Team Infidel
Forum Spin Doctor
New York Times
December 7, 2007 By Scott Shane
WASHINGTON, Dec. 6 — In a sharp rebuke to White House counterterrorism policy, a Congressional conference committee has voted to outlaw the harsh interrogation techniques used by the Central Intelligence Agency against suspected high-level terrorists.
The vote to require all American interrogators to abide by the Army Field Manual, which prohibits coercive methods, came during negotiations of the Senate and House intelligence committees over the annual intelligence authorization bill. It will not be the last word on the subject; the full House and Senate must still pass the bill, and it would likely face a veto by President Bush.
But passage of the interrogation restriction — by one vote in a tense, three-hour meeting on Wednesday behind closed doors — reflected Congress’s growing disenchantment with the harsh tactics authorized by the White House after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. It was the latest setback for the administration’s insistence that what it calls “enhanced” interrogation techniques are a critical part of gathering intelligence to thwart future terrorist attacks.
Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, the Democratic chairman of the intelligence committee, said in a statement on Thursday that the existence of a secret, separate interrogation program run by the C.I.A., “however well-intentioned, plays into the hands of our enemies.”
“Our committee has wrestled with this issue for a long time,” Mr. Rockefeller said, “and finally, a majority has agreed that we should no longer have two systems — one for C.I.A. interrogators and one for the military.”
He said questioning prisoners without physical pressure has “been used with success by military and law enforcement interrogators for decades.”
But Senator Christopher S. Bond of Missouri, the Republican vice chairman, in another statement criticized the interrogation amendment as ill advised meddling with a program that protects Americans.
“Because of this last minute amendment, this bill would tie the hands of our terror fighters,” Mr. Bond said. Ending the secret interrogation program would play into the hands of terrorists by allowing Al Qaeda to study the Army Field Manual on the Internet to prepare to resist questioning if captured, he said.
Human rights groups hailed the vote as an overdue step to put a clear stop to the United States’ use of methods the groups describe as torture.
“Experienced interrogators have repeatedly said that the field manual gives them everything they need to get actionable intelligence from dangerous prisoners,” said Elisa Massimino, director of the Washington office of Human Rights First.
A White House spokesman, Tony Fratto, denounced the measure and said it would face a presidential veto if it passes.
“The C.I.A. interrogation program has yielded extremely valuable information that has led to the capture of Al Qaeda operatives and the prevention of terrorist attacks,” Mr. Fratto said. “Congress should not be looking for ways to weaken this effective program.”
The ban on harsh interrogation was proposed by three Democratic senators — Dianne Feinstein of California, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin — and one Republican senator, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.
Mr. Bond objected to the amendment, which he said violated Congressional rules and would threaten passage of the entire intelligence bill.
Since passage of the Detainee Treatment Act in 2005, the military has been restricted by law from using any technique beyond the Army Field Manual, whose 19 approved methods include tactics like “good cop-bad cop,” isolation from other prisoners and “false flag,” in which American interrogators pose as representatives of another country.
Officials also say the C.I.A. long ago dropped some of its harshest methods, including waterboarding, in which water is poured on a prisoner’s face to cause a feeling of suffocation.
But in passing the Military Commissions Act last year, Congress permitted Mr. Bush to authorize additional, tougher techniques beyond those in the Army manual for use by the C.I.A. The president approved such techniques, which remain secret, in an executive order in July.
The C.I.A. director, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, has spoken repeatedly about the training of the interrogators and the relatively few prisoners who have been subjected to the toughest techniques. Intelligence officials have said that of about 100 prisoners held to date in the C.I.A. program, the “enhanced” techniques were used on about 30, and waterboarding used on just three.
Despite the explanations and retrenchments, the United States has had a hard time countering accusations from human rights groups and other countries that it engaged in torture. In May, the Senate intelligence panel came within one vote of blocking funds for the C.I.A. program, which it said damaged the country’s reputation and created obstacles to the prosecution of terrorists.
In addition, some military officers, including top lawyers for the military branches, have objected to the C.I.A. program because they believe it blurs the rules for prisoner treatment and could endanger American service members captured overseas.
December 7, 2007 By Scott Shane
WASHINGTON, Dec. 6 — In a sharp rebuke to White House counterterrorism policy, a Congressional conference committee has voted to outlaw the harsh interrogation techniques used by the Central Intelligence Agency against suspected high-level terrorists.
The vote to require all American interrogators to abide by the Army Field Manual, which prohibits coercive methods, came during negotiations of the Senate and House intelligence committees over the annual intelligence authorization bill. It will not be the last word on the subject; the full House and Senate must still pass the bill, and it would likely face a veto by President Bush.
But passage of the interrogation restriction — by one vote in a tense, three-hour meeting on Wednesday behind closed doors — reflected Congress’s growing disenchantment with the harsh tactics authorized by the White House after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. It was the latest setback for the administration’s insistence that what it calls “enhanced” interrogation techniques are a critical part of gathering intelligence to thwart future terrorist attacks.
Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, the Democratic chairman of the intelligence committee, said in a statement on Thursday that the existence of a secret, separate interrogation program run by the C.I.A., “however well-intentioned, plays into the hands of our enemies.”
“Our committee has wrestled with this issue for a long time,” Mr. Rockefeller said, “and finally, a majority has agreed that we should no longer have two systems — one for C.I.A. interrogators and one for the military.”
He said questioning prisoners without physical pressure has “been used with success by military and law enforcement interrogators for decades.”
But Senator Christopher S. Bond of Missouri, the Republican vice chairman, in another statement criticized the interrogation amendment as ill advised meddling with a program that protects Americans.
“Because of this last minute amendment, this bill would tie the hands of our terror fighters,” Mr. Bond said. Ending the secret interrogation program would play into the hands of terrorists by allowing Al Qaeda to study the Army Field Manual on the Internet to prepare to resist questioning if captured, he said.
Human rights groups hailed the vote as an overdue step to put a clear stop to the United States’ use of methods the groups describe as torture.
“Experienced interrogators have repeatedly said that the field manual gives them everything they need to get actionable intelligence from dangerous prisoners,” said Elisa Massimino, director of the Washington office of Human Rights First.
A White House spokesman, Tony Fratto, denounced the measure and said it would face a presidential veto if it passes.
“The C.I.A. interrogation program has yielded extremely valuable information that has led to the capture of Al Qaeda operatives and the prevention of terrorist attacks,” Mr. Fratto said. “Congress should not be looking for ways to weaken this effective program.”
The ban on harsh interrogation was proposed by three Democratic senators — Dianne Feinstein of California, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin — and one Republican senator, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.
Mr. Bond objected to the amendment, which he said violated Congressional rules and would threaten passage of the entire intelligence bill.
Since passage of the Detainee Treatment Act in 2005, the military has been restricted by law from using any technique beyond the Army Field Manual, whose 19 approved methods include tactics like “good cop-bad cop,” isolation from other prisoners and “false flag,” in which American interrogators pose as representatives of another country.
Officials also say the C.I.A. long ago dropped some of its harshest methods, including waterboarding, in which water is poured on a prisoner’s face to cause a feeling of suffocation.
But in passing the Military Commissions Act last year, Congress permitted Mr. Bush to authorize additional, tougher techniques beyond those in the Army manual for use by the C.I.A. The president approved such techniques, which remain secret, in an executive order in July.
The C.I.A. director, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, has spoken repeatedly about the training of the interrogators and the relatively few prisoners who have been subjected to the toughest techniques. Intelligence officials have said that of about 100 prisoners held to date in the C.I.A. program, the “enhanced” techniques were used on about 30, and waterboarding used on just three.
Despite the explanations and retrenchments, the United States has had a hard time countering accusations from human rights groups and other countries that it engaged in torture. In May, the Senate intelligence panel came within one vote of blocking funds for the C.I.A. program, which it said damaged the country’s reputation and created obstacles to the prosecution of terrorists.
In addition, some military officers, including top lawyers for the military branches, have objected to the C.I.A. program because they believe it blurs the rules for prisoner treatment and could endanger American service members captured overseas.
