Cheney aide quizzed on detainee interrogations

WASHINGTON – A congressional panel brought a top lieutenant to Vice President Dick Cheney before it today, quizzing him on how the administration developed harsh interrogation techniques used on detainees in terrorism cases.

David Addington, Cheney’s current chief of staff and former legal counsel, gave up few details about his role in introducing tactics used at Guantanamo Bay and with CIA prisoners. But he seemed to relish arguing with members of Congress as he maintained that America remains under threat of terrorist attacks.

“Things are not so different today as people think,” Addington said. “No American should think we are free, the war is over, al Qaeda is not coming.”

Addington confidently worked through the initial round of questions by the subcommittee chairman, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.). Addington was asked, in various ways, if the president can authorize torture and violate federal laws against abuse. He responded in general that the president must follow the law, but he refused to offer his detailed opinion.

“As I told you I am not here to render legal opinions; you have your own lawyers,” Addington said.

Addington did say that he was briefed by John Yoo, at the time a Justice Department lawyer, about the work he was doing on what would become a controversial August 2002 memo that said harsh interrogation techniques were permissible.

But he said that Yoo, who was also called before the hearing, told him only the areas he was going to cover in the memo, and he denied that he had co-authored the memo.

Critics of the Bush administration’s interrogation policies have said Addington spearheaded the changes in legal analysis that allowed the tougher interrogations.

Addington seemed to relish the back-and-forth jabs with committee members.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) questioned Addington about his visits to Guantanamo Bay, and whether he discussed interrogation techniques with officials there.

Addington said he did not recall.

“It is hard to fathom you would not have recollections on specific conversations on types of interrogations methods,” Wasserman Schultz said.

“Is there a questioned appended, ma’am?” Addington said.

“I don’t believe that you do not recall whether you discussed specific interrogation methods. So I will ask you again … ”

“As I said to you,” Addington said. “I don’t recall.”

Addington said he had more knowledge of the development of CIA interrogations than Defense Departments interrogations. And he denied that he had pushed Guantanamo Bay officials to “do whatever needed to be done.”

In contrast to Addington, Yoo appeared to be conciliatory and open to the committee. But he said he was ordered by the Justice Department not to discuss details of his conversations with other executive branch officials. Frustrated by those limits, committee members constantly cut off Yoo and testily accused him of wasting time and dodging questions.

Addington, who testified under a subpoena from the committee, was a CIA lawyer, then a lawyer for a Congressional committee and eventually the Pentagon’s chief lawyer when Cheney served as defense secretary.

Although the questioning quickly degenerated into a testy back-and-forth, Addington tried to at least begin with a conciliatory note. “I believe everyone on this committee … wants to protect this country from terrorism; that is not a partisan issue,” he said. “There are obviously differences in how that is accomplished.”

Nadler said that the harsh techniques authorized by the administration amounted to torture. But the ranking Republican, Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), disagreed. Franks said torture is illegal, but harsh interrogation did not amount to torture and should be viewed in the context of the threat of international terrorism.

Franks said the waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and two other al Qaeda members had yielded intelligence.

“The results of these severe interrogations were of immeasurable benefit and perhaps saved lives,” Franks said

In his opening statement, Yoo emphasized that it was his job not to make policy, but to advise policymakers.

“Our job was to provide legal advice about the meaning of various federal laws,” Yoo said. “We were not in the business of choosing among different policy options.”

Nevertheless, Yoo defended the administration’s interrogation policies.

“I think those policies have successfully provided information to the government that has allowed this country to prevent terrorist attacks by Al Qaeda on our homeland,” Yoo said.