<html>
<body>
<h1><font size=4><b>Report rips ex-Defense counsel, now at
Chevron</b></font></h1><font size=3>Andrew S. Ross<br><br>
Tuesday, December 23, 2008<br><br>
A little over a week ago, the <b>Senate Armed Services Committee
</b>released a report, <b>"Inquiry into the Treatment of Detainees
in U.S. Custody." </b>The product of an 18-month investigation, the
report concluded that "former Defense Secretary <b>Donald Rumsfeld
</b>and other senior U.S. officials share much of the blame for detainee
abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba."
<br><br>
One of the "senior U.S. officials" prominently featured in the
report is <b>William J. Haynes II</b>, currently the chief corporate
counsel for San Ramon's <b>Chevron Corp</b>. <br><br>
From 2001 until February, Haynes was general counsel for the
<b>Department of Defense</b>. The general counsel "provides
oversight, guidance, and direction regarding legal advice on all matters
arising within the Department of Defense, including the Office of the
Secretary of Defense," according to the Pentagon's job description.
In Haynes' case, that included advising on interrogation techniques used
on U.S.-held detainees in the U.S. war on terror, and in the wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq. <br><br>
The bipartisan report - signed by Democrats and Republicans, including
<b>Sen. John McCain</b>, R-Ariz. - found that Haynes' opinions on the
legality of various interrogation techniques were a key contributor to
their being given the go-ahead. For example, then-Defense Secretary
Rumsfeld authorized the techniques only after Haynes recommended their
approval, according to the report. It also states that Haynes' office
sought information on harsh interrogation techniques even before a list
of such techniques was drawn up by military officials for possible use at
Guantanamo Bay. In the report's conclusions, the senators said they found
some of Haynes' actions "deeply troubling."<br><br>
<b>From the report:<br><br>
</b>-- In December 2001, Haynes' office "had already solicited
information on detainee 'exploitation' from (a U.S. military) agency
whose expertise was in training American personnel to withstand
interrogation techniques considered illegal under the Geneva
Conventions."<br><br>
-- On Nov. 27, 2002, "notwithstanding the serious legal concerns
raised by the military services, Mr. Haynes sent a one page memo to the
secretary, recommending that he approve all but three of eighteen
techniques in the GTMO request. Techniques such as stress positions,
removal of clothing, use of phobias (such as fear of dogs) and
deprivation of light and auditory stimuli were all recommended for
approval."<br><br>
-- "Secretary Rumsfeld's December 2, 2002 approval of Mr. Haynes'
recommendation contributed to the use of abusive techniques in
Afghanistan and Iraq."<br><br>
-- Haynes' "effort to cut short the legal and policy review of the
GTMO request was inappropriate and undermined the military's review
process."<br><br>
-- "Further, Mr. Haynes' reliance on a legal memo produced by GTMO's
Staff Judge Advocate that military lawyers called 'legally insufficient'
and 'woefully inadequate' is deeply troubling." <br><br>
<b>The response: </b>Haynes, hired as Chevron's chief corporate counsel
soon after he left the Pentagon, could not be reached for comment. Kent
Robertson, a Chevron spokesman said, "We aren't in a position to
speak to the report."<br><br>
In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee in June, Haynes
said he did "not remember" requesting information on harsh
interrogation techniques in 2001. He said he had "misgivings"
about the process for approving interrogation techniques. "This is
not something that I did as a rubber stamp, or did lightly. I continue to
stew on that, frankly," he said. However, he added at another point
in his testimony, "As the lawyer, I was not the decisionmaker. I was
an adviser." <br><br>
He also defended the recommendations he made to Rumsfeld. "There is
a paucity of law that was applicable at the time, and my job, as the
lawyer, is not to say no, but to say, 'Where is the area or discretion
available to the client?' - in this case, the secretary of Defense. And
that was my determination, and I stand by it." <br><br>
<b>Reactions:</b> <b>The</b> <b>Wall Street Journal, </b>in a lengthy
editorial Friday, castigated the Senate committee report as
"politically predetermined." It said the "real
purpose" of the committee chairman, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich.,
"is to lay the groundwork for war crimes prosecutions of Bush
officials like ... Jim Haynes who acted in good faith to keep the country
safe within the confines of the law." In a statement dated the same
day, six GOP members of the committee dissented from the report's
conclusions. "The implication that this abuse was the direct,
necessary or foreseeable of policy decisions made by senior
administration officials is false and without merit."<br><br>
The Journal's editorial and the GOP letter came a day after a <b>New York
Times </b>editorial, which said the Senate report provides "a strong
case for bringing criminal charges against ... Rumsfeld; his legal
counsel, William J. Haynes; and potentially other top officials."
The editorial doubted that such a step would be taken, but hoped the
incoming Obama administration would "appoint an independent panel to
look into these and other egregious violations of the law."<br><br>
<b>Further reading: </b>To read the executive summary of the Senate Armed
Services Committee report (most of the investigation details remain
classified), go to
<a href="http://links.sfgate.com/ZFTC"><i>links.sfgate.com/ZFTC</a></i>.
To read Haynes' testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, go
to
<a href="http://links.sfgate.com/ZFTF"><i>links.sfgate.com/ZFTF</a></i>.
For the Wall Street Journal editorial, go to
<a href="http://links.sfgate.com/ZFTD"><i>links.sfgate.com/ZFTD</a></i>.
For the New York Times editorial, go to
<a href="http://links.sfgate.com/ZFTE"><i>links.sfgate.com/ZFTE</a></i>
.<br><br>
Tips, feedback: E-mail
<a href="mailto:bottomline@sfchronicle.com">bottomline@sfchronicle.com</a>
<br><br>
<a href="http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/23/BUGC14SMVV.DTL" eudora="autourl">
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/23/BUGC14SMVV.DTL<br>
<br>
</a>This article appeared on page <b>D - 1</b> of the San Francisco
Chronicle<br><br>
<br><br>
</font><x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<font size=3 color="#FF0000">Freedom Archives<br>
522 Valencia Street<br>
San Francisco, CA 94110<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#008000">415 863-9977<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#0000FF">
<a href="http://www.freedomarchives.org/" eudora="autourl">
www.Freedomarchives.org</a></font><font size=3> </font></body>
</html>