Yesterday, Sens. Diane Feinstein and Ron Wyden, who have spent a great deal of time trying to restrict the CIA's interrogation methods to the Army Field Manual, were quoted in The New York Times sounding conspicuously ambivalent about torture. Feinstein said that, "you have to use the noncoercive standard to the greatest extent possible," while she "rais[ed] the possibility that an imminent terrorist threat might require special measures." Wyden reportedly said "he would consult with the C.I.A. and approve interrogation techniques that went beyond the Army Field Manual as long as they were 'legal, humane and noncoercive.'"
Glenn Greenwald is alarmed:
What makes this so notable is that, for the last year, Feinstein and Wyden were both insistent that the only way to end torture and restore America's standing in the world was to require CIA compliance with the Army Field Manual -- period. But as long as George Bush was President, it was cheap and easy for Feinstein and Wyden to argue that, because they knew there was no chance it would ever happen. As they well knew, they lacked the votes to override Bush's inevitable veto of any such legislation. So as long as Bush was President, it was all just posturing, strutting around demanding absolute anti-torture legislation they knew would never pass.Well, maybe. But Feinstein, who in my view gave the more disturbing of the two quotes, claims she was misquoted. The reason I found her quote more disconcerting is that it seemed to make an exception for the "24" scenario, and a rule you can break in an emergency isn't actually a rule. But according to her office, the statement she sent out was this:
“The law must reflect a single, clear standard across the government, and right now the best choice appears to be the Army Field Manual,” Senator Feinstein said. “I recognize that there are other views, and I am willing to work with the new Administration to consider them. However, my intent is to pass a law that effectively bans torture, complies with all laws and treaties, and provides a single standard across the government.”
As for Wyden, his position that "legal, humane and noncoercive" interrogation methods not included in the Army Field Manual should be allowed isn't necessarily a euphemistic defense of torture. Spencer Ackerman explains:
I’ve heard one legitimate reason from CIA people why requiring their interrogators to follow the Army Field Manual is a bit of a problem: the manual specifies particular techniques.Theoretically, if an interrogator modifies a technique somewhat or wants to use an unspecified technique, assuming that none of which would be torture from either a legal or a common-sense perspective, would the requirement prevent that?
Well, for the past year, Wyden and Feinstein have been arguing that a requirement should limit the CIA to the AFM. It makes perfect sense to be suspicious of the CIA promising that the techniques they want to use aren't listed in the AFM but also aren't torture, given how the Bush Administration redefined torture not to include techniques that we know are torture. But if there can be a standard set for the CIA that effectively bans torture (including those methods we know are torture but haven't been referred to as such) but does not bind the CIA to the AFM I would be OK with that. The question is whether it is realistically possible to do so. But this doesn't explain how Wyden and Feinstein suddenly became sensitive to the CIA's concerns.
--A. Serwer
