IN THE SERVICES WHO BROUGHT TO YOUR OFFICE THESE CONCERNS. AND THEN WHEN THERE WAS A REVIEW GOING ON BY AN ATTORNEY FOR THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF, YOU SENT THE WORD, WHICH YOU DON'T DOUBT THAT YOU WANTED THAT REVIEW STOPPED. THAT IS NOT STUDIOUS ATTENTION. IT'S QUITE THE OPPOSITE. IT IS CONSIDERATION OF ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT LEGAL DECISIONS WHICH THIS COUNTRY HAS MADE. AND THAT IS HOW TO TREAT DETAINEES. AND THE ERRORS THAT RESULT IN THOSE OPINIONS HAVE CAUSED THIS COUNTRY TREMENDOUS SECURITY DAMAGE. SO NOW I'M GOING TO ASK YOU THIS QUESTION.
01:32:28 Haynes, William MAY I RESPOND TO YOUR COMMENT?
01:32:31 Levin, Carl I'M GOING TO ASK YOU A QUESTION AND THEN YOU'RE MORE THAN FREE TO DO IT. DO YOU AGREE YOU CUT OFF THE DALTON REVIEW IN THE MIDDLE?
01:32:41 Haynes, William I DON'T REMEMBER DOING THAT.
01:32:44 Levin, Carl HOW OFTEN HAVE YOU EVER CUT OFF REVIEW? HOW MANY TIMES HAS THIS HAPPENED?
01:32:49 Haynes, William WELL, SENATOR, SENATOR WHAT SHE -- WHAT I HEARD HER SAY WAS THAT WE RESTRICTED THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE INVOLVED.
01:32:57 Levin, Carl NO --
01:32:59 Haynes, William THAT'S WHAT I HEARD HER SAY.
01:33:00 Levin, Carl SHE SAID SHE STOPPED THE BROAD REVIEW. THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID. AND IT HAD NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE OR AFTER AS FAR AS SHE KNOWS. THIS IS THE ONE TIME THAT HAD EVER HAPPENED AS FAR AS SHE KNOWS AND THIS IS THE ONE TIME WHERE YOU INTERVENED AND YOU DON'T DOUBT THIS, APPARENTLY. TO STOP THAT REVIEW.
01:33:19 Haynes, William WELL, I DON'T REMEMBER.
01:33:21 Levin, Carl THAT IS NOT PAYING ATTENTION TO THE LAW.
01:33:23 Haynes, William WELL, SENATOR --
01:33:32 Levin, Carl THAT IS MAKE SURE WHAT WE'RE DOING COMPORTS WITH THE LAW.
01:33:37 Haynes, William I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT CHARACTERIZATION. THERE ARE PLENTY OF EXAMPLES OF RESTRICTING PEOPLE WHO HAVE A NEED TO KNOW --
01:33:42 Levin, Carl OF COURSE, THAT'S NOT WHAT SHE WAS TESTIFYING. SHE WAS TESTIFYING TO A REVIEW THAT SHE WAS TAKING PLACE -- A BROAD REVIEW TAKING PLACE FOR THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF AT THEIR REQUEST, SHE SAID SHE HAD NEVER HAD THAT KIND OF A REQUEST STOP IN THE MIDDLE. BEFORE SHE NEVER KNOWS OF IT HAPPENING AFTERWARDS. AND THEN YOU SAY, THEN YOU HAVE TO ME THE AUDACITY TO SAY THAT ALL OF THIS IS CAUSED BECAUSE THERE ARE TWO GROUPS THAT ARE IN CONFLICT. TWO GROUPS IN CONFLICT, ONE ARE THE LAW ENFORCEMENT PEOPLE AND THE OTHER ARE THE PEOPLE WHO WANT INFORMATION FROM INTERROGATION, IGNORING THE THIRD GROUP, WHICH YOU IGNORED IN NOVEMBER. IT'S THE THIRD GROUP YOU IGNORED. AND THAT THIRD GROUP WERE THE LAWYERS FOR THE MILITARY. THE MILITARY SERVICES TO YOUR OFFICE WHILE THIS WAS UNDER REVIEW SENT THOSE MEMOS RAISING ALL KINDS OF RED FLAGS, AND YOU IGNORED THEM? YOU DON'T REMEMBER SEEING THEM? AND THEN, WHEN THAT BROAD REVIEW WAS BEING TAKEN -- TAKING PLACE BY ADMIRAL DALTON, NOW HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT THERE'S ONLY TWO GROUPS HERE THAT ARE INVOLVED? AND THIS IS TENSION BETWEEN TWO GROUPS. ON THE ONE HAND THE LAW ENFORCEMENT FOLKS, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE PEOPLE WHO ARE DOING THE INTERROGATION WHO WANT INFORMATION. WHEN THERE'S THAT THIRD GROUP THAT SENT TO YOUR OFFICE AND WE HAVE TESTIMONY TODAY THAT YOUR OFFICE WAS DEFINITELY SENT THOSE MEMOS AND YOUR STAFF HAD DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THOSE MEMOS BUT THE PEOPLE WHO SENT YOU THOSE MEMOS. HOW DO YOU IGNORE THAT THIRD GROUP OF THOSE SERVICES AND THEIR LAWYERS WHO RAISED THOSE RED FLAGS. WHY AREN'T THEY IN YOUR EQUATION?
01:35:44 Haynes, William LET ME MAKE AT THE OUTSET MY VIGOROUS DISAGREEMENT WITH YOUR CHARACTERIZATION.
01:35:47 Levin, Carl HOW DO YOU IGNORE THE PRESENCE OF THOSE LAWYERS?
01:35:49 Haynes, William JUST SO WE UNDERSTAND,
01:35:50 Levin, Carl I'M SURE.
01:35:53 Haynes, William I DISAGREE.
01:35:54 Levin, Carl NOW MY QUESTION. NOW MY QUESTION.
01:36:00 Haynes, William I DID NOT IGNORE CONCERNS. I ADDRESSED CONCERNS THAT -- OF THE LEGALITY. THERE HAS TO BE A DECISION-MAKER. THAT WAS THE JOB OF THE GENERAL COUNSELOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE WHEN YOU HAVE MULTIPLE DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES AND OPINIONS. WHEN YOU HAVE SHORT PERIOD OF TIME, WHEN YOU HAVE A NOVEL SITUATION. I MADE A DECISION, I DID NOT IGNORE ANYTHING, IT WAS MY PRACTICE TO BE AS OPEN AS I POSSIBLY COULD. NOW, THERE ARE PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS TO THAT. THERE IS OTHER, THERE IS TIME, THERE IS CLASSIFICATION, THERE'S VOLUME, THERE'S CERTAIN AMOUNT OF REDUNDANCY WHEN ONE SEES DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES REPLAYED FROM TIME TO TIME. I'VE NEVER DENIED THERE WERE DISAGREEMENTS, INCLUDING LEGAL DISAGREEMENTS.
01:37:02 Levin, Carl WHAT YOU HAVE DENIED IS SEEING THEM. ASKING, REMEMBERING THEM --
01:37:07 Haynes, William SENATOR, IF I MAY FINISH.
01:37:08 Levin, Carl YOU MAY FINISH, BUT ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS.
01:37:11 Haynes, William I TOLD YOU I DON'T REQUIRE SEEING THESE THINGS.
01:37:15 Levin, Carl YOU DID IGNORE THEM.
01:37:18 Haynes, William IF I DIDN'T SEE THEM, I DIDN'T IGNORE THEM.
01:37:21 Levin, Carl YOU KNEW THERE WERE CONCERNS. WHY NOT ASK TO SEE THE MEMOS?
01:37:25 Haynes, William I TOLD YOU I DIDN'T KNOW THEY EXISTED.
01:37:27 Levin, Carl YOU DIDN'T KNOW THOSE MEMOS EXISTED?
01:37:30 Haynes, William SENATOR, I DON'T RECALL SEEING THEM AND I DON'T RECALL KNOWING ABOUT THE MEMORANDA. THIS WAS SIX YEARS AGO. I PROBABLY SAW MILLIONS AND MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF PAGES OF INFORMATION OVER THE SEVEN YEARS I SERVED IN THAT JOB. AND SO FOR YOU TO SUGGEST THAT BECAUSE I DIDN'T SEE EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF PAPER THAT A LAWYER MIGHT HAVE EXPRESSED A VIEW ON AN ISSUE IS IGNORING IT, I THINK IS AN UNFAIR CHARACTERIZATION.
01:38:02 Levin, Carl I THINK IT'S VERY FAIR, I THINK IT'S RIGHT ON TARGET. YOU INDICATED A FEW MOMENTS AGO YOU HAD MISGIVINGS YOURSELF.
01:38:12 Haynes, William SURE, I STILL DO.
01:38:14 Levin, Carl HAVE YOU EVER EXPRESSED THAT BEFORE TODAY? PUBLICLY?
01:38:17 Haynes, William OH, SURE.
01:38:19 Levin, Carl THAT YOU HAD MISGIVINGS ABOUT THAT OPINION?
01:38:21 Haynes, William WELL, I DON'T KNOW.
01:38:23 Levin, Carl I DON'T EITHER.
01:38:25 Haynes, William BUT I TELL YOU, THIS IS A VERY HARD QUESTION.
01:38:27 Levin, Carl IT IS VERY HARD. IT'S A VERY HARD QUESTION.
01:38:30 Haynes, William BUT IT'S MORE --
01:38:32 Levin, Carl IT HAS A VERY CRITICALLY IMPORTANT ANSWER. AND I JUST WANT TO -- I WANT TO REPEAT, YOU SAID THERE'S TWO GROUPS. AND THEN I'M GOING TO TURN THIS OVER. YOU SAID THERE'S TWO GROUPS OUT THERE THAT CAUSED THIS TENSION. YOU HAVEN'T ANSWERED MY QUESTION ABOUT THAT THIRD GROUP. THE MILITARY SERVICES WHO TOLD YOUR OFFICE AND MEMO AFTER MEMO AFTER MEMO, ALL FOUR SERVICES THEY WANTED MUCH MORE ANALYSIS, THEY HAD GREAT CONCERNS ABOUT THIS, IT MAY OPEN UP THEIR TROOPS AND THEIR MEN AND WOMEN TO LEGAL ACTION INCLUDING CRIMINAL ACTION, THAT CAME TO YOUR OFFICE. CONCERNS OF THE MILITARY SERVICES THAT THEIR PEOPLE MAY BE SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL ACTION AND YOU SAY THAT, GEE, I DON'T REMEMBER IF I SAW THOSE, I DON'T REMEMBER. AND GOSH, THAT'S THE THIRD GROUP. AND YOU HAVE NOT ANSWERED THE QUESTION. IF YOU'RE NOT THAT THIRD GROUP, WHICH YOU SHOULD HAVE CONSULTED AND CONSIDERED.
01:39:30 Haynes, William WELL, CHAIRMAN, I THINK THAT'S ALSO A MISPERCEPTION OF THE REALITY THAT I EXPERIENCED. BECAUSE IF YOU THINK THAT THE TWO EXTRAORDINARILY GIFTED WOMEN LAWYERS THAT WERE UP HERE BEFORE, ADMIRAL DALTON AND COLONEL BEAVER ARE NOT MILITARY LAWYERS WHO EXPRESSED VIEWS.
01:39:50 Levin, Carl I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THEIR VIEWS HERE NOW, TODAY. I'M SAYING THAT ADMIRAL DALTON WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF A REVIEW THAT YOU SQUELCHED. YOU STOPPED THAT REVIEW IN THE MIDDLE AND SHE FINALLY ACKNOWLEDGED IT WAS STOPPED IN THE MIDDLE. AND IT WAS THE ONLY TIME SHE'S EVER HEARD OF THAT.
01:40:12 Haynes, William WELL, AGAIN, I TOLD YOU WHAT MY VIEWS ARE ON THAT. I THINK THAT THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN ME AND HER. AND EVIDENTLY WITH OUR STAFFS, AS WELL. AND THERE WAS A LIMITED AMOUNT OF TIME AND A HIGH DEGREE OF URGENCY AND AN UNCERTAIN SET OF RULES BECAUSE OF THE CONFLICT THAT WE'RE IN. ALIEN AND ENEMY COMBATANTS OUTSIDE OF THE UNITED STATES NOT COVERED BY THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS WITH POTENTIALLY NATION THREATENING INFORMATION.
01:40:55 Levin, Carl THANK YOU.
01:40:56 Sessions, Jeff MR. HAYNES, I KNOW THESE HEARINGS ARE DIFFICULT AND SENATORS ARE CARING DEEPLY ABOUT THESE ISSUES. AND I THINK IT'S HEALTHY IN OUR COUNTRY THAT THEY DO. BUT I DO THINK YOU DESERVE A FAIRNESS. I'M LOOKING AT EXHIBIT 11, WHICH WAS THE MEMORANDUM CONCERNING THESE MATTERS. THE CHAIRMAN QUOTED WHERE IT SAID THAT THE PROBLEM AND LIABILITIES MIGHT OCCUR IF ALL OF THESE TECHNIQUES ARE USED. BUT IF YOU GO BACK UP TO THE TOP, FIRST OF ALL, LET ME ASK YOU, WAS THAT DIRECTED TO YOU?
01:41:43 Haynes, William THIS IS EXHIBIT 11, WHICH IS THE THREE-PAGE, UNSIGNED DOCUMENT --
01:41:47 Sessions, Jeff FROM THE AIR FORCE? THE AIR FORCE DOCUMENT?
01:41:54 Haynes, William CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION TASK FORCE.
01:41:57 Sessions, Jeff WELL, MAYBE IT'S TEN. EXCUSE ME, TEN. I'M INCORRECT. SO IT RAISED QUESTIONS ABOUT THESE TECHNIQUES, BUT ALL RIGHT, WAS IT DIRECTED TO YOU?
01:42:12 Haynes, William NO, SIR, THIS IS DIRECTED TO THE U.N. IN MULTI-LATERAL AFFAIRS DIVISION J-5 OF THE JOINT STAFF.
01:42:21 Sessions, Jeff THAT'S NOT YOU? ONE DIRECTED TO YOU, IS THAT
01:42:23 Haynes, William YES, YOU'RE RIGHT.
01:42:24 Sessions, Jeff AND LOOK AT THE FIRST PARAGRAPH. GENERAL COMMENT, THE AIR FORCE HAS SIMILAR CONCERNS INVOLVING THE LEGALITY OF MANY OF THE PROPOSED TECHNIQUES, PARTICULARLY OF THOSE ON THE CATEGORY THREE, SOME OF THESE TECHNIQUES COULD BE CONSTRUED AS TORTURE AS THAT CRIME IS DEFINED BY 18 USC 2040. ONE OF THE PROPOSED TECHNIQUES IS THE USE OF SCENARIO DESIGNED TO CONVINCE A DETAINEE THAT DEATH MAY OR SEVERELY PAINFUL CONSEQUENCES ARE IMMINENT FOR HIM AND HIS FAMILY. DID YOU APPROVE THAT TECHNIQUE WHEN YOU RECOMMENDED TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL YOUR RECOMMENDATION AS TO WHAT WITHIN THE REQUEST SHOULD BE APPROVED? OR DID YOU DISAPPROVE THAT?
01:43:14 Haynes, William I DID NOT RECOMMEND THAT. I'M GLAD YOU POINTED THAT OUT, SENATOR. HAVING NOT SEEN THESE BEFORE AND NOT BEING ABLE TO READ IT WHILE I WAS BEING ASKED QUESTIONS, I DIDN'T SEE THAT THE CONCERN HIGHLIGHTED HERE IS THAT WHICH WAS NOT RECOMMENDED NOR APPROVED.
01:43:33 Sessions, Jeff AND, IN FACT, THIS MEMORANDUM WAS DIRECTED TO THE REQUEST FROM GENERAL HILL'S OFFICE ORIGINATE ORIGINATING FROM GUANTANIMO, NOT YOUR MEMORANDUM, ISN'T THAT CORRECT?
01:43:48 Haynes, William YES, SIR, THAT'S CORRECT.
01:43:50 Sessions, Jeff IT WASN'T YOUR DECISION THAT THEY'RE COMPLAINING ABOUT HERE, BUT THE REQUEST FROM GUANTANIMO, WHICH YOU DIDN'T APPROVE. NOW, LOOK AT THE NEXT ONE YOU WERE ASKED ABOUT. ON EXHIBIT 13. IT ORIGINALLY STARTS OUT LEGAL COUNSEL CHAIRMAN TO JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF. THAT'S NOT YOU EITHER, IS IT?
01:44:19 Haynes, William AGAIN, I THINK WE'RE LOOKING AT SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
01:44:21 Sessions, Jeff WELL, MAYBE IT'S 12. 12.
01:44:25 Haynes, William OKAY.
01:44:27 Sessions, Jeff YOU SEE THAT? SO THIS MEMORANDUM THAT THE CHAIRMAN ASKED YOU ABOUT THAT HE SAID YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO KNOW ABOUT, IT WASN'T DIRECTED TO YOU EITHER, WAS IT?
01:44:39 Haynes, William NO, SIR, IT'S ADDRESSED TO THE J-5 UMMA COMMANDER.
01:44:47 Sessions, Jeff IS IT NOT IN PARAGRAPH ONE STATES THAT QUOTE THE ARMY HAS REVIEWED THE REQUEST OF THE SOUTHERN COMMAND, GENERAL HILL, FOUR-STAR GENERAL, FOR FURTHER LEGAL REVIEW BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OF THE PROPOSAL TO DEPLOY COUNTERRESISTANT TECHNIQUES. SO THAT, AGAIN, WAS A REFERENCE TO THE REQUEST THAT WAS SENT TO YOU AND EXPRESSION OF CONCERN. IT WAS NOT DIRECTED TO YOU. SO YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE -- WE SHOULDN'T PRESUME THAT YOU SAW IT. AND NUMBER TWO, IT DIDN'T REFER TO YOUR DECISION, WHICH REJECTED MANY OF THE REQUESTS THAT CAME FROM GUANTANIMO. IS THAT RIGHT?
01:45:38 Haynes, William THAT'S RIGHT, SENATOR.
01:45:42 Sessions, Jeff AND LOOKING AT, I GUESS NUMBER 12, OR WITHIN THAT TWO PAGES FURTHER ON IS THE MEMORANDUM FOR THE OFFICE OF THE ARMY GENERAL COUNSEL. YOU'RE NOT THE ARMY GENERAL COUNSEL ARE YOU?
01:46:01 Haynes, William I WAS NOT AT THE TIME.
01:46:02 Sessions, Jeff ARE YOU A COUNSEL FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE? AND IT SAYS THIS MEMORANDUM SAYS FROM JOHN LEI, WHOEVER THAT IS I HAVE REVIEWED THE PROPOSED REQUEST, THAT'S GENERAL HILL'S REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF COUNTER-RESISTANT STRATEGIES, I CONCUR AND PROPOSE CATEGORY ONE TECHNIQUES BUT HAVE SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS LEGAL POLICY AND PRACTICAL REGARDING MOST OF CATEGORY TWO AND ALL OF CATEGORY THREE TECHNIQUES. IS THAT CORRECT?
01:46:48 Sessions, Jeff THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS. THAT WAS NOT SENT TO YOU.
01:46:51 Haynes, William YES, SIR.
01:47:01 Sessions, Jeff WITH REGARD TO EXHIBIT 14 -- THIS WOULD BE A MEMORANDUM -- I THINK YOU ASKED ABOUT THIS ONE -- IT WAS A MEMORANDUM FOR THE DIRECTOR OF J-5, THE JOINT STAFF. WOULD THAT BE A MEMORANDUM DIRECTED TO YOU OR SOMEBODY ELSE IN THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE?
01:47:25 Haynes, William IT WOULD BE TO SOMEBODY ELSE.
01:47:27 Sessions, Jeff SO IF THE ROUTING HAD BEEN APPROPRIATE, IT WOULD NOT HAVE COME TO YOU, IS THAT RIGHT?
01:47:33 Haynes, William IT MIGHT HAVE GOTTEN TO MY OFFICE EVENTUALLY, I DON'T RECALL SEEING IT.
01:47:37 Sessions, Jeff IT WASN'T DIRECTED TO YOU?
01:47:40 Haynes, William CORRECT.
01:47:48 Sessions, Jeff AND IT WHO IS THAT FROM? IS THAT AN ARMY?
01:47:51 Haynes, William THE ONE I'M LOOKING AT IS CAPTAIN --
01:47:55 Haynes, William CAPTAIN U.S. NAVY IS WHAT I'M LOOKING AT.
01:47:56 Sessions, Jeff NO, WE'RE STILL ON THE WRONG PAGE. CAN'T GET ON THE SAME PAGE AND NEITHER CAN YOU AND I.
01:48:02 Haynes, William 13.
01:48:03 Sessions, Jeff I'M LOOKING AT, I GUESS, 14.
01:48:12 Haynes, William THIS IS THE ONE THAT'S VERY BLURRY.
01:48:14 Sessions, Jeff IT'S BLURRY.
01:48:16 Haynes, William IT SAYS U.S. MARINE CORPS RESERVE AT THE BOTTOM.
01:48:19 Sessions, Jeff YEAH. AND IT SAYS MEMORANDUM FOR THE DIRECTOR, J-5, THE JOINT STAFF,
01:48:26 Haynes, William YES, SIR. THAT'S RIGHT.
01:48:34 Sessions, Jeff AND THE FIRST PARAGRAPH SAYS WE CONCUR WITH THE GENERAL PROPOSITION OF ROBUST INTERROGATION PLANS AND GOES ON TO SAY WE'RE CONCERNED WITH THE MEASURES OF THE PROPOSED DOCUMENT, ESPECIALLY CATEGORY THREE, WHICH YOU REJECTED ALL BUT ONE OF THOSE TECHNIQUES. SO THEY WERE, AGAIN, REFERRING TO THE PROPOSAL FROM GUANTANAMO, NOT FROM YOU -- FROM YOUR RECOMMENDATION TO THE SECRETARY THAT HE PUT IN THE POLICY DOCUMENT?
01:49:04 Sessions, Jeff YES, SIR, THAT'S RIGHT. ONE QUESTION ABOUT THIS ISSUE. I'LL ASK YOU DIRECTLY. WHEN YOU VIZ SIED GUANTANAMO, DID YOU OR ANY OF THE LAWYERS SUGGEST TO MAJOR GENERAL DUNLEAVY HE REQUEST HARSH TECHNIQUES BASED ON THE SEER PROGRAM WHEN YOU TALKED TO HIM?
01:49:34 Haynes, William I DON'T RECALL DOING ANYTHING LIKE THAT. I CAN'T IMAGINE I WOULD HAVE. THE PURPOSE OF THAT VISIT, AS I RECALL, WAS TO VISIT THREE DIFFERENT DETENTION FACILITIES IN A SINGLE DAY.
01:49:51 Sessions, Jeff I WOULD SAY, A DIFFICULT, DIFFICULT THING. YOU WERE UNDER GREAT PRESSURE. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE -- WE HAD GREAT CRITICISM, GOOD INTELLIGENCE. PEOPLE WERE AFRAID THIS COUNTRY WOULD BE ATTACKED AGAIN. THEY FELT THIS 20th HIJACKER HAD INFORMATION THAT COULD PERHAPS PREVENT ANOTHER ATTACK. I HOPE THAT AND BELIEVE THAT YOU TRIED YOUR BEST TO STRIKE THE RIGHT BALANCE. SOME CAN QUESTION THAT. IN THE FUTURE, MAYBE WE'LL SEE IT IN A DIFFERENT WAY. AT THIS POINT, I BELIEVE YOU DID YOUR BEST TO SERVE YOUR COUNTRY.
01:50:28 Levin, Carl THANK YOU, SENATOR SESSIONINGS. THIS MATTER HAS BEEN INVESTIGATED OVER AND OVER AGAIN, AT LEAST HOW IT RELATES TO HOW THE TECHNIQUES GOT TO AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ. THE FOCUS OF OUR INVESTIGATION, OF COURSE, IS NOT THAT. IT'S WHERE IT ALL BEGAN. NOT WHERE THEY ENDED UP. BUT IN TERMS OF THE INVESTIGATIONS, FOR THE RECORD, GENERAL FAY STATED IN HIS REPORT THAT A JANUARY 24, '03 MEMO, CALLED INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES MEMO, NINE DAYS AFTER THE RESCISSION -- BY SECRETARY RUMSFELD, THAT MEMO ACCORDING TO AN UNCLASSIFIED STATEMENT RECOMMENDED REMOVAL OF CLOTHING, A TECHNIQUE THAT HAD BEEN IN THE SECRETARY -- THE SECRETARY'S DECEMBER 2 OBSERVATION IN GENERAL FAYE'S WORDS AND TO DISCUSS, QUOTE, EXPLOITING THE FEAR OF DOGS, CLOSE QUOTE. ANOTHER TECHNIQUE THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE SECRETARY AND THE SECOND I POINT OUT. NOW, FROM AFGHANISTAN, HOW DO THEY GET TO IRAQ? THIS IS ANOTHER REPORT AND STATED THAT THIS TRAIL OF THESE TECHNIQUES FROM GUANTANAMO TO AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATED. THEY HAVE BEEN. HERE'S WHAT THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE MEMO SAID THAT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE IRAQ WAR, THEY USED A STANDARD '0 3 PROCEDURE DROPPED FOR AFGHANISTAN. HERE'S WHAT THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SAID ABOUT THE AFGHANISTAN STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE. THAT THAT HAD BEEN, QUOTE, INFLUENCED BY THE COUNTERRESISTANCE MEMORANDUM THAT THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE APPROVED ON DECEMBER 2, 2002 AND INCORPORATED TECHNIQUES DESIGNED FOR DETAINEES IDENTIFIED AS UNLAWFUL COMBATANTS, STANDARD PROCEDURES INCLUDING TECHNIQUES SUCH AS YELLING, LOUD MUSIC, ENVIRONMENTAL MANIPULATION. 20-HOUR INTERROGATIONS, AND CONTROLLED FEAR. MUZZLED DOGS. AND IN GENERAL, FAYE AGAIN IN HIS REPORT SAID THAT THE REMOVAL OF CLOTHING WAS IMPORTED TO GRAB GRAB AND COULD BE TRACED THROUGH AFGHANISTAN AND GITMO AND IN ABU GHRAIB THAT WAS DEPRAVITY AND DEGRADATION RATHER THAN HUMANE TREATMENT TO DETAINEES, CLOSE QUOTE. AGAIN, I MENTION IN MY OPENING REMARKS THAT I ASKED GENERAL FAYE IN THE HEARING WHETHER A POLICY APPROVED BY THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ON DECEMBER 2, 2002 CONTRIBUTED TO THE USE OF AGGRESSIVE INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES AT ABU GHRAIB, HE RESPONDED SIMPLY YES. THERE'S BEEN A NUMBER OF INVESTIGATION OF EVENTS IN 2003 AND 2004, BUT WHAT THIS FOCUSES ON TODAY, NUMBER ONE, THAT SHOWS THE CONNECTIONS OF THOSE INVESTIGATIONS BETWEEN WHAT HAPPENED AT GUANTANAMO, BETWEEN THE DECEMBER 2, 2002 DECISION OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE AND WHAT HAPPENED A YEAR LATER IN AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ. NOW, MY QUESTION -- A COUPLE MORE QUESTIONS AND I'LL THE BUN. DID YOU DISCUSS THE SERE TECHNIQUES WITH MAJOR DUNLEAVY?
01:54:31 Haynes, William I DON'T RECALL, I MAY HAVE, I DON'T RECALL.
01:54:32 Levin, Carl OKAY. NOW, THERE'S A MEMO FROM MR. BYBY FROM THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL STATING AUGUST 1, 2002 THAT PROVIDED GUIDANCE ON INTERROGATIONINGS PRIOR TO OUR RECOMMENDATION TO THE SECRETARY, THAT WAS THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL MEMO. DID YOU READ IT?
01:54:59 Haynes, William I HAVE READ IT.
01:55:01 Levin, Carl AT THE TIME. DID YOU READ IT AT THE TIME YOU MADE YOUR MEK MEN DAGS?
01:55:07 Haynes, William I DON'T KNOW WHEN I READ THAT.
01:55:10 Levin, Carl DID YOU RELY ON THAT MEMO IN YOUR RECOMMENDATION TO THE SECRETARY.
01:55:13 Haynes, William SINCE I DON'T REMEMBER WHEN I READ THAT. I TOLD YOU WHAT I RELIED ON.
01:55:17 Levin, Carl WAS THAT INCLUDE IN WHAT YOU
01:55:18 Haynes, William I DON'T THINK SO. I THINK WHAT I TOLD YOU IS WHERE I -- THE THOUGHT PROCESS THAT I REMEMBER EMPLOYING IN DETERMINING THAT THE REQUEST THAT I -- THE SUB SETH OF THE REQUEST THAT I RECOMMENDED BE APPROVED WAS LEGAL.
01:55:38 Levin, Carl DID YOU TELL OUR STAFF IT'S LIKELY THAT YOU DID READ IT BEFORE NOVEMBER 27?
01:55:44 Haynes, William I MAY HAVE. I JUST DON'T REMEMBER WHEN I FIRST READ IT.
01:55:48 Levin, Carl THIS IS AN OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL MEMO, LEGAL MEMO BINDING ON THE ENTIRE GOVERNMENT.
01:55:59 Haynes, William WOULD BE AAUTHORITATIVE --
01:56:01 Levin, Carl FOR YOU, AS GENENALOUNSEL AT THEHED.O.D.?
01:56:04 Haynes, William SURE Y, SIR. IFIF IT EXPRESESSE ANPIPION ON E L LAW FOR THEXEXECUTIVE BRANCH, TT WOUOULD B AAUTHORITATIVE IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.
01:56:19 Levin, Carl SO WHY WOULD Y HAVE NOT READ THAT BEFORE RECOMMENDING A DECISION TO THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE?
01:56:25 Haynes, William WELL, FOR ONE THING, THAT IS ADDRESSED TO SOMEONE ELSE.
01:56:28 Levin, Carl SO YOU MAY NOT HAVE KNOWN ABOUT IT?
01:56:30 Haynes, William I DON'T REMEMBER, SENATOR, WHEN I READ IT. I JUST DON'T REMEMBER. I MAY HAVE, I JUST DON'T REMEMBER. IT'S SIX YEARS AGO. THERE WERE A LOT OF THINGS GOING ON, CHAIRMAN.
01:56:49 Levin, Carl IF YOU MAY NOT HAVE READ IT, WERE YOU AWARE OF THE CONTENTS OF IT WHEN YOU MADE A RECOMMENDATION TO SIGN THE DECEMBER 2, 2002 ORDER?
01:56:58 Haynes, William CHAIRMAN, I TOLD YOU, I JUST DON'T REMEMBER.
01:57:13 Levin, Carl ALL SET?
01:57:17 Sessions, Jeff ATTORNEY GENERAL MUKASEY AND HIS CONFIRMATION ABOUT THE ABIDING MEMO WHICH APPARENTLY ATTEMPTED TO SET FORTH THE FULL POWER OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH DURING THE TIME OF WAR IN DEALING WITH PRISONERS AND AS HE SAID, NOT ONLY WAS IT A MISTAKE, IT WAS WORSE BECAUSE IT WAS UNNECESSARY. IT'S UNWISE FOR US TO TRY TO ANTICIPATE AND SET THE MEMO TO ANTICIPATE ALL KINDS OF POSSIBLE SCENARIOS AND THEN TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE THEM. YOU'RE MUCH BETTER OFF GOING CASE-BY-CASE CAREFULLY CONSIDERING ALL OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE FACT-BASED CIRCUMSTANCE AND WHILE I THINK IT DID SET IT FOR THAT TIME AS LONG AS IT STAYED IN EFFECT, SOME CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS, I HAVE DOUBTS ABOUT ITS WISDOM AND I GUESS IT'S FAIR TO SAY THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, AS A MATTER OF POLICY, DID NOT FEEL WITH REGARD TO THESE INTERROGATIONS THAT IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO USE EVERY PIECE OF POWER YOU MAY HAVE. EVERYTHING YOU HAD WERE POLICY DECISIONS AS WELL AS LEGAL DECISIONS, WERE THEY NOT?
01:58:41 Haynes, William YES, BUT LET ME REMIND EVERYBODY THAT THE LAWYERS DON'T DECIDE WHAT GETS USED. WE GIVE AT VICE. THAT'S WHAT WE DID.
01:58:48 Sessions, Jeff YOUR ADVICE WAS WHAT?
01:58:53 Haynes, William MY ADVICE WAS -- WELL, DEPENDS ON WHAT THE QUESTION WAS. BUT IN THE CASE OF -- OF THE -- I GUESS IT WAS THE DECEMBER 2 DECISION BY THE SECRETARY BASED ON MY RECOMMENDATION THAT WAS -- THAT WAS SHARED WITH THE CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS, THE DEPUTY OF SECRETARY OF DEFENSE AND THE UNDERSECRETARY OF POLICY WAS THAT ONLY A SUB SETH OF THOSE TECHNIQUES REQUESTED BY GUANTANAMO BE APPROVED AND IMPLICITLY AND I'M SURE I SAID SO, EXPLICITLY, THAT THOSE THAT WE RECOMMENDED, THAT I RECOMMENDED WERE LEGAL. AS DID COLONEL BEAVER AND AS DID ADMIRAL DALTON, THAT THEY WERE LEGAL. NOW THE NEXT GO AROUND WHICH WAS A RESULT NOT ONLY OF THE WORKING GROUP, THIS IS WHERE I JUST WISH THAT EXERCISE HAD A -- HAD A BETTER APPRECIATION BY CHAIRMAN LEVIN AND SOME OTHERS BECAUSE IT WAS VERY VALUABLE TO THE LEADERSHIP OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE -- THAT SECOND ROUND THAT RESULTED IN SECRETARY RUMSFELD'S DECISION IN APRIL OF 2003 ABOUT WHAT TECHNIQUES SHOULD EMPLOY -- SHOULD BE EMPLOYED IS ALSO --
02:00:13 Sessions, Jeff WHERE HE RESTRICTED SOME HE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED.
02:00:17 Haynes, William HE RESTRICTED OR OUTRIGHT DID NOT AUTHORIZE THEM AT ALL, A DIFFERENT SET OF, I BELIEVE, 24 TECHNIQUES WITH EXTRAORDINARY SAFEGUARDS AND APPROVAL LEVELS. FAR SHORT OF WHAT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ADVISED THE LAW WOULD ALLOW.
02:00:37 Sessions, Jeff THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
02:00:38 Levin, Carl TO GO BEYOND THAT WOULD REQUIRE APPROVAL OF THE
02:00:41 Haynes, William YES, SIR.
02:00:45 Haynes, William THAT'S MY RECOLLECTION OF WHAT THE DOCUMENTS SAY ABOUT IT. THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS.
02:00:52 Sessions, Jeff ONE MORE QUESTION. WITH REGARD TO SECRETARY RUMSFELD ON EITHER OF THOSECATIONS THAT HE IMPOSE A PERSONAL ACTION TO APPROVE A TECHNIQUE THAT YOU DIDN'T RECOMMEND TO YOUR RECOLLECTION?
02:01:16 Haynes, William I'M NOT SURE I CAN TELL YOU ABOUT THAT KIND OF THING. BUT I THINK I'M RESTRICT IN WHAT DELIBERATIVE AND ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS I'VE HAD. I PROBABLY SHOULD NOT ANSWER THAT QUESTION. BUT THERE'S NOT A SINISTER ANSWER.
02:01:38 Levin, Carl WHICH MEANS WE THANK YOU WHAT TODAY'S HEARING IS FOCUSED ON IS SERE TECHNIQUES WHICH WERE INCORPORATED IN TO INTERROGATION DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE NEVER INTENDED TO BE INCORPORATED INTO INTERROGATION RULES. NO PROCEDURES WERE PROPERLY DESIGNED TO HELP OUR MEN AND WOMEN SURVIVE SHOULD THEY BE EXPOSED TO THE ACTS THAT VIOLATED GENEVA OF OUR ENEMIES. THEY WERE NEVER INTENDED TO BE TAUGHT TO INTERROGATORS, USED BY INTERROGATORS AGAINST OUR ENEMIES. THAT TESTIMONY WAS VERY, VERY CLEAR IN THE PANELS THAT WE HAD TODAY. AND, YET, WE FOUND THOSE TECHNIQUES, INCLUDING STRIPPING DETAINEES, INCLUDING THE USE OF DOGS TO INDUCE STRESS. WE FOUND THOSE TECHNIQUES NOT ONLY WERE THEY ADOPTED AT GUANTANAMO AND USED IN SPECIAL INSTANCES, BUT THEN THEY MOVED OVER TO AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ IN WAYS THAT THE VARIOUS INVESTIGATIONS HAVE DISCLOSED. WE PAID A HUGE PRICE AS A COUNTRY FOR WHAT WAS UNLEASHED FOR THE DECEMBER 2, 2002 ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE WAS SIGNED. WHEN IT WAS RESENDED SIX WEEKS LATER, THEN A DIFFERENT DOCUMENT WAS PUT IN THE PLACE A COUPLE OF MONTHS AFTER THAT. BY THEN, WHAT HAD SPREAD TO AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ WAS WHAT WE, I'M AFRAID, SAW IN THE TRANLIC PICTURES AT ABU GHRAIB. BECAUSE WHILE THEY WERE NOT INTERROGATORS, THEY WERE PHOTOGRAPHED, THEY WERE THE GUARDS. AND THOSE GUARDS, ACCORDING TO OUR OWN -- THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN SHARED WITH THIS COUNTRY WERE INFLUENCED BY THE TECHNIQUES, THE INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES WHICH HAD BEEN SHIPPED OVER TO AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ. WE PAID A LARGE PRICE FOR WHAT HAPPENED. WE'LL CONTINUE THIS INVESTIGATION BY ASKING PEOPLE WHO HAD BEEN NAME IN THIS INVESTIGATION, HAS BEEN PRESENT AT MEETINGS WHERE THESE TECHNIQUES HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED, WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE PRESENT AT THOSE MEETINGS IN GUANTANAMO AND WHAT WAS DISCUSSED. AND CONTINUING THE EFFORTS TO FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENED TO THE SERVICES DOCUMENTS, THOSE SERVICES RECOMMENDATIONS, THOSE SERVICES RED FLAGS THAT WERE SHARED WITH THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE'S OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL. THEY MAY NOT BE ADDRESS THERE HAD. BUT THE TESTIMONY INDICATED THAT AS A MATTER OF FACT THEY WERE SHARED WITH THE GENERAL COUNSEL -- EXCUSE ME, OR THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE. THAT'S WHAT THE TESTIMONY WAS TODAY. THE FORMER GENERAL COUNSEL SAYS HE SAW THEM. HE HEARD ABOUT CONCERNS, DOES NOT REMEMBER WHETHER HE SAW THE DOCUMENTS OR ASKED FOR THE DOCUMENTS. THAT IS TO PUT IT MILDLY A VERY DISAPPOINTING KIND OF A RESPONSE TO WHAT IS AN EXTRAORDINARILY SERIOUS QUESTION. WHICH IS HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH DETAINEES AND LEGAL RESPONSE HERE WAS INADEQUATE AND TO PUT IT -- TO UNDERSTATE IT. AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO GET INTO THE VARIOUS QUESTIONS THAT I'VE JUST INDICATED IN OTHERS AND IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY, I KNOW, FOR OUR WITNESSES. WE THANK ALL OF OUR WITNESSES. WE THANK YOU, MR. HAYNES, FOR BEING HERE VOLUNTARILY. AND WE THANK OUR COLLEAGUES FOR PARTICIPATEING IN THIS AND WE'LL STAND ADJOURNED.