Congress heads into torture debate blind WASHINGTON -- This week's congressional debate over torture policy will be an important benchmark in the war on terrorism. But because of the Bush administration's restrictive policy on sharing classified information with Congress, very few of the people engaged in the debate will know what they're talking about.
This doesn't seem to bother President Bush. While the administration contends that limiting the number of people being briefed is necessary to reduce chances of a leak, it also suits his administration's political aims.
The administration has tried to occupy as much of the fall campaign season as possible with discussion of terrorism -- the Republican Party's strongest issue -- as opposed to the Iraq war, which has become a potent Democratic Party issue. But while it dominates the national stage with tough talk about terrorism, the administration doesn't want actual scrutiny of its interrogation practices.
After all, even one concrete example could change the tenor of the debate. Every American has his or her own line to draw on what constitutes inhuman treatment: Simulated drowning? Threats of rape of a suspect's loved ones? Electric shock?
In addition, specialists in interrogation would be able to weigh in on which techniques are effective, and which are merely brutal, leading to false confessions.
But with no actual practices to discuss, any opposition will be greatly muted. Arguing that a certain practice is torturous or ineffective doesn't really provoke much outrage if no one can say whether the practice is for real. And opponents will naturally be wary of drawing too many dire hypotheticals, for fear of appearing to malign the CIA. It would be like raising the possibility of grotesque torture by the US Army before Abu Ghraib: Patriotic Americans don't want to think ill of their protectors.
Bush chose the time and place for the torture debate when he announced, shortly after Labor Day, the existence of a secret CIA interrogation program that uses harsh techniques that might violate some standards of inhuman treatment.
The president said he was fearful that the rules of evidence in terrorism trials would require prosecutors to say how they had obtained the evidence against the defendants, and that details of the aggressive interrogation techniques could leak out. He wants Congress to pass rules ensuring the secrecy of coerced evidence at terrorism trials.
He also wants Congress to make sure that no CIA interrogator can be prosecuted for war crimes, except within certain categories of offenses, such as sexual assault or mutilation, among many others.
But only the members of the House and Senate intelligence committees and a few others will know if these categories cover any of the CIA practices, or if any brutal techniques currently in use are not covered. The administration has granted briefings to members of the intelligence committees, leaders of both parties, and a few other key negotiators, totaling less than 10 percent of Congress.
The national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, has warned that briefings must be strictly limited to prevent leaks of any interrogation tactics.
But evidence suggests that the administration makes some of its briefing decisions based on political concerns, not national security. For instance, The Boston Globe reported that when the administration wanted to cut a deal with two Republican senators, John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, it gave them special access to details, even though neither would have been briefed under the regular rules. Democratic critics have not been given the same information.
Congressional leaders have made only token gestures of demanding briefings by the administration. And the Globe reported over the summer that only about a dozen members of Congress had availed themselves of the opportunity to read the national intelligence bill, which outlines the Bush administration's policies in the war on terrorism.
Many members told the Globe that they didn't read the bill because they would then be barred from discussing it, making any debate impossible.
But watchdog groups have suggested that no debate -- or a debate behind closed doors, with security rules in place -- might well be preferable to a debate that offers only a false appearance of congressional oversight.
Having no debate indicates -- correctly -- that the administration is on its own in deciding which interrogation techniques are lawful. Having a debate conveys the impression that the constitutional system of checks and balances is in operation. But with most members left in the dark, so is the constitutional system.
Peter S. Canellos is the Globe's Washington bureau chief. National Perspective is his weekly analysis of events in the capital and beyond.
Just completely weird and creepy. And I'm with you on Clinton. Himself first, in everything.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
