Cheney aide reveals little at hearing

WASHINGTON — For years, congressional Democrats dreamed of taking a crack at a man they saw as a key player behind the use of waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods against detainees in the war on terror — methods critics say amounted to torture.

And Thursday, they finally got their wish when David Addington, a top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney and alleged mastermind of the legal rationale for such tactics, appeared before a House subcommittee.

He testified with John Yoo, the former Justice Department lawyer who drafted many of the legal memos defending harsh techniques.

But rather than eliciting new information or forcing damaging admissions, the hearing showed the hostility and mutual disdain between the most liberal critics of the Bush administration's war policies and its most unyielding defenders.

Now a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley, Yoo has written a book on his time at the Justice Department and has spoken regularly in defense of his legal opinions. Addington, in contrast, had not appeared before Congress to discuss the issue.

Addington, described as one of the key forces behind the Bush administration's most aggressive counterterrorism policies, said some reports were overstated. However, he provided few specifics on his role in pressing for tough tactics at Guantánamo Bay and with CIA prisoners. At the same time, he made it clear he had played a central role in the matter.

And he lectured the committee on the continuing nature of the terrorist threat. "No American should think we're free, the war is over, al-Qaida is not coming and they're not interested in getting us," Addington said, "Because that's wrong."

Yet when Democrats on the panel tried to pin him down on the moral and legal issues they saw as critical, Addington brushed them aside.

Rep Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., who later characterized Addington's attitude as "smug," asked whether, if the interrogation program was found to be illegal, he would bear any responsibility.

"Is that a moral question or a legal question?" Addington responded, then asserted he bore no responsibility, legal or moral.

Was President Bush constrained by laws against torture? Addington refused to offer an opinion.

Putting the question in extreme terms, Nadler asked if Addington agreed that torturing a detainee's child to obtain information would be legal.

"I'm not here to render legal advice to your committee," Addington shot back.

Addington acknowledged attending many meetings with top Pentagon officials and being briefed by Yoo. He acknowledged multiple trips to Guantánamo.

What he did not offer was details on what he said or did at such meetings.

Critics had hoped the hearing would show that, behind the scenes, Addington played a lead role in pushing for the tough tactics.

Addington argued he was trying to maximize the president's options and give legal protections to intelligence agents asked to do "tough things in war time."

Perhaps the strangest exchange came when Rep. William Delahunt, D-Mass., asked Addington whether waterboarding, an interrogation technique that simulates drowning, was discussed in meetings.

"I can't talk to you," Addington said. "Al-Qaida may watch these meetings."

Delahunt replied he was sure they were. "I'm glad they finally have a chance to see you, Mr. Addington," Delahunt said.

Without missing a beat, Addington answered: "I'm sure you're pleased."

Information from The Washington Post is included in this report.