2008 Woodie Awards
Vague interrogation techniques are the result of new bill
James Marconi
Issue date: 9/28/06 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 2 next >
The White House and GOP senators reached a compromise that would prevent inmates at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, from exercising the right of habeas corpus and appeal their imprisonment in court. Provisions of the bill also preclude the use of interrogation techniques that would "prolong" mental anguish or cause "serious and nontransitory" mental damage to detainees. (www.washingtonpost.com)
Opponents of the compromise have already cited concerns that this new language in the bill is far too vague, and would give President Bush enough leeway to continue what they term "torture." My concern is very much the same, but for very different reasons. I agree that the wording of this new bill is incredibly ambiguous, and open to interpretation. In essence, it avoids the very issue that the White House was trying to resolve in the first place - namely, to clearly define what and what not a military or CIA interrogator can do when performing an interrogation. Thus, any legitimate interrogation technique is open to swift and immediate attack.
In fact, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already said that he believes certain techniques, like simulated drowning (waterboarding), sleep deprivation, and hypothermia would be precluded by this new bill.
Now, some might argue that all of these practices are, in fact, torture. Granted, these techniques are designed to break a subject's will and make them mentally vulnerable. What these people fail to appreciate, though, is that this is precisely the point. An unclassified report summarizing a government inquiry of the Department of Defense's interrogation methods stated, "Any discussion of military interrogation must begin with its purpose, which is to gain actionable intelligence in order to safeguard the security of the United States. Interrogation is often adversarial in nature…"
In other words, the sole reason for interrogating prisoners is to gain information that could prevent an attack on the U.S. similar to or worse than 9/11. I think that the possibility of a nuclear bomb exploding on our shores should be sufficient reason to validate the value and necessity of interrogations. It also means that, by its very nature, interrogations are not going to be pleasant. They can't be, or prisoners would never voluntarily divulge crucial information to people they consider mortal enemies.
Opponents of the compromise have already cited concerns that this new language in the bill is far too vague, and would give President Bush enough leeway to continue what they term "torture." My concern is very much the same, but for very different reasons. I agree that the wording of this new bill is incredibly ambiguous, and open to interpretation. In essence, it avoids the very issue that the White House was trying to resolve in the first place - namely, to clearly define what and what not a military or CIA interrogator can do when performing an interrogation. Thus, any legitimate interrogation technique is open to swift and immediate attack.
In fact, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already said that he believes certain techniques, like simulated drowning (waterboarding), sleep deprivation, and hypothermia would be precluded by this new bill.
Now, some might argue that all of these practices are, in fact, torture. Granted, these techniques are designed to break a subject's will and make them mentally vulnerable. What these people fail to appreciate, though, is that this is precisely the point. An unclassified report summarizing a government inquiry of the Department of Defense's interrogation methods stated, "Any discussion of military interrogation must begin with its purpose, which is to gain actionable intelligence in order to safeguard the security of the United States. Interrogation is often adversarial in nature…"
In other words, the sole reason for interrogating prisoners is to gain information that could prevent an attack on the U.S. similar to or worse than 9/11. I think that the possibility of a nuclear bomb exploding on our shores should be sufficient reason to validate the value and necessity of interrogations. It also means that, by its very nature, interrogations are not going to be pleasant. They can't be, or prisoners would never voluntarily divulge crucial information to people they consider mortal enemies.
Be the first to comment on this story