One of Ours

Gonzales:...let me say that the U.S. will treat people in our custody in accordance with all U.S. obligations including federal statutes, the U.S. Constitution and our treaty obligations. The President has said we do not condone or commit torture. Anyone engaged in conduct that constitutes torture will be held accountable. The President has not directed the use of specific interrogation techniques. There has been no presidential determination necessity or self-defense that would allow conduct that constitutes torture. There has been no presidential determination that circumstances warrant the use of torture to protect the mass security of the United States.

The President has given no order or directive that would immunize from prosecution anyone engaged in conduct that constitutes torture. All interrogation techniques actually authorized have been carefully vetted, are lawful, and do not constitute torture.

Now, a few of the misinformed have asked whether the President's February 7th determination contributed to the abuses at Abu Ghraib. We categorically reject any connection. There are two separate legal regimes that govern action in those arenas. In Iraq, it has always been U.S. position that Geneva applies. From the early days of the conflict, both the White House and the Department of Defense have been very public and clear about that...

[...]

...The definition of torture that the administration uses is the definition that Congress has given us in the torture statute and the reservation of the torture convention...

[...]

HAYNES: ...the vast majority of the techniques employed are an existing Army doctrine, decades old, which were developed in the context of Geneva governing conflicts for prisoners of war, which are so much more protected than unlawful combatants in it's conflict...techniques cannot be considered an isolation. Certainly, any one technique improperly applied could, you know, produce all sorts of undesirable consequences, including perhaps torture. But we -- the United States is not permitted to go near that...

...The Geneva Conventions include a number of requirements or provisions, including, for example, that prisoners of war -- and prisoners of war are the ones that are governed by that particular convention -- shall have access to a canteen, musical instruments, periodic pay in Swiss francs, things of that nature.

So that language is part of what's reflected in that. And the "military necessity" component of it builds in the fact that -- which is also within the Geneva Conventions -- that military necessity can sometimes allow deviations from some of the principles, allow warfare to be conducted in ways that might infringe on the otherwise applicable articles of the convention that would be applicable...

QUESTION: Mr. Dell'Orto, a question for you. There seems to be in the presentation you gave an assumption chain, if you will, having to do with those who end up in Guantanamo, that they were selected from a group captured in Afghanistan, therefore, there seems to be an assumption that they're terrorists; there's an assumption that they've been trained in techniques to avoid interrogation pressures, therefore, if they're giving no information there's an assumption that they have information to give and the pressure must be ramped-up.

As we've seen, there have been, I think, some very credible accounts that there have been all kinds of mix up in people who got brought into Guantanamo. And so how do you make the determination that the person you've got whose not giving you information is somebody who's trained in denying you information, versus just some guy who was just rounded up with the usual suspects and has no business being there?

MR. DELL'ORTO: Well, I don't accept the various premises of your question. First, the determinations made on the battlefield are that we have an unlawful enemy combatant. It's based upon all manner of things that are considered -- is he carrying a weapon, who was he with at the time he's captured. I mean, it's the traditional analysis you go through -- that a commander in the field goes through when he picks up a person. Is it hard in this instance because the guy may not be wearing a uniform? It probably is.

But, still, given the fact that we go from 10,000 down to something considerably less in number shows that there's quite a bit of care taken to cull out, in this instance, not who is an enemy combatant versus who isn't, but among the enemy combatants who are found on the battlefield, who have significant intelligence value or pose a very significant threat. So I would say, in the first instance, it's not a presumption, it's a finding on the battlefield that you have an unlawful enemy combatant.

Once you get him to Guantanamo, simply because he doesn't give you a lot of information, doesn't necessarily lead you to conclude that he has a lot more. It may be that he is a relatively -- a lower level al Qaeda fighter, who may not have more information. But you piece all of that together, the more people you talk to, the more linkage you develop among these folks...