Interrogation Policy Still A Bit Shadowy

We will be dealing with the aftermath of this adminstration for decades.
If 8 years ago you were told that the US would debating at what level we could torture in 2008 you would have laughed it off.
.
That said I don't trust Feinstein to do the right thing and stick to her AFM standard.

Would that be "Dianne" Feinstein, MS?

Thanks for staying on this MS. The lack of tradmed coverage of this during the Bush regime helped enable it. Putting in the clear bright line of the unclassified Army manual vs anything else is a very good frame.

I urge you to be cautious in your coverage of this story. Needless to say, it's a very important issue and as in any issue with this much emotional involvment, it's very easy for misunderstandings to arise. I know that your crediting McCain with 'opposing torure' while voting against the Army Field manual bill was a big source of contention. The advantage of the Field manual is as you note, that it's very specific. One of the downsides is that it isn't secret. I'm thinking that the CIA-types if nothing else, want the ability to keep their charges guessing.

As we have seen time and again however, is that as long as people have latitude in what treatment of prisoners is allowed, they will naturally gravitate to the worst possible treatment. It's simply a matter of human nature, especially in cases where the interrogators actually believe that they are failing at something important.

In other words, there NEEDS to be a law in place, it needs to be specific as to what's allowed and (here's the kicker) it needs to be enforcable and enforced with appropriate penalties for non-compliance. Otherwise our Agents will be open to improvisation and we've already seen exactly where that leads.

The day will come in the near future when a member of the U.S. military will be captured and tortured by the same methods that our legislators condone today. When that happens, and only then, when a firestorm of public opinion occurs to change this, will our leaders do the "right" thing.
.
Just don't expect it to happen until then.
.
Good post MS.

I don't trust her at all and thank MS for following this one.

Very good catch, Michael. Thanks for the post.

This is the new spirit of bipartisanship. All of the Democrats have to put on their "we will listen to the opposition" faces on. What exactly do you think would have happened if Feinstein said she didn't give a sh!t what the people at the CIA says, they are going to the military handbook? Now I am not saying we should just trust her or anybody in the new administration. But I am saying that I believe she is playing the good politics game. If she is going to be chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee she is going to have to have some support from the Intelligence community. Support that she wouldn't get if she wasn't willing to listen. I would also point out that from what i understand chemical coercion ie "truth serum" actually can work in certain situations and might be a part of the "flexible" stuff she is talking about.
.
I can also see where Paul D is coming from because if the terroist know you can't do anything in the manual then they probably won't be as easily cowed because they know there is only so much you can do to them. BUT on the flip side if the techniques ARE published then perhaps the terrorist recruiters lose a propaganda tool. I have to say that I don't understand how we can publish the Army manual and that turns out fine but now we argue that the CIA techniques must not be published. I think thats going to be a very hard argument to support unless all of the torture technique manuals suddenly become classified and i don't think anyone wants that.

When is anyone going to acknowledge that Ana Marie left? If not, at least post a photo showing her cute new haircut.

Standard Democrat procedure, unfortunately - talk tough until you have power, then turn your head and cough. It would be nice to have Republicans who actually believed what they said they believed, or Democrats who actually did what they said they would, but then I guess it would also be nice to have a covey of lovely young things to cater to my every whim and a body like Ahnuld's (used to be) without having to work out at all.

Am I the only one baffled that John McCain of all people wouldn't be supportive of this?

BUT on the flip side if the techniques ARE published then perhaps the terrorist recruiters lose a propaganda tool.
.
That's IF anyone were to actually trust our government anymore. Which I feel is a long shot.

@queencersei: how do you know he isn't? He's probably on-record in support of both views.
'
Just curious - the two are probably not even connected in the slightest - but how does a nation full of kids who "know their rights" and have lawyers in their speed-dial to protect them against menacing parents have a policy of torture? Or is it because we, as parents, are not allowed to use corporal punishment on our kids that we take it out on "foreigners"?

Obama's views on torture is what will be the policy and according to 2 London newspapers today, Obama's grandfather was held for 2 years by the British during the maumau uprising and tortured.
I would think Obama would want to end that policy here.

Consider this wisdom from the most successful interrogator and team leader who persuaded al-Zarqawi's followers in Iraq to reveal his location - with a strict policy of humane treatment, building rapport and winning the prisoners' respect to the point where they want to help you end the needless torment and killing of innocents:

http://tinyurl.com/5rnpnx

"I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. The large majority of suicide bombings in Iraq are still carried out by these foreigners. They are also involved in most of the attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. It's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001."

per the update, Scherer I think you are being just a tad bit disengeuous now. First of all the NYTimes cutting off the rest of the quote should automatically remove any credibility that they enjoyed. Second of all this part of the statement to me is a lot bigger than the "single standard" part.
.

However, my intent is to pass a law that effectively bans torture, complies with all laws and treaties,

.
I don't think you can get any more unambiguous than that. But hey maybe I am just being an optimist

I'm with sgwhiteinfla on this. The stuff the Times left out is more than 'clarification.' And its omission says more about the Times' reporting than Feinstein's intent.
That there's even discussion whether the US should endorse torture is outrageous. It's time for Congress to realize that Jack Bauer is fiction.

[...] Swampland - TIME.com » Blog Archive Interrogation Policy Still A Bit Shadowy « Now Feinstein is set to take over the Senate Intelligence Committee. And the next president, Barack Obama, is a man who supported the Army Field Manual bill. So everything should be pretty open and shut, right? [...]

[...] Scherer flags this quote from Dianne Feinstein in today’s [...]

@AndyfromMA (#6) - The day will come in the near future when a member of the U.S. military will be captured and tortured by the same methods that our legislators condone today

I believe members of our military have ALREADY been tortured then brutally executed.

If the Abu_Ghraib episode wasn't enough, then what will create outrage?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse#Purported_retaliation

[...] on what standards the Obama Administration should use to govern interrogations. This follows her comments earlier this week, which left open the possibility of abandoning her past proposal to use the Army Field Manual as [...]

[...] Michael Scherer and Salon’s Glenn Greenwald tackle Dianne Feinstein’s and Ron Wyden’s apparent [...]

My comment got bounced for a bad word. I will state it again without the word. It is absurd that the boundries and limits of torture are being debated or even considered in the United States of America. We do not do that.

Sorry, I was confused. My comment with the bad word is still on another blog. 2 torture blogs here.