U.S. senators ask Trump spy chief nominee to clarify testimony on
torture
Send a link to a friend
[May 14, 2020]
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Two members
of the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee wrote to President Donald
Trump’s nominee for the top U.S. intelligence job on Wednesday seeking
clarification of his views on the use of torture by U.S. spy agencies.
In a letter to Representative John Ratcliffe, Trump's nominee to be
Director of National Intelligence (DNI), Democratic Senator Dianne
Feinstein, and Senator Angus King, an independent who caucuses with
Democrats, said they were not satisfied with his answers to questions
about torture at an intelligence committee nomination hearing on May 5.
"In both your written and your oral responses to Committee questions
about torture, you have been evasive and non-committal," the letter
said.
When asked if he believed so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques"
used by the Central Intelligence Agency on suspected al Qaeda militants
were consistent with U.S. and international laws prohibiting torture,
Ratcliffe responded that he had "not conducted the legal and factual
research and analysis that would be required to properly answer this
question."
And when King asked Ratcliffe if he believed waterboarding violated
anti-torture law, Ratcliff said only that the law said "torture is
illegal," an answer the senators criticized as not being direct.
The letter asserted that King’s question deserved a more clear answer,
since Trump has vowed to "bring back waterboarding [and] bring back a
hell of a lot worse than waterboarding."
[to top of second column]
|
U.S. Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-TX), President Donald Trump's nominee to
be Director of National Intelligence, is escorted by U.S. Capitol
police officers and other security officials wearing face masks
because of the COVID-19 disease outbreak as he arrives to testify at
his U.S. Senate confirmation hearing in front of the Senate
Intelligence Committee in Washington, U.S. May 5, 2020.
REUTERS/Carlos Barria
The senators asked Ratcliffe for "direct, unequivocal answers" to
several questions, including whether there are any circumstances
under which he believes current law could be interpreted to justify
interrogation practices other than those identified in a U.S. Army
Field manual.
Ratcliffe's office did not immediately respond to a request for
comment on the letter.
(Reporting by Mark Hosenball; Editing by Patricia Zengerle and
Andrea Ricci)
[© 2020 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2020 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content. |