More On The Interrogation Question

What was the policy in 2000 and before? Is this discussion because of our current "enemy"? Do we have to debase ourselves for their benefit?

The price of discretion ought to be oversight/review. What of it?

I realize I should be reading between the lines here, but I am honestly confused about what the point is of all these posts.
Can it be boiled down to the headline: "Democrats Want Army Interrogation Standard, But Are Willing to Negotiate," or is there some other aspect to all this that I cannot grasp because of my tiny brain?

Anybody else notice that when the story is about the Bush administration the phrase used is "enhanced interrogation techniques" but when the story is about the Democrats its suddenly torture? Ill admit I haven't read the story yet but some how ill bet that there won't be much in the story about WHY the Democrats have to pass a ban on torture in the first damm place. Ill be back to say if I was right.

But the AFM, which is designed for use by the military, stops short of the goal line. We can call it the 80 yard line.
.
That's your source's opinion. I say it isn't measurable like that. But if you insist, then it IS the goal line, since no other standard exists. Therefore, what he is proposing is to move the "goal line" and that's what the bushies did. What makes this any different?
.

As God is my witness I didn't read the article until after I submitted my last post. So here is what I found from the first sentence on.
.

Barack Obama won the White House with a firm promise to put an end to what critics called the Bush Administration's use of torture on terror suspects. But as the President-elect prepares to take office, his team is quickly learning that even on such a seemingly black-and-white issue, effecting change in Washington is never as simple as it sounds on the campaign trail.
.

From the earliest days of his quest for the presidency, Obama said that he would eliminate the CIA's controversial power to employ secret, harsher methods in the interrogations of detainees. "As President, I will abide by statutory prohibitions, and have the Army Field Manual govern interrogation techniques for all United States Government personnel and contractors," he told the Boston Globe, in a December 2007 interview. (See a Who's Who of Obama's cabinet here.)
.
That military manual specifically bars the Army from using techniques that were approved in recent years by President Bush and his deputies, including waterboarding, intimidation by military dogs, the hooding of detainees and sexual humiliation. The manual approves 16 other interrogation techniques, focused mainly on non-coercive psychological manipulation.

.
So Scherer is it only torture when its the Democrats are trying to ban it? Or is it ALSO torture when President Bush ORDERS IT?
.
You know when 99% of people say a house is brown good journalists say its brown not "many people claim its brown".
.
Drudge light strikes again!

Here's the problem. When you are talking about what is TORTURE and what isn't TORTURE, it is useless to talk in metaphors and euphamisms. Let's get specific.
.
"But the AFM, which is designed for use by the military, stops short of the goal line. We can call it the 80 yard line."
.
Really? Can someone please tell me what specific techniques are forbidden by the AFM that would be both effective and moral to for the CIA to use? I'm not saying they don't exist -- obviously some people believe their is daylight between the AFM and the "Golden Rule". I'm just asking what that daylight is.
.
"Meanwhile, the intelligence community, which has a major seat at this table, is doing what it always does--working in the shadows."
.
This leads me to another point. Many people would have us believe that in order to keep specific operations secret, we must also keep discussions of general policies "in the shadows". This is nonsense. One of the purposes of revising the Bush administrations pro-torture policies is to send a public message that America does not engage in such practices. But it is impossible to send that message if we keep our policies in the shadows.
.
There is absolutely no danger in telling the world -- whether friend or foe -- "here is what we do and here is what we don't do." How else could we possibly expect the "Golden Rule" to be effective in practice?

"Should the CIA, in select circumstances, be able to use specific techniques or approaches that are allowed under a reasonable reading of the law, and even the Golden Rule standard, but not included in the AFM?"
-
Example please. And, if you can't give one, why screw with the clear, bright line for the sake of an unlikely hypothetical?
-
To use your screwy analogy: if you let the runner get past the line of scrimmage, you lose control of how far he'll go.

If you have to wonder if a certain practice would be considered torture, then it probably is.
Could someone please explain to me why the CIA gets to interrogate suspects anyway? Isn't that what law enforcement is for? Shouldn't these people either be handed over to the military or the FBI? I've never understood this. If someone can explain it to me, please do.

sgwhiteinfla - in Michael's defense, it must be said that he is not using a double standard between print and blog. Or at least not as egregious a double standard as you suggest.

He isn't actually willing to call dogs, waterboarding, long time standing, and the rest "torture" here on the blog either. The distinction is subtler. Here, he says (quite objectively, considering that the Right is full of sadistic loonies who are happy to claim none of those things are actually illegal, much less torture) that the techniques are "prohibited by torture statutes... under a conventional reading of the law." In print, he says that they are "what critics... called... torture". This permits the reading, "What sufferers from Bush Derangement Syndrome called torture" - though we all, like Time's print editors, understand that such weenyesque cavils over Bush's manly efforts to protect us all from the Terror Zombies From Hell could only have come from DFH's.

You won't get Michael to stick his neck out in print, and say there that these things violate "conventional readings" of torture statutes. You won't get him to say on this blog that they are torture, since "some people say" that they aren't. And "some people", after all, dine regularly with the guys who pay the bills.

I won't insist on the latter, if only MS could bring himself to characterize in print as the "conventional reading" what Bob Barr and the rest of us DFHs have been saying about torture all along. How about it, Michael? Would it get past the editors if you were to break so very cleanly with the speech codes of the Village?

queencersei
.
Actually no. The FBI is tasked with striclty crimes in the US. International crime is the CIA's area. Thats why they get to interrogate people involved with international plots against America. But it also gets muddied when the international plot actually happens on American soil. To me they should be under the same umbrella working together. But some folks think it makes them better if they separate and are in competition so to speak.

As late as the 60 minutes interview Obama made clear that this country will not torture under his Presidency. He has determined, correctly, that our torturing prisoners has done immeasurably more harm than it might possibly have prevented. There is no way to be "sort of" about this. It's necessary to draw a clear and bright line on this to communicate to the rest of the world what sort of place America is. In fact, our practices send that message, which was the problem with torture. Abu Grahib was a complete and thorough descent into this country's shadow, allowing us to project onto our enemy what was the worst in us.

This is a good test for Clinton/Obama. To me, the "right" answer here involves precisely what Bush was unwilling to do: engage in a little back door diplomacy to arrive at a standard which honors a broad consensus among mature and free nations. Moreover, it wouldn't hurt to find out what kind of chit we could earn with middle eastern nations we are attempting to influence with respect to policy changes. Bush saw this as ceding our power and sovereignty. I don't want to hand over our defense to an international committee, but the ultimate answer here should rightly include fairly extensive diplomacy. It's all levers and I see this decision as all about setting them up to pull for the next few years. It goes much deeper than simply choosing the "right" thing - it's about symbolism and influence and that includes talking to a wide swath of stakeholders.

Thanks sgwhiteinfla.
I'm still unsure why the CIA does not have to follow the same rules of interrogation that others, such as the FBI or military have to obey. Even if the crime occures outside the U.S. I would think the same basic rules would apply? I just wonder how CIA has achieved its "special" status allowing it to flout laws that every other agency has to follow.

"A hypothetical example I mention in the story are possible lies that would be told prisoners. The AFM calls "impermissible coercion" techniques like "implying a deprivation of applicable protections guaranteed by law because of a failure to cooperate" and "threatening to separate parents from their children."
-
So threatening prisoners is prohibited (whether lying or not), just as it should be.
-
The jury is already in on this issue: the way to secure cooperation is by gaining trust, not by mistreatment or threats of same as that usually hardens the subject to his captors, rendering any information obtained suspect. So lies designed to cultivate trust or secure cooperation (if you tell us, you get 71 virgins) might make sense and I see nothing in the AFM to prevent it. But you only get to shoot that load once per prisoner because you lose trust and once the word gets out, that particular technique is worthless.
-
We should adhere to the rules as they have been followed for the past 60 years and, if deemed absolutely necessary, carefully break them in secret, just like we've been doing for the past 60 years.

Can I just say that this whole thing is completely backwards. To the degree one would ever permit torture, it would be in an instance where time is more important than reliability of the intelligence obtained. One can conceive of this, plausibly (the Dirty Harry ticking time bomb scenarios are not plausible), on the battlefield, where troop dispositions or numbers may be the difference between deploying force effectively or ineffectively.
.
The place where there would conceivably be exceptions is not the CIA, which should be much more concerned about accuracy of intelligence, above all else, but armed forces in the field. There's no reason, I can think of, that doesn't involve principles we do not believe in, for allowing the CIA to torture people but not the military.
.

sg, the CIA has no authority in international law. When the CIA take custody of a person it is usually of questionable legality, and the agency has be charged, in Italy, for example with criminal offenses. The CIA is primarily an intelligence gathering and analytical organization. Things get ugly from their operational activities, although they did orchestrate the early in Afghanistan, not the military.

.
My point is that issue of CIA activities is extremely complicated before the issue of torture even arises. Before answering the question of what interrogation techniques they should be allowed, the first question is whether they even have legal custody of the individual.

How is DiFi a Senator, anyway? Did she somehow obtain incriminating photgraphs on 50%+1 of California residents?

my post is a mess of typos. sorry. I'll be more careful next time.

I have seen little reference to the FBI in all of this discussion. They have more history in the subject than the military and CIA put together. They also managed to not be implicated in the scandles during the Bush administration.

80 yard line?!
That's where the guy can throw the ball for a home run pass, then the other guy can kick it between the yellow-stick thingies...

formerlyjames: I seem to recall reading a couple of months back that the FBI was present during some of the CIA's interigations and questioned the legality of their actions at the time. As I recall the FBI started keeping a file on CIA activites that they called the "war crimes file" or something to that effect.

On Leave 1976 Ask the CIA agent at the cIA's Home camp U.s. Of A. While we had a nice little dicussion about .torture..
naerly knock his head off, bust his jaw,, definately had to snap his neck.. How the torture tecnique Now, man,, If youare still alive.. and your father is still a F888ucking moron,., if the old gray hair geeser is still alve>.

You know I don;t have toplace my name here.. Nyc...the Phony CIA .. detroit excuse me ..Chicagp PD Police depatermnt I suppose..
how did the boys and girls do with Ladies of the evening from new yorks finaest ally's..

Guess what you check speellings this time i did tech writing. i was good at it.. at some timwe int my life...how am i doing??.

formerlyjames - here is a link to an article I found on the subject: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/05/21/1211182897520.html