The White House has confirmed that President Bush plans to veto legislation prohibiting the CIA from using waterboarding and bringing the agency’s interrogation methods in line with the Army Field Manual.
In today’s White House press briefing, spokeswoman Dana Perino defended the veto decision by citing the age of CIA interrogators. She said that they are well-trained “professionals” with “an average age of 40.” U.S. soldiers, on the other hand, are too immature to be trusted, argued Perino. That’s why they need the Army Field Manual:
This is done at the CIA, and it is done by professionals who are given hundreds of hours of training, who are — I think General Hayden said an average age of 40; who are being asked to do very hard work in order to protect Americans.
The Army Field Manual is a perfectly appropriate document that is important for young GIs, some so young that they’re not even able to legally get a drink in the states where they’re from.
Before the Senate Intelligence Committee today, Director of National Intellingence Mike McConnell echoed Perino’s comments, stating that the Army Field Manual is “designed for young and inexperienced” men and women in uniform.
Sen Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) sharply replied that it’s unfair to “denigrate” the troops as if they’re a “bunch of 18 year olds running around” and “the Army Field Manual has to protect them from their naivete and their ignorance.” Watch it:
All members of the Army abide by the Field Manual, not simply GIs too “young” to “legally get a drink.” In a recent congressional hearing, Lt. Gen. Michael Maples of the Defense Intelligence Agency confirmed that the document is sufficient for the military:
We believe that the approaches that are in the Army Field Manual give us the tools that are necessary for the purpose under which we are conducting interrogations.
Under the White House’s logic, only people who are able to consume alcohol should be allowed to administer waterboarding.
Transcript:
WHITEHOUSE: I frankly don’t think that’s true and I would challenge it and urge you to maybe reconsider it. Because what I understand is that the military has very significant and very experienced intelligence operatives, men who I’ve spoken to who have 22 years of interrogation experience. They run military intelligence and interrogation schools of 10-18 weeks duration. They have, I guess you would call it, graduate level courses. T
his is a matter - you have special ops individuals, you have DIA folks. You have some of the very best intelligence and interrogation operators in the country in the United States military and they are the ones who are telling us that they work very well within the confines of the Army Field Manual. And I think its fair to have the discussion as to whether or not at that level the Army Field Manual is the right restriction or not.
What is not fair, I don’t think, is to take the military interrogation and intelligence operation and denigrate it as if it’s a bunch of 18 year olds running around as if they’ve got no experience doing this and the Army Field Manual has to protect them from their naivete and their ignorance because it’s the same field manual replies the highly trained, highly professional, highly experienced individuals, many of whom have a lot more interrogation experience, it appears, than folks in your organization — in the CIA.
No comments:
Post a Comment