|
Congressman Jerrold Nadler wrote Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales: I am writing to follow up on the House Judiciary Committee's Oversight Hearing of the Department of Justice, held on April 6, 2006. During that hearing, you responded on several occasions that you wanted the opportunity to get back to me. To date, you have not yet provided a response to any of my questions. I would appreciate receiving your response no later than January 22, 2007.
Regarding the subject of extraordinary rendition and the case of a Canadian citizen, Maher Arar, we had the following exchange:
Mr. NADLER. Thank you.
Secondly, I have a question about the practice of extraordinary rendition,
particularly rendition to repressive countries we know practice torture.
There's one widely publicized case that illustrates the issue. A Canadian
citizen, Mr. Arar, was detained in 2002 at JFK Airport in New York as a
suspected terrorist. He was on his way home to Canada, changing planes at
Kennedy. He was grabbed by CIA agents, I gather, secretly deported to Syria
where he endured 10 months of torture in a Syrian prison.
After the Syrians determined that he didn't know anything about terror, they
released him. Upon his release, he declared at a news conference that he had
pleaded with U.S. authorities to let him continue on to Canada, where he has
lived for over 15 years, and his family, but instead, he was flown under U.S.
guard to Jordan, and handed over to Syria, where he had been born, and where he
was then tortured.
Does the United States Government claim the authority to kidnap anybody at a
U.S. airport, and without any administrative or judicial process of any sort,
put that person on a plane to a torture-practicing nation? We do not claim that
authority. Or do we?
Attorney General GONZALES. We have international agreements, which we
are a party to, where the United States has agreed, has committed, that it will
not render someone to another country, where we believe it's more likely than
not--
Mr. NADLER. Well, do we claim the authority to render someone to another
country-let's assume we believe they're not going to use torture-by what right
do we-legal right, do we pick someone up at an airport and deny him the right
to continue to Canada which is where he's a citizen of, and send them to Syria
without any kind of administrative or judicial process?
Attorney General GONZALES. Well, I'm not commenting as to what actually
may have happened or may not have--
Mr. NADLER. Do we claim the right to do that? Whatever happened in that
case, is that something we claim the right to do?
Attorney General GONZALES. I don't know, but I would be happy to get
back to you on that.
Mr. NADLER. You don't know if we claim the right to do that because the
Government defended that in court, your Department defended that in court.
Attorney General GONZALES. Before I comment any further on that,
Congressman, I'd like the opportunity to get back to you.
Mr. NADLER. Okay. And let me further ask, since we have done this, and
since your Department has defended this in court, specifically in the Eastern
District, is this practice limited only to airports, or do we claim the right
to take people going about their business, walking on the street, grocery
shopping, window shopping, at the mall, suddenly and unexpectedly to grab them
and to deport them to places like Syria without any evidence, without any due
process? Do we claim that right? And if we don't claim that right, why do we
claim it at airports?
Attorney General GONZALES. Mr. Congressman, I'm not going to get into
specific, what we do, what we don't do. What I can say is that we understand
what our legal obligations are, we follow the law.
Mr. NADLER. Let me ask you the last question then. Can you assure this
Committee that the United States Government will not grab anybody at an airport
or anyplace in U.S. territory, and send them to another country without some
sort of due process?
Attorney General GONZALES. Well, what I can tell you is that we're going
to follow the law in terms of what--
Mr. NADLER. Well, does the law permit us to send someone to another
country without any due process, without a hearing before an administrative, an
immigration judge or somebody? Just grab them off the street and put them on a
plane, goodbye without-we've done that. Does the law permit us to do that? Do
we claim that right?
Attorney General GONZALES. I'm not going to confirm that we've done
that--
Mr. NADLER. Well, wait a minute. That was confirmed in court. There's no
question it was done.
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman's time--
Mr. NADLER. Do we claim the right to do it?
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. NADLER. Could he answer the question, please?
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman's time has expired. I yield myself
the last 5 minutes.
Regrettably, Chairman Sensenbrenner did not afford you the opportunity to
provide a clear answer to these questions, free from ambiguity or
evasion. You did, as the transcript reflects, offer to get back to
me. Please do so. In particular, please respond to the following
questions:
1.
Without confirming or denying any
particular action with respect to any particular individual or any case, is it
the position of the United States that we may lawfully take an individual into
custody in the United States, remove that person to another country or turn
that individual over to the custody of another government without any form of
due process? Due process includes the ability to consult with an attorney,
a review by an impartial finder of fact and the ability to know the basis for
being taken into custody, being removed or turned over to the custody of
another country.
2.
If the individual is a national of a
third country, is it the position of the United States that we are not legally
obliged to inform that third country of our actions with respect to that
national in any or all cases? If we are so obliged, what is the extent of
our legal obligations?
3.
To the extent that the United States
takes the position that it has the legal authority to take a person into
custody and remove that person in the manner described above, is this authority
limited to any particular location, such as a location other than the United
States, U.S. territories, possessions, or territorial waters, an airport or
other point of entry? Or does it apply to any location in the United
States? If so, to which locations does this authority apply?
4.
To the extent that the United States
claims such legal authority, does this authority apply only with respect to
foreign nationals, or does it apply equally or to a lesser extent to U.S.
citizens? If it applies only to foreign nationals, is the claimed
authority further limited by their status, for example a permanent resident, a
person out of legal status or a person at a point of entry to the United States
deemed not to have entered the United States?
For each of your answers, please provide any filings made by the United States
in a legal proceeding relating to the questions posed above. Please also
include the legal basis for each answer.
Thank you for agreeing to provide answers to the questions I posed during the
Committee's hearing. I realize that the limited time provided during
these hearings is not always conducive to a full examination of these very
important issues. I look forward to receiving your responses by January
22, 2007.
If you have any questions concerning this request, please feel free to contact
me or David Lachmann (202.225.6906) at the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the
Constitution.
Sincerely,
Jerrold Nadler
Ranking Democratic Member
Subcommittee on the Constitution
Ari Goldberg is press officer for Congressman Nadler, whose District includes parts of Manhattan and Brooklyn.
1 Comments:
Thanks to Rep. Jerrold Nadler for pushing Alberto Gonzalez to give answers on extraordinary renditions and torture.
We are behind you 100%, Amnesty Int. Group 23, Houston.
Jimmy Dunne
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home