Recently, the U.S. Army revised its field manual on interrogations. The decision to update the manual was, not surprisingly, borne of revelations of detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. What is a bit of a shock, though, is the Army’s decision to specifically prohibit certain interrogation techniques that the Bush administration is actively seeking to legitimize, primarily for use by CIA operatives. Such differences suggest the possibility of either a broadening breach between military and political leaders in the United States or a covert plan to have the military defer all the dirty work, per se, to the CIA. Regardless, the new Army field manual would appear to acknowledge the need for clearer and more humane guidelines for the interrogation of detainees, as detailed in a recent article by Josh White in the Washington Post:

The manual, which is an extensive volume covering U.S. human intelligence collection operations, reads far more like direct instructions to military interrogators than did the previous field manual. It even includes highlight boxes filled with vital points top leaders wanted to make crystal clear. One such section warns troops that acts of violence or torture could lead to criminal charges and information of questionable value.

“Use of torture by U.S. personnel would bring discredit upon the U.S. and its armed forces while undermining domestic and international support for the war effort,â€? the manual says. “It also could place U.S. and allied personnel in enemy hands at a greater risk of abuse by their captors. Conversely, knowing the enemy has abused U.S. and allied POWs does not justify using methods of interrogation specifically prohibited by law, treaty, agreement, and policy….â€?

The list of things interrogators cannot do includes abuse alleged at various facilities and some that appear to come directly from Abu Ghraib photographs: forcing a detainee to be naked, perform sexual acts, or pose in a sexual manner; placing hoods or sacks over a detainee’s head or putting duct tape over his eyes; beatings, electric shocks, burns or other painful tactics; “waterboarding�; using military working dogs; using extreme cold or hot temperatures; mock executions; and depriving a detainee of food, water or medical care. [full text]

The Army is apparently not alone in differing with Bush administration hard-liners over the use of aggressive interrogation techniques. As far back as 2002, agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation have seriously questioned “the legality and utility of harsh interrogation methods.� That year, as reported recently by the New York Times, FBI and CIA agents clashed over the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, an alleged henchman of Osama bin Laden:

F.B.I. agents on the scene angrily protested the more aggressive approach, arguing that persuasion rather than coercion had succeeded. But leaders of the C.I.A. interrogation team were convinced that tougher tactics were warranted and said that the methods had been authorized by senior lawyers at the White House.

The agents appealed to their superiors but were told that the intelligence agency was in charge, the officials said. One law enforcement official who was aware of events as they occurred reacted with chagrin. “When you rough these guys up, all you do is fulfill their fantasies about what to expect from us,� the official said.

Mr. Bush on Wednesday acknowledged the use of aggressive interview techniques, but only in the most general terms. “We knew that Zubaydah had more information that could save innocent lives, but he stopped talking,� Mr. Bush said. He said the C.I.A. had used “an alternative set of procedures� after it became clear that Mr. Zubaydah “had received training on how to resist interrogation.

“These procedures were designed to be safe, to comply with our laws, our Constitution and our treaty obligations,� Mr. Bush said. “The Department of Justice reviewed the authorized methods extensively and determined them to be lawful.� [full text]

Despite the differences and reservations expressed by the Army, the FBI, and members of the President’s own party (most notably Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham), Mr. Bush stubbornly maintains that these various aggressive interrogation techniques are “lawful� and do not constitute torture. He repeated his position in a surprisingly contentious interview with The Today Show’s Matt Lauer earlier this week (a clip of which can be found here, courtesy of the weblog, Crooks and Liars). What the President has not said—and one wonders if anyone has even dared to broach the question—is whether, issues of legality aside, such harsh treatment of suspects in detention is moral and humane. Perhaps the great reporter Helen Thomas ought ask Bush, if he deigns to call on her: “Mr. President, what would Jesus do?�

However Mr. Bush might dance around such a question, he cannot as easily evade the basic principle that the ends do not justify the means. Just this week, on the anniversary of the September 11th attacks, German Chancellor Angela Merkel pointed such out, as reported in the International Herald Tribune:

Merkel said that while the attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C., wrought “unspeakable sorrow,� in fighting terrorism “the ends can not justify the means.�

“In the fight against international terror … respect for human rights, tolerance and respect for other cultures must be the maxim of our actions, along with decisiveness and international cooperation,â€? Merkel said. [full text]

The sort of interrogation techniques the Bush administration seeks to legitimize fails to respect human rights and dignity. By any reasonable standard of decency, their use is immoral—particularly when the subject of such is a suspect who, regardless of what they may allegedly know or have done, has yet to be adjudged guilty of anything. How many Muslims have been held as enemy combatants, sometimes for years, in places such as Guantanamo before being released because they have, in fact, done little or nothing to warrant their detention? (To date, more than 300 of “the worst of the worst� have already been sent packing from Guantanamo.) How does the President justify their detention and presumable mistreatment (as occurred with a young man named Muhibullo Abdulkarim Umarov, who is the subject of a must-read story in the current issue of Mother Jones magazine)? How can he seek to legitimize cruel and unusual interrogation techniques knowing that innocent Muslims will inadvertently be subjected to such? Do their lives matter less than American lives? How is any of this okay?

It is not public dissent against the war in Iraq that emboldens terrorists, Mr. Bush. It is the cruel and immoral behavior of arrogant jackals such as yourself. Have you no sense of decency, sir?