Quote:
Spanky
II guess this guy just goes off on the CIA and their interrogating techniques. Has the CIA responded to this guy's accusations or defended their use of stronger techiques?
|
Which - one more time (and despite all the protestations to the contrary around here) - is the actual issue here:
Nice summation from over at the
Weekly Standard
Quote:
|
The president has a sound substantive position. Some legislation is needed (at least arguably) because of the Supreme Court's (ill-advised) Hamdan decision. That decision suggests that detained terrorists might enjoy the protection of the vague Article 3 standards of the Geneva Convention. CIA agents could not, therefore, use short-of-torture interrogation techniques that might be thought "humiliating and degrading." Unless the CIA were to abandon all techniques that a judge might construe as contrary to Article 3, the door would be open for agents to be held legally liable. The Bush-backed legislation would stipulate that compliance with U.S. law would constitute fulfillment of our obligations under Geneva. This would permit an effective interrogation program to go forward with confidence.
|
ETS - this is perhaps the first issue over which the WSJ, NRO and WS are in full agreement since the Clinton era.
