Centerfield: Owning Up to Your Policy

June 27, 2004

Owning Up to Your Policy

A week ago, the president addressed the torture issue directly, and with fairly sweeping statements. A few days prior, he had couched his language in legalisms -- stating that we're "following the law" in the way we deal with prisoners. That didn't answer too many questions in too many people's minds, so he finally took on the issue directly. Torture is wrong. We don't practice torture. And we are treating prisoners "humanely".

Ok, that pretty much covers it. The administration could offer a more nuanced argument. You could claim that a certain segment of high ranking al Qaida operatives need to be treated differently -- that we need to be tougher. They could make a similar argument to the one they make regarding the Patriot Act -- namely, that some rules need to change in an era of terrorism.

That argument is being made by a fair number of conservatives, who project a gritty, realist view that we need to get tough with these guys if we want to beat them.

The president effectively abandoned that argument. We're treating them all "humanely". We don't practice torture.

When he made that statement, I sensed the president was entering dangerous territory. Because it's increasingly likely, based on what's trickling out from various sources, that his statement is false.

Of course, we have all the information from Abu Ghraib, where military intelligence officers had permission from the highest ranking officer at the prison to use unmuzzled dogs in interrogations. That doesn't necessarily mean it was approved by the civilian side of the administration, but it is kind of startling.

Then we have the documents released by the administration on the very day Bush made his "humane treatment" statement. One of them shows that for a short period of time back in 2002, Donald Rumsfeld specifically approved techniques involving interrogating prisoners in the nude, sleep deprivation, and use of dogs for intimidation.

Then we have the Washington Post story picked up this morning by my local paper. The CIA is suspending -- just now suspending, apparently -- techniques used in secret CIA detention centers where suspected al Qaida leaders are being interrogated. Those techniques include simulated drowning, stress positions, and sleep deprivation.

Is pretending to drown someone "humane"? Or the use of barking dogs against nude prisoners?

No.

There's a possibility, I suppose, that the president's subordinates are ordering these things without his authority. But if Donald Rumsfeld violated the president's policy of humane treatment, what consequences has he faced? Was the CIA similarly violating the president's policy on their own initiative?

This is dangerous territory. It's one thing to argue for a different policy, another to present your policy one way to the American people while following a different one in secret.

Update:

The New York Times reports today that the widely-discussed Justice Department torture memo of August 2002 was prepared as an after-the-fact justification of coercive interrogation techniques used by the CIA on top al Qaida operatives.

Posted by William Swann at June 27, 2004 11:54 AM

Comments

The New York Times reports today that the widely-discussed Justice Department torture memo of August 2002 was prepared as an after-the-fact justification of coercive interrogation techniques used by the CIA on top al Qaida operatives.

Um, William, I just read the New York Times story, and that wasn't exactly what it said. What it said was that the CIA requested a legal memo clarifying the permissible methods of interrogation of terrorist prisoners not subject to Geneva Convention rules, in response to internal questions of whether or not the methods they were already using were in fact legally permissible.

While I realize the finer distinctions of the law are often lost on journalists, there is one hell of a distinction between asking the Justice Department to issue an opinion on the far boundaries of legally permissible methods in order to know where the line is and whether or not you're stepping over it (clarification) and asking the Justice Dept. to issue a memo retroactively proclaiming "legal" methods already used, whether they were in fact legal or not (after-the-fact justification).

It's not even as simple as "what did we do then and what are we doing now?" The CIA and the Pentagon had different policies in place. And within both the CIA and the Pentagon, there were different policies for different classes of prisoner--those subject to the different classes within the Geneva Conventions, and those not subject to the GC's at all. Pentagon policies apparently followed the well-established military guidelines. CIA policies apparently differed widely from the established Pentagon policies, and changed a few times during that period.

Beware simplistic interpretations of legal principles, from either the White House or the New York Times. It's a minefield of rhetoric and misinformation, and we may never know the facts, certainly not anytime soon. But it's a pretty safe bet that at the moment, we are indeed, in all branches, treating prisoners "humanely."

There's actually a whole lot of seperate issues here, not one, certainly not one of sound-bite simplicity. What is, legally speaking, torture? What is the difference between "inhumane" treatment and torture, other than legality? What policies did the CIA follow? What policies did the Pentagon follow? Who approved those policies? Did the policies follow the law? What is the legal justification for those policies? What violations if any of those policies occurred, and who was reponsible for those violations? To which different groups of prisoners did each of those policies apply? And what policies are we using now, for which groups?

I'd love to see some real answers. But I'm not holding my breath--almost anything that comes out in the press will have been spun before being leaked, and will at best just give us a small piece of a very big puzzle.

Posted by: Tully at June 27, 2004 01:49 PM

I endorse the toture of top Al Qaeda operatives where the "ticking time bomb" argument holds, to avoid imminent loss of civilian life. I do not endorse it when used against Taliban or Iraqis who are fighting as guerillas, not terrorists.

There is an assumption of reciprocity in the Geneva conventions. Our soldiers who fall into enemy hands benefit by our fair treatment of enemy prisoners. But Al Qaeda beheads prisoners. There's no reciprocity. The Geneva conventions were not created to for only one side to observe them.

I think Bush is behing dishonest. I've been reluctant to accuse him of lying in other cases, but in this one, I think his statements, and reality, are at variance. It's important to get life-saving information out of terrorists, but it's awkward to talk about it, so he's blowing smoke.

Posted by: rickheller at June 27, 2004 05:39 PM

Bush is now taking the right path. A U.S. president simply cannot say "yeah, well, sometimes we have to torture people."

Much better to state clearly that we do not torture, and if somewhere someone breaks the policy...

Posted by: Oberon at June 28, 2004 09:58 AM

Centerfield

A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics

June 27, 2004

Owning Up to Your Policy