On Monday, the Senate began consideration of several amendments to the annual Defense Authorization Act that would codify certain standards for interrogation of detainees in what was the Global War on Terror (but what is apparently to be known henceforth as the (perpetual) "Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism"). Yesterday, the Administration decided that it would rather put off the Authorization bill until after Labor Day, rather than risk any chance that it would be prohibited from engaging in cruel, inhuman and degrading conduct.
-- Martin Lederman, former Justice Department lawyer
Lederman as well as Spencer Ackerman in the New Republic has basically must read coverage of the ongoing Senate attempts to put some limits on detainee interrogation, especially when military personnel are involved. As noted by Sen. McCain:
The Army Field Manual and its various editions have served America well, through wars against both regular and irregular foes. The manual embodies the values Americans have embraced for generations while preserving the ability of our interrogators to extract critical intelligence from ruthless foes. Never has this been more important than today in the midst of the war on terror.
It is consistent with our laws and, most importantly, our values. Our values are different from those of our enemies. When colleagues or others may come on this floor and say: Well, they do it, others do it, al-Qaida does it, other nations in the world do it, what differentiates us, the United States of America, from other countries is the fact that we do not. We do not abuse human rights. We do not do it. I would argue the pictures, terrible pictures from Abu Ghraib, harmed us--not only in the Arab world, which is an area of great concern but it also harmed us dramatically amongst friendly nations, the Europeans, many of our allies.
The line of elite former officials who concur match those in the JAG corps who opposed, at times basically calling arguments to the contrary specious, when alternative regulations were decided upon by the Bush Administration. A fuller account of the floor debate, memoranda, and so forth can be found here.
It came a few years too late, but perhaps Congress is finally deciding to fulfill their constitutional obligations to set forth rules of war. Reality might actually have forced its way into the Bush Administration's policy as well, even if the new term "global struggle" etc. is not that great:
Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the National Press Club on Monday that he had "objected to the use of the term 'war on terrorism' before, because if you call it a war, then you think of people in uniform as being the solution." He said the threat instead should be defined as violent extremists, with the recognition that "terror is the method they use."
Although the military is heavily engaged in the mission now, he said, future efforts require "all instruments of our national power, all instruments of the international communities' national power." The solution is "more diplomatic, more economic, more political than it is military," he concluded.
No duh. Meanwhile, Karen Hughes is about to take over the State Department's office of "public diplomacy." This is as believable as Tampa Bay almost winning four straight.