[Mb-civic] Central Torture Agency? - Jeffrey H. Smith - Washington Post Op-Ed

[William Swiggard]

Central Torture Agency?
Exempting the CIA From the McCain Amendment Sends the Wrong Signal to 
Our Officers

By Jeffrey H. Smith
Wednesday, November 9, 2005; Page A31

Americans do not join the CIA to commit torture. Yet that could be the 
result if a proposal advanced by Vice President Cheney becomes law.

When the abuses by U.S. servicemen and intelligence officers at Abu 
Ghraib surfaced last year, there was understandable outrage in this 
country and abroad. Internal investigations and congressional hearings 
revealed several causes of the abuse. One of the most important was 
confusion in the military and intelligence agencies as to what rules 
governed interrogations. A root cause of the confusion was the belief at 
the highest levels of the administration that the Geneva Conventions, 
which had governed our conduct for 60 years, were outmoded and should 
not constrain our treatment of prisoners. Regrettably, the career 
lawyers in the armed forces and the State Department who have guided our 
compliance with the Geneva Conventions for decades were cut out of these 
discussions.

In response, Sen. John McCain, himself a victim of brutal torture by the 
North Vietnamese, introduced an amendment to the 2006 Defense 
Appropriations Act that would, in essence, require all agencies of the 
U.S. government to comply with the Geneva Conventions and international 
law, which prohibit torture. Over strong administration objection, 
McCain's amendment passed 90 to 9. It will soon be considered by a 
conference committee with the House, which has no similar provision in 
its version of the bill. Enter the vice president.

Cheney and Porter Goss, director of the CIA, have proposed a 
modification of the McCain amendment that would permit the president to 
exempt the CIA from its strictures. McCain wisely rejected that 
proposal. So should the conferees.

If the administration's proposal passed, what would be the consequences? 
Why should we adhere to the Geneva Conventions when our terrorist 
enemies do not?

The answers are simple. First, we have long championed the Geneva 
Conventions because we want our citizens treated humanely when they are 
captured. Second, morally it is the right thing to do. If this amendment 
passes, what weight will our complaints have when other governments use 
their intelligence services to torture Americans?

There are also practical considerations that argue against the 
administration's proposal. It would sow even further confusion in the 
field, where decisions must be made by young officers who act under 
enormous stress and often in fear for their lives. Those officers 
demand, and we must provide, clear guidance with respect to what they 
may and may not do. The CIA and the military operate cheek-by-jowl, 
often in small teams far from command structures and lawyers. If those 
teams operate with two sets of rules, confusion will reign and abuses 
will occur.

On Monday the president weighed in, saying that "we do not torture." 
Regrettably, because his administration has endorsed interrogation 
techniques that border on torture (anything short of "organ failure"), 
we cannot be certain of what the president means by torture. That 
confusion could be eliminated by clear congressional action requiring 
adherence to a single standard for the whole government, as McCain 
suggested.

Lawyers and policymakers in Washington who sleep between clean sheets 
and get three hot meals a day can draft complex rules that make fine 
distinctions between military and CIA rules for interrogation. Those 
same officials ask our young officers in the field to take great risks. 
Risks are necessary to protect us. And war is not bingo. But the 
officers in the field are mindful that their colleagues are being 
investigated and may be prosecuted for prisoner abuses. If the Cheney 
proposal is adopted, what signal will it send to those officers? If the 
Geneva Conventions don't apply, what are the limits on interrogation? 
Will officers in the field have confidence that they will be backed up 
by senior officers in Washington, or will they be prosecuted?

There may be an argument for exempting the CIA from the McCain 
amendment. If so, the president and vice president should publicly make 
the case. They should say why they believe treatment of prisoners 
outside the Geneva Conventions would provide vital intelligence to 
protect us. They should give examples of how such treatment has produced 
valuable intelligence. If the choice is between the McCain amendment as 
modified by Cheney and nothing, we are better off with doing nothing and 
leaving the law where it is. Sooner or later this nation will come to 
its senses and remember how important international law and the Geneva 
Conventions are to our standing in the world and the protection of our 
citizens.

The Post reported on Oct. 27 that John Negroponte, director of national 
intelligence, has directed intelligence agencies to "bolster the growth 
of democracy" and support the rule of law in other nations. Those are 
noble causes that will be embraced by all intelligence officers. But if 
the vice president's proposal is adopted, the CIA will presumably be 
free to bolster democracy by torturing anyone who does not embrace it 
with sufficient enthusiasm. Some democracy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/08/AR2005110801108.html?nav=hcmodule
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20051109/e18feacb/attachment.htm