Bush orders compliance with Geneva Convention on torture

After six years, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and more howls from human rights groups than a wolf orchestra, some formal processes have finally been put in place regarding torture.

Some methods of interrogation are now off the Christmas list. CIA does, however, have the OK to proceed with other means of extracting information. Human rights groups aren’t satisfied. At one point nor was the State Department. The Department rejected one set of proposals as approaching approval or implied approval of legalized torture in its use of language. The administration has frequently defended the use of CIA methods such as “rendition” to countries where torture is routine. It was bordering on an article of political faith to support the detention of terrorism suspects in Guantanamo. So this is a step forward, albeit in a belated form. There are two serious elements in the debate which are rarely mentioned. One is the operational value of the information gained by these methods. From the military perspective, the value to the troops on the ground of places like Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib is dependent on real time information. It’s arguable that the agency is the expert in putting together global data and managing it. It’s also arguable that to the grunts it’s about as useful as wheels on a fish. Abu Ghraib was never a credible intelligence gathering operation. Soldiers were picking up “suspects” because their neighbors didn’t like them, and to make up quotas based on anyone’s idea of what looked good as a number. In real military intelligence, information quality is so important that sources are checked thoroughly, not just made to say what someone wants to hear. The tales of cowboy interrogators don’t make pleasant reading, and militarily, they don’t encourage much confidence. The other big issue is the question of control over intelligence agencies, and the CIA in particular. At one point in its history, the CIA was associated with some incidents involving organized crime, and its performance at other times has been quite opaque, even to Congress. The criticism fired at the agency after 9/11 was based on more than that incident. In the hearings, its apparent omnipotence and immunity to any form of scrutiny was coupled with its actual catastrophic failure to acquire intelligence, to do its job properly. Former CIA heads were on the receiving end of considerable pent up frustration from those who for some reason think they have a say in how government agencies operate, just because they’ve been elected. The trust issue has never quite been resolved. It is a major achievement that the government has now formally applied international law to the interrogation processes. The administration may now have established who’s calling the shots, intentionally or otherwise. That might turn out to be the one bit of good news it’s produced in a long time. Xinhua also carried the story about the Bush order to conform to international law, and it has a large number of associated pieces with that story. There are links to articles about the operation of CIA detention sites in Romania and Poland and other CIA related articles. Not often you see that much information about the agency in one place—even if it is a Chinese newspaper. Xinhua article and links