Swing and an Interrogative Miss

Following the advice of his task force on interrogation and detainee transfer policy, President Obama has created an “elite unit” tasked with all things interrogation – the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG). While the creation of the interrogation unit should not be surprising, one must question the aims of this group, especially considering the political environment of today. Indeed, creation of the HIG will likely serve as a detriment to interrogation in general.

Key questions that must be addressed should HIG sustain itself as the pre-eminent interrogation unit are numerous: what is the overall difference in the new approach to interrogation tactics other than strict adherence to the Army Field Manual? How much will political infighting, between Democrats and Republicans, affect the overall viability of interrogation tactics? Finally, how will the White House deal with any potential slip up, and what will damage control consist of?

The Army Field Manual contains information and best practices in regards to various operations whilst in the field. According to Michael Burke, lead writer of an update to part of the manual, 542 manuals were in use in 2007, a number that has since proliferated. Interrogators must now stay within parameters of the manual, but, as Michael Burke mentions, the manual functions as a viable tool of the trade already. Although intelligence agencies deviated from protocol in the wake of 9/11, will the force feeding of tactics prove to be effective? More than likely not. This is why the task force recommends the creation of a “scientific research program for interrogation” that will, hopefully, create better interrogation methods. One must ponder what that ultimately means; especially considering the words science and interrogation simply do not historically go well together.

With the declaration of the field manual as interrogation gospel, is the public supposed to be appeased? Essentially anyone can read it, as it is readily available online for free, including potential terrorists that may yet come under the interrogative knife of the Army Field Manual. This opens yet another can of worms, which politicians and their constituents in general may not have intended.

Mrs. Kornblut mentions how President Obama wants a “clean break” from the specter of the Bush administration in the midst of heavy political rhetoric from his own side. That sounds vaguely familiar to a certain President elected in 2000. Indeed, the article makes mention of the pending appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate past (aka Bush era) interrogation abuses. While any torture allegation serves as a very important issue that ultimately must be addressed, the approach thus far by the Obama administration has been heavily muddled in political gusto. There will be no solace for any victim of torture if partisan difference cannot be put aside in order to prevent such atrocity from happening again.

Speaking of partisan difference, the public accusation of deception from the intelligence community by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is simply unacceptable and stokes an almost renegade CIA image. America does not need another J. Edgar Hoover type aura around the intelligence community, especially now. The CIA cannot fully function as an intelligence agency when lambasted by elected officials, especially when the agency, arguably, did its job. What will the White Houses’ accountability look like if Mrs. Pelosi decides to fixate her gaze upon their interrogative tactics? Think it can not happen? Think again. This is politics that we are talking about! This question brings us to the final point of discussion in regards to HIG.

President Obama admirably seeks to place responsibility of interrogation under the watch of the White House, but this may backfire in an extremely bad way. While doing the utmost to not condone any sort of malpractice, one must note that most of the breeches on interrogation etiquette occurred due to the tragedy of 9/11. Hindsight is always perfect, but the Bush administration was forced to operate under vastly different circumstances. What happens if President Obama, God forbid, is put in the same situation? With interrogation falling solely under his guise, any slip up not only cripples his Presidency, but also taints the White House. No matter how popular President Obama is abroad, international perspective is very critical of any violation of human rights (see Abu Ghraib). Assigning blame to an intelligence agency is one thing, but the renegade theme of the CIA simply won’t work with the White House. One must question whether creation of the HIG will be sustainable given this unfortunate reality.

One can see that there are some key questions the White House must address in the wake of this monumental decision. Not all suggestions were controversial, however. Utilizing the State Department to transfer detainees to insure their general safety is a very important step in the right direction. One can rest assured that the efficacy of interrogation is at the core of any suggestions put forth by this task force, but if America wants to get it right we must be sure to consider all voices. The alternative, continued infighting and ineffective interrogative policy, is a scary concept.