Q Thank you. What is the White House's response to the -- yesterday's House ban on certain forms of interrogation techniques? How does the Senate --MR. STANZEL: We actually have a statement of administration policy that we released on that. That was on the -- earlier this week, on the 11th. But the administration does strongly oppose any legislation that would extend protections and requirements of the Army Field Manual to the CIA detention and interrogation program, because you have the Defense Department that has the Field Manual that's there to address interrogations that occur by defense personnel on the battlefield, during those conflicts in a normal battlefield setting.
However, the CIA's program, in contrast, authorizes a set of alternative interrogation procedures for gathering information from some of the most hardened terrorists in non-battlefield settings, in a carefully controlled setting by highly trained officials. So that's what our staff said, and that is something that we would not support.
The subtext of Stanzell's explanation, I think, is the understanding that spelling out what types of interrogation techniques the U.S. will use gives valuable information to the enemy. If Congress wants to define waterboarding a certain way and prohibit that technique that's one thing, but legislators should be careful not to unduly hamper our intelligence agencies' ability to collect information from uncooperative prisoners. The right to remain silent for enemies who may have information that may result in the deaths of untold numbers is a foolhardy proposition.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please remain on topic and keep coarse language to an absolute minimum. Comments in a language other than English will be assumed off topic.