Read other letters about this article

• Thursday, December 4, 2008 05:49 AM

  Paul Dirks

  I've only skimmed your current post

  So forgive me if I'm off base but the main justification that I can come up with for backing off the "Field Manual" language is that the Field manual is not classified and can therefore be trained against.

  Wasn't the same thing true all year when Feinstein and Wyden were so flamboyantly demanding a law to compel the CIA's compliance with it? Yes, it was. Did they just have an epiphany within the last couple of weeks about this?

  Also, I don't agree with your argument. Yes, the laws can be public and transparent. But the CIA is still free to develop secret techniques within those laws.

  The military does it. Countless intelligence professionals -- professional interrogators -- say that they can effectively interrogate within the confines of the public Army Field Manual. You're conflating the legal guidelines which are public (the Army Field Manual) with the tactics that need not be.

  Perhaps I'm being naively optimistic but I happen to believe that its possible to write a law that will effectively outlaw torture while providing interrogators with the comfort of knowing that their captors aren't sure what they're facing.

  The problem isn't only about what interrogators do. It's about the statement we make to the world. Adopting secret laws and telling the world to Trust Us -- that the secret guidelines we're promulgating are good and fair -- send exactly the wrong message, especially after the last 8 years.

  —GlennGreenwald Read GlennGreenwald's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel