CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS
– INTELLIGENCE
Nov. 14, 2008 – 4:06 p.m.
Hill Democrats Wait for Obama Stance on Interrogation Standards
By Tim Starks, CQ Staff
Top Democrats on congressional intelligence panels could be heading for conflict with President-elect Barack Obama over interrogation policies, a subject over which they often clashed with President Bush.
Obama said earlier this year he supported legislation that would have mandated that the CIA and other agencies subscribe to a 2006 Army field manual’s guidelines on interrogation practices, which would have the effect of banning harsh treatment of detainees such as waterboarding. But some media reports have raised questions about whether Obama would use his executive powers to mandate the same interrogation standards once he is in the White House.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein , D-Calif., one of Congress’ leading proponents of banning harsh interrogation methods, is expected to take over the gavel at the Intelligence Committee.
“Sen. Feinstein intends to introduce legislation that would require America’s intelligence agencies to follow the Army field manual in interrogations; to prohibit the use of contractors in interrogations; to grant the International Committee of the Red Cross access to detainees; and to close the Guantánamo Bay detention facility within one year,” said a spokesman, Phil LaVelle. “If President Obama accomplishes these goals through executive action, then we won’t need to pursue them legislatively as well.”
Rep. Rush Holt, a New Jersey Democrat who chairs the select Appropriations subcommittee that recommends intelligence funding, said this week that Obama should take seven steps to improve the treatment of detainees. An aide to Holt said that he expected a standard of treatment during interrogations that is at least equal to that of the Army field manual.
“While an executive order will not remove the need for legislation on the issue, it is a way for President-elect Obama to put an immediate halt to our government’s use of torture during interrogations and to prevent secret detentions,” said Holt, chairman of the Select Intelligence Oversight Panel. “By exercising his authority and acting quickly, he will begin to restore our moral leadership on the issue and repair some of the harm that has been done to our international reputation.”
Although Obama issued a statement during the campaign supporting the idea of applying the Army field manual interrogation standard to all agencies, not just the Pentagon, a senior campaign adviser to Obama left the door open to applying another standard.
“He [believes] torture not be allowed in any form or fashion in any part of the federal government, and he would make sure that was the case,” said John Brennan, who served under former CIA chief George J. Tenet in a variety of capacities at a time when the agency has since acknowledged it waterboarded a small number of terror suspects.
“Whether the Army field manual is comprehensive enough to cover all those tactics and techniques, that’s something I think he’d look to his national security advisers for,” Brennan said in an interview with CQ in August.
The Wall Street Journal, citing a “current government official familiar with the transition,” reported this week that “Obama may decide he wants to keep the road open in certain cases for the CIA to use techniques not approved by the military, but with much greater oversight.”
Opponents of using the Army field manual standard at the CIA said that interrogators there are more experienced than Pentagon interrogators and therefore are better equipped to apply techniques not listed in the manual.
The bill that included the Army field manual guidelines (
Rockefeller Out
Hill Democrats Wait for Obama Stance on Interrogation Standards
Feinstein’s expected move to chair the Intelligence panel took an additional step forward Friday when the incumbent, John D. Rockefeller IV , D-W.Va., wrote in an e-mail to staff that he would be leaving to take over the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. The move would have to be approved by the Democratic steering committee and caucus.
“The decision to do so was extremely difficult for me,” Rockefeller wrote. “The critical importance of rebuilding America’s infrastructure and sagging economy ultimately tipped the balance in my thinking and lead me to relinquish chairmanship of a committee that I love and of a staff who individually and collectively are a continual source of pride for me.”




Comments
Torture as standard operating procedure is a policy which has a plethora of negatives; however, to eliminate the process completely is just as bad. The human rights of terrorists (which is an oxymoronic phrase to begin with) takes a very far back seat in comparison to the safety and welfare of my country. There are some very, very nasty characters in the world whose only purpose in life is to irradicate those who do not hold an ideology similar to their own. Given the choice between another episode of the Twin Towers or a terrorist getting wet, I'll take the latter approach, any day of the week
There are some very, very nasty characters in the world whose only purpose in life is to irradicate those who do not hold an ideology similar to their own. Looked in a mirror lately?
I see at least two obvious problems with using torture. 1) It rots the soul of the torturer and the culture and 2) Where does the torturer draw the line? Once one crosses that line how far is it to torture the families of suspects. Maybe cutting the head off a suspect's child will prevent a 911? It's a return to the dark ages.
No valid information was ever acquired using torture. Besides being evil and rotting the soul, it has never ever achieved its intended purpose. And, really, how could it? Those who advocate for it have little to no understanding of the human condition. Therefore, the compelling answer is to always say no.
Contrary to what many people believe torture does produce results. I don't feel bad for the torturing terrorists because they are out to kill us and this is war. We didn't bring the fight to them; they brought it to us and as such we have the right to go after them and kill them or torture them to extract information. I'm so tired of hippie liberals running around telling us the world is good and its our fault they want to kill us.
maybe we do have "the right" to torture &/or kill those who would torture &/or kill us, but we are torturing taxi-drivers & goat-herders whose crime was being kidnapped and sold to US military forces by the "terrorists" we decided we wanted on our side for this large-scale psychological experiment. And if you think putting someone in sensory deprivation for multiple months at a time is morally defensible, i could see how reasonable people could come to wish you harm.
There have always been evil people in the world.Did we torture the nazis?When did we become such moral cowards?
The really important question for those that feel terrorists deserve to be tortured is this: How many innocent people can be acceptably tortured, if it means no terrorist escapes? Right now, that number is in the hundreds, if not thousands, and growing.
POST A COMMENT
Oops! The following errors must be addressed: