by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright December 1, 2005
All Rights Reserved.

ormer President Bill Clinton's critics went wild when “Slick Willy” told interrogators “it depends on what the meaning of is, is,” taking spin to a new level. Now Vice President Dick Cheney and CIA Director Porter Goss have refused to call controversial interrogation techniques torture. With Arizona Sen. John McCain hoping to get the senate to go along with his anti-torture ban, Cheney seeks an exemption for covert activity, including the CIA and intelligence community. McCain knows torture firsthand, spending six years in a North Vietnamese prison. In 2003, Military lawyers prepared a report for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld permitting military interrogators to use any and all means to seek extract information from detainees, exempting U.S. agents who broke torture laws. When allegations of torture surfaced at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib prison, torture was redefined.

      Asked whether the CIA uses torture, Goss conceded only that the agency's methods are “unique,” claiming lawful techniques to extract information from detainees. McCain's bill specifically prohibits “cruel, inhuman or degrading” treatments, giving military interrogators a perfect out. If murder remains the endgame, then anything short seems humane or forgiving. Turning definitions inside out, Goss calls CIA methods “unique” or “innovative” but don't amount to torture. Any technique inflicting mental or physical pain must be regarded as torture, or common sense flies out the window. “In order to respect the president's inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign . . . (the prohibition against torture) must be construed as inapplicable to interrogation undertaken pursuant to his commander-in-chief authority,” read the Pentagon report.

      In the wake of Sept. 11, Bush wanted total authority to prosecute the war on terror, including torturing information out of enemy combatants and battlefield detainees. Whatever happened at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo stemmed directly from the Pentagon's legal rulings giving interrogators the green light to extract information. Stripping prisoners, forcing them to simulate homosexual acts, placing them in stationary positions and threatening harm from growling dogs were all OK under the Pentagon's new guidelines. When Abu Ghraib commander Brig. Gen. Janice Karpinski and two lowly prison guards Pvt. Charles Grainer Jr. and Pfc. Lynndie R. England took the fall, fingers pointed back at the Pentagon and White House for endorsing a liberal torture policy. Stress positions, starvation, sleep-deprivation—and even water submersion—were all regarded as fair game.

      Vice President Dick Cheney denies the U.S. uses torture but asks the congress to exempt the CIA from its ban on “cruel, inhumane or degrading” treatment. He believes the U.S. must keep its options open, especially during intense interrogations. Tying the CIA's hands would embolden an enemy who's already taken advantage of U.S. vulnerability. Cheney believes a torture ban gives the enemy an unfair battlefield advantage. “Clandestine counterterrorism operations conducted abroad, with respect to terrorists who are not citizens of the United States,” read the exemption, cutting the CIA slack to play hardball with terrorists. Goss denies the CIA tortures detainees but seeks an exemption to allow “unique and innovative” methods. Goss has been back on his heals since the Washington Post revealed that the CIA maintains secret detention facilities in central Europe.

      No matter how much Cheney or Goss mince words, inflicting mental or physical pain to extract information qualifies as torture. McCain's bill would make illegal any method that involves “cruel, inhumane or degrading” treatment, whether in the military or intelligence community. Without strong presence on the ground, the intelligence community relies heavily on after-the-fact interrogations requiring clever ways to break the enemy. McCain's torture ban might handcuff interrogators from getting life-saving information. America's enemies shouldn't take comfort knowing they'll receive “humane” treatment when they're plotting the next Sept. 11. If Goss and the intelligence community need to keep their options open, they should concede that torture may be needed to protect national security. Calling torture “creative and innovative” doesn't disguise the practice.

      Looking at the big picture, it remains to be seen whether the country can afford to adopt McCain's outright torture ban. It's no easy task protecting the American public from infiltration and sabotage, requiring flexibility in the intelligence community. Calling interrogation techniques “creative and innovative” doesn't rule out the use of mental and physical pain where there's no time to wait out recalcitrant detainees. As long as outlaw terror organizations like Al Qaeda are at war with the U.S., the government must use all methods and preserve its options to defend the homeland. Branding terrorists “enemy combatants,” denying them access to the Geneva Convention and using aggressive interrogation techniques all may be needed to deal with today's real threats. Denying the use of torture makes matters worse by placing “political correctness” over sound national security.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2005 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.