CIA? CTA? What's the 'Diff?'

Okay, the 'CTA' Bit is from a page 31 article in today's Wapo(I'd call it an Op-Ed, but that may be splitting hairs) It's good.

First, a bit of background. I'll just grab some pieces from a non-controversial source, USA Today. *snicker*

In the first piece, we have VP Richard B. Cheney sparring with the Senate over an addition to a defense spending bill The non-torture 'rider,' which Cheney was protesting against, passed the Senate 90-9.

In the second, we have Bush defending American interrogation policy, averring, "We do not torture."

Now we finally get to this post's raison d'être. Jeffrey H. Smith, former general counsel for the CIA writes:

Americans do not join the CIA to commit torture. Yet that could be the result if a proposal advanced by Vice President Cheney becomes law.

When the abuses by U.S. servicemen and intelligence officers at Abu Ghraib surfaced last year, there was understandable outrage in this country and abroad. Internal investigations and congressional hearings revealed several causes of the abuse. One of the most important was confusion in the military and intelligence agencies as to what rules governed interrogations. A root cause of the confusion was the belief at the highest levels of the administration that the Geneva Conventions, which had governed our conduct for 60 years, were outmoded and should not constrain our treatment of prisoners. Regrettably, the career lawyers in the armed forces and the State Department who have guided our compliance with the Geneva Conventions for decades were cut out of these discussions.


In response, Sen. John McCain, himself a victim of brutal torture by the North Vietnamese, introduced an amendment to the 2006 Defense Appropriations Act that would, in essence, require all agencies of the U.S. government to comply with the Geneva Conventions and international law, which prohibit torture. Over strong administration objection, McCain's amendment passed 90 to 9. It will soon be considered by a conference committee with the House, which has no similar provision in its version of the bill. Enter the vice president.

Cheney and Porter Goss, director of the CIA, have proposed a modification of the McCain amendment that would permit the president to exempt the CIA from its strictures. McCain wisely rejected that proposal. So should the conferees.

If the administration's proposal passed, what would be the consequences? Why should we adhere to the Geneva Conventions when our terrorist enemies do not?

The answers are simple. First, we have long championed the Geneva Conventions because we want our citizens treated humanely when they are captured. Second, morally it is the right thing to do. If this amendment passes, what weight will our complaints have when other governments use their intelligence services to torture Americans?

For much more, just follow this link to Smith's excellent piece, and WaPo's exhibition of the headline: Central Torture Agency?