Interrogating Terrorists

The big debate in Washington this week focussed on the Bush Administration's request that Congress clarify the provisions of the Geneva Conventions, General Article 3, concerning the treatment of non-military personnel who are involved in acts of war. Three major U.S. Senators--John McCain, John Warner, and Lindsey Graham broke with the President on the issue, insisting that the wording of the Geneva Conventions remain intact as they have stood for decades. The President came out swinging at a news conference this week, delineating his case that the present CIA methods of interrogating terrorists have yielded life-saving information that has prevented another terrorist attack on U.S. soil and that to suggest we have lost our moral authority in the world is tantamount to lumping us together with the terrorists.

The major news organizations have tended to overplay the debate as a major rift among Republicans in Congress who have apparently decided to defy the President on this issue. Perhaps there is a story on that somewhere in the mix, but it misses the point. The point is that both the White House and Senate Republicans have succeeded in placing on center stage the issue of the war on terror...and with good reason. Recent polls have suggested that the fear of another terrorist attack on American soil is still at the forefront of the minds of most Americans and that the war on terror ranks in the top three most important issues facing voters in the upcoming elections.

That being said, removing yet another layer of the public discourse on this issue reveals several key considerations--the interface of U.S. Law and International Law,
the protection of both the safety of U.S. citizens AND the rights of detainees, and the legal protection afforded to CIA interrogators who must receive concrete assurances that their tactics are legal.

One must bear in mind that the law of the land in this country is the United States Code. It is not unusual for this nation to clarify provisions of International Law for the purposes of conformity to U.S. Code. Given that the wording of General Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions is vague and open to speculation and interpretation, and given that the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that methods of interrogating terror suspects must conform to the Geneva Conventions, it is perhaps prudent that Congress take a look at spelling out in black and white what, exactly, is acceptable. The U.S. Supreme Court has essentially mandated adherence to a provision of International Law that is too vague. It is up to the Legislative Branch to thus clarify General Article 3 so that the interface between International Law and the U.S. Code is consistent with U.S. Law. This can be done without tampering with or violating the wording of the Geneval Conventions. Senator McCain stated this morning on ABC News with George Stephanopolis that he believes such a compromise can be accomplished.

In addition, one must not forget that the fact that we have not been the recipient of a terrorist attack since 9/11 is a major argument in the President's favor. Americans are still afraid, and they still expect their government to pursue reasonaable means of providing protection and security. The fact that we have remained relatively unscathed since 9/11 does give one some sense of gratification. However, most of us are yet ever so aware of the prevailing threat. At the same time, one must bear in mind that detainees are misguided and dangerous human beings, but human beings nonetheless. Our methods of interrogation must not be so over the top that we lose our sense of values. America must always take the moral high road. That is who we are. Part of the reason for the respect and admiration we have historically received in the world is due to our values. If we lose that then we lose any moral authority we have earned in the eyes of the world.

Finally, we must take seriously the expressed needs of CIA intelligence officials on the front lines of the war on terror. They have asked for clarification. This is the least we can do for them. Anything less will subject dedicated American patriots to the looming threat of prosecution. It is not fair to ask our CIA personnel to do all they can to protect American lives without giving THEM the protection of clarity in U.S. Law. The boundary lines must be spelled out in such a way so as to assure interrogators that their methods are within the bounds of the law while at the same time affording them the clear knowledge that anything outside those bounds is illegal and makes them subject to prosecution to the fullest extent of the law. This would seem to be reasonable and fair.

At this juncture in the war on terror, clarification of law is essential in order for us to proceed in an orderly fashion to protect our society from the ravages of terrorism. This can be done without in any way changing or amending the provisions of the Geneva Conventions. Senator McCain and the Administration seem to think such a thing can be done. Let's hope that they are right.