Hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee - FBI Oversignt, Terrorism and Other Topics

Federal News Service

HEADLINE: HEARING OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

SUBJECT: FBI OVERSIGHT, TERRORISM AND OTHER TOPICS

CHAIRED BY: SENATOR ORRIN HATCH (R-UT)

WITNESS: ROBERT MUELLER, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

LOCATION: 226 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C.

BODY:
SEN. SCHUMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, Mr. Chairman, let me thank you for holding this hearing in the morning as I requested. I appreciate that very much. And I want to thank the director-not only for being here, but for the time he spent with me last week going over the FBI-the progress FBI has made on computers-and I'll have more to say about that another time.

Today I want to talk a little bit about something that bothers me a great deal, and it will lead to a question to you, Mr. Director. Today, for the second time in as many weeks, there's evidence that a civilian contractor serving a senior position in the Iraqi prison system, has a troubling history and a checkered record when it comes to prisoner abuse.

Last week we learned that Lane McCotter, who was ousted from the Utah prison system when a schizophrenic inmate died after being strapped naked to a chair for 16 hours-that's a practice that McCotter defended and affirmatively endorsed-McCotter then went on to serve as an executive in a private prison company that was under investigation for denying prisoners access to medical treatment and violating other civil rights. And at that point after that checkered past, to be kind, Attorney General Ashcroft appointed him to help rebuild Iraq's prison system. McCotter ended up being posted at Abu Ghraib, where among his duties was the training of guards. This is a picture of McCotter along with Wolfowitz and Gary DeLand, and in the back is General Karpinski at Abu Ghraib. So his appointment raises serious questions, including whether he had anything to do with the Abu Ghraib crimes. And I asked Attorney General Ashcroft what was being done to investigate the role of civilian contractors in the Iraqi prison scandal. I'm still awaiting a response.

Now, today we learned-I just learned that-or this week I just learned that there's another prisoner with-another leader of the prisons in Iraq with a similarly troubling past. So it makes the questions we asked the attorney general even more urgent. While running Connecticut's prison system, John Armstrong, here pictured in Iraq, made a practice of shipping even low-level offenders to a super- max facility in Virginia. It was notorious, this facility, for its use of excess force. They-it ranged from the unjustified use of stun guns shooting 50,000 volts through prisoners-these are low level-to locking inmates in five-point restraints for such routine-for such lengthy periods they were routinely forced to defecate on themselves. Even after advocates objected, and asked Armstrong to reconsider, he persisted in sending Connecticut prisoners to this jail where they were subject to treatment many have described as torture. Armstrong resigned as a result of the course of criticism of this decision.

But that wasn't all. When Armstrong resigned, he was under a cloud of credible allegations that he tolerated and personally engaged in sexual harassment of female employees under his command. One of the women who sued and claimed Armstrong harassed her personally received a settlement of a quarter million dollars. Despite this record, Armstrong was tapped to serve as the deputy director of operations for the prison system in Iraq.

One official with a history of prisoner abuse raises an eyebrow. But two means we're really beginning to have a problem. Why would we send officials with such disturbing records to handle such a sensitive mission? That's beyond me. It cries out for explanation. Obviously we have an obligation to ensure that all of those responsible are brought to justice, and we have a duty to guarantee that a handful of privates don't take the fall if they were directed by others. They should be disciplined appropriately. But when you read for instance what Sivits did today-that is he was required or asked to escort prisoners to a certain place, he didn't participate in what was going on-he saw it, he didn't report it to higher-ups. Obviously that's not sufficient. This is unfair. And what bugs me the most as somebody who really cares about our troops-I've traveled from one end of the state to the other and watched our troops go off to Iraq. I see them saying goodbye to their families, and they do it with sense of duty, honor. And now wherever an American soldier walks overseas, these pictures come to other people's minds. It's unfair to them.

So we've got to get to the bottom of this. And if we are sending abusers-habitual abusers of what's normally conceded as rights, and putting them in charge of the prisons, where we learn the abuses are now occurring, we need to know why it's happening and what's being done about it. We need to know if these men or others committed crimes in Iraq, and whether they will be brought to justice.

As you know, if the FBI doesn't investigate and DOJ doesn't prosecute the civilians who committed these crimes, no one will. From what I understand, DOD may be saying it will investigate the crimes by civilian contractors and pass them along to the Department of Justice. That seems to me to be an unacceptable solution, Mr. Director. DOD investigators know how to go after military crimes-that's their expertise. Civilian crimes, to be prosecuted in civilian courts are a whole different story. We need professional prosecutors and criminal investigators on the job. We need them now. I'd like to see us find out who did this, punish them appropriately, and move on. I say that as somebody who's been a supporter of the president's policies in Iraq-or at least supported the war and the money go to the troops.

So the first question I have for you: Does it make any sense to have the DOD investigate civilians who can't be prosecuted in military courts? Why shouldn't the FBI be doing this type of investigation?

MR. MUELLER: Well, with all due respect, senator, I-that's a lengthy statement before the question, and I think it's a little bit unfair, because you know I cannot respond to the assertions you make either about these individuals --

SEN. SCHUMER: I'm not asking that.

MR. MUELLER: I know, but I do think it's unfair, knowing that I cannot respond and defend either the individuals --

SEN. SCHUMER: I'm not asking you do that. I'm asking --

MR. MUELLER: -- or the attorney general. And I'd be happy to answer the question. But I do want to say that you and I know that I was not at all aware of this, what you're portraying today.

SEN. SCHUMER: Well, the first one has been public for a week, McCotter.

MR. MUELLER: In any event, the-I know that the Department of Justice is in-is having discussions with DOD as to the jurisdiction. I don't know-I do not know what the result of those discussions will be.

SEN. SCHUMER: Here's what I want to-here's what I want to bring out. And if I had gotten answers from the attorney general I wouldn't be asking you these questions. But I'm not asking you to comment on any individual case-obviously. The first one has been public for a week. It's been in lots of different newspapers and stuff. The second one we just came across today. But if there are civilian contractors who may have broken the law, whomever they may be, does it make any sense to have DOD do the investigation? That's what I can't figure out. They don't have jurisdiction --

MR. MUELLER: Well, they may-my understanding is they may have jurisdiction. That is being worked out. I do not know the basis for which they would have jurisdiction. And as any investigation, it would be dependent on who you have to investigate. The general who investigated the abuses at Abu Ghraib did a superior job, and I think most persons in the Senate have said so.

SEN. SCHUMER: Right.

MR. MUELLER: And so, again, it's where the jurisdiction lies and who is doing the investigation. And I do believe that, as with-as happened in the investigation-the investigation at Abu Ghraib, a general or a person in the DOD can do-undertake a full comprehensive investigation. It really depends on where the jurisdiction lies, and that is being discussed.

SEN. SCHUMER: Let's just take a hypothetical. A civilian appointee is involved in the prison, gave the order to do things that violate the law to Iraqi prisoners. Why would we have-why wouldn't we have the FBI do the investigation? DOD-is there any doubt that DOD cannot discipline people who are not under military command?

MR. MUELLER: Again, I'd have to refer you to the department on the jurisdictional issues, which they are working on now. My understanding is that there may be a basis upon which these individuals could be tried by the military. But I am not familiar with the arguments. And, again, I think it's still up in the air.

SEN. SCHUMER: Okay. I'll ask, Mr. Chairman, that I get an answer in writing from the director if I'm not going to get one from the attorney general about whether DOD has jurisdiction --

MR. MUELLER: I think there will be-I do believe there will be an answer. I'm not sure that the answer has been fully clarified as yet. And I'm certain of the rationale or the reasons why we do not have-why there is no answer currently. I can tell you if requested I believe we would be available to quite obviously investigate. But, again, it gets down to jurisdiction.

SEN. SCHUMER: And all things being equal, if the DOD did not have jurisdiction to actually prosecute these folks, then wouldn't it make sense for the FBI to do the investigation rather than DOD and then turn over the information?

MR. MUELLER: Yes.

SEN. SCHUMER: Thank you.

SEN. HATCH: Your time is up. Senator Sessions will be-unless Senator Durbin comes back-our last one.

SEN. SESSIONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On the question or the issue that Senator Schumer raised, Senator Schumer and I think all on this committee supported the legislation that I offered in 2000 that became law to make contractors of DOD subject to criminal prosecution by the Department of Justice. I think the act probably contemplated investigations being done by DOD in the field, but it also I think would probably allow FBI to investigate in the field. The ultimate prosecution would be by the Department of Justice. So I think-and I certainly have no concern or doubt that DOD can investigate it. I am familiar with the military legal system, the JAG officers and their abilities, and they are first rate. I don't see any conflict of interests. The military is very upset about what happened in Abu Ghraib prison, and they want something done about it. And so I think we'll see that everybody that's guilty prosecuted. I am glad that we had that statute passed. Without it, we would not have been able to prosecute. I don't believe these contractors could be prosecuted except perhaps in Iraq, without this statute that we just passed a few years ago.

I think the contractors are not appointed by the attorney general. However, I think they are appointed by the Department of Defense and those agencies. I really don't think Attorney General Ashcroft needs to take the blame for that, but I may be wrong.

SEN. SCHUMER: Just if I could-McCotter was appointed by DOJ.