Administration rejects interrogation controls in bill

[sabra]

Source: The Hill

The Obama administration is seeking to allow contract interrogators to question military detainees and opposes any mandatory videotaping of interrogations.

The Office of Management and Budget and the White House press office almost simultaneously fired off a statement of administration policy on the 2010 defense authorization bill now under debate in the Senate.

The Obama administration took issue with a provision in the bill that would completely prevent contractors from interrogating detainees in the aftermath of hostilities. The executive branch is pressing senators to rewrite the legislation so that the rules and regulations applying to military interrogators would also apply to those under contract.

“In some limited cases, a contract interrogator may possess the best combination of skills to obtain critical intelligence and this provision, therefore, could prevent U.S. forces from conducting lawful interrogations in the most effective manner,” said the statement of administration policy issued Wednesday.

...

“Although the administration is open to studying a possible video recording requirement, implementing a mandatory requirement at this time would be imprudent, unduly burdensome, and could risk significant unintended consequences in current and future military operations,” the administration said in its policy statement.

Read more: http://thehill.com/business--lobby/administration-rejects-interrogation-controls-in-bill-2009-07-15.html

[rocktivity]

1. If there are contractors who are that skilled in interrogation and want to keep their jobs

make them join the military. That way, they can be held accountable in theory, at least.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[Solly Mack]

2. K&R

[atreides1]

3. More "Change"???

[Me.]

4. Who In The Obama Admin Is Coming Up With This Stuff

and does Obama know what is being done in his name?

[WriteDown]

6. I'm hoping you forgot the sarcasm tag. nt

[Autumn]

7. President Obama is a very smart man

to suggest he is clueless is just wrong. The buck stops with the head honcho , President Obama.

[Me.]

10. First Of All

I didn't suggest he was clueless and the question was framed at who in his admin is wanting contract interrogators and not wanting videotapes of those interrogations. And as to what is just wrong well...we've been down this road with the * admin and it was a disaster then so let's just have some of that change we can believe in.

[Autumn]

15. Thats what I want and need

"some of that change we can believe in."

[Me.]

25. That Makes Two Of Us

:thumbsup:

[Zhade]

27. Yeah, so far it's just chump change and broken oaths.

Like that little thing about restoring the rule of law.

[No Elephants]

30. You did indeed suggest that Obama might be clueless about stuff being done in his name.

[Me.]

31. Not At All

There's always rogue action going on, to wit, in recent weeks Rahm suggested that Obama might be willing to compromise on health care, Biden said they misread the economy. Neither statement made the president happy and had to be walked back. In addition, there are still Bushies burrowed in. Further, given the controversy torture and interrogations have generated I hope Obama has been briefed on this. One does not expect him to be reading this site or Huff-Po all day long but I do expect this to be brought to his attention. And if he knows and is fine with this, I am not fine with that.

[Wizard777]

19. If he saw to it the Torture Buck Stopped with Bush & Cheney I might believe that.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

5. More utter crap from this administration.

What the fuck do they think they are doing??? It's disgusting.

[mopinko]

8. did y'all miss this part?

The executive branch is pressing senators to rewrite the legislation so that the rules and regulations applying to military interrogators would also apply to those under contract.

no more hiring blackwater to do what the military code of justice prohibits military personnel from doing. that seems to me to be a good thing.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

11. What are we doing with ANY contractor?

That is the point -- bringing in outside "contractors" to do the military/intelligence agencies job is the problem.

[biermeister]

21. that's why they bring in outside contractors in the first place

specifically because they do not have to follow the same rules as government employees or those in the service. That's why blackwater dickheads can just shoot civilians with immunity. Same shit, different day.

[Autumn]

13. I got that part did you get this part?

"Meanwhile, the CIA has stopped using contractors for interrogations after the agency was under fire during the Bush administration for using interrogators for hire.

Obama also objects any amendments to the bill requiring video recording of all intelligence interrogations."

[mopinko]

18. i admit that was a surprise

one that i hope will be worked out. one of his biggest achievements here in illinois was getting law enforcement to agree to taping all capital interrogations. so, yes that is a disappointment. but i am sure this was a case of his heart in one place and his head in another. he ain't a dictator or a magician.

[bertman]

9. This is an issue that Congress has to deal with emphatically. The President has shown that he

is listening to the hardcore types in the military and intelligence communities and is going to try to put this off on Congress instead of immediately issuing an Executive Order.

The idea of using our military personnel for all of these types of interrogations has gone by the wayside since we authorized so much of our military work to be done by private contractors. Now the chickens are coming home to roost in another area that most Congresscritters would not have imagined when they signed off on this stuff.

We need videotaping if we're going to have any accountability and adherence to the Geneva Conventions.

It's very disappointing that President Obama is not demanding transparency and accountability instead of continuing the "work arounds" of the Bush administration.

[Me.]

14. Absolutely Need VideoTape

Furthermore, independent contractors like those two stooges who had never previously interrogated anyone, need to be kept put in the mix. From what I've read the FBI has an excellent program and gets results while still obeying the law.,

[frebrd]

12. Disgusting!

:puke:

The administration wants to avoid accountability by passing the job off to contract interrogators who are probably (just by chance, of course) more experienced torturers.

Change!

[bushmeister0]

16. Video is "unduly burdensome?"

" . . . Implementing a mandatory requirement at this time would be imprudent, unduly burdensome, and could risk significant unintended consequences in current and future military operations."

Don't the police usually video tape interrogations? I mean, nowadays you can digitally video from your cell phone, for Chrissake!

And what "significant unintended consequences?" Like catching them torturing people? That would be a consequence.

Is Obama like Cheney's Manchurian candidate, or something?

[Wizard777]

20. The last videos shut many interrogation programs down. I'd call that "burdensome."

[paulsby]

24. depends on the jurisdiction

in some areas/states they do. iirc, new mexico requires all interrogations (except i assume questioning at the scene) to be videotaped. in my years as a detective, i never used a videotape for interrogation. i used audio tape sometimes. also, even if not required by state law (iirc new mexico requires it by state law), any agency can choose a videotape only policy. it's relatively impractical from a patrol officer standpoint. most of our interrogations are done "in the field". from a detective standpoint, it's pretty doable.

[maglatinavi]

28. cheney at large????

the quotation sounds like coming from cheney's mouth or someone beholden to him...every day i am getting more disappointed with obama and his cabal...
it would be beneficial and better to spend the millions paid to the corporate world to provide better pay to soldiers and utilize them in the security jobs being done by non military private contractors.

[JDPriestly]

17. Remember when we used to win wars?

Like WWI and WWII? Well, that was before we started using "contractors," i.e., mercenaries to fight them.

Remember the Revolutionary War? Remember Washington's crossing the Delaware River in New Jersey on Christmas night? And who did he catch unawares on the other side? And who did his rag-tag bunch of volunteers defeat? The mercenary Hessian soldiers who are believed to have been drunk, by the way. That's who.

It is a big mistake to privatize our military. We should only send men and women to die when it is really important enough to the American people that our citizens sign up for their country and not because it is a meal ticket.

Here is the story of Washington's crossing the Delaware on Christmas.

As the year 1776 drew to a close, the American army looked for a way to restore its people's faith in the cause. Against what surely was hundreds of years of military advice, George Washington took a big chance.

It was Christmas, and the Hessians on the other side of the Delaware River, in New Jersey, were sure to be drunk and tired. (The Hessians, German soldiers fighting for Britain, were known for their drinking and their partying, especially on major holidays like Christmas.)

. . . .
It was cold that night, ice cold in fact. The boats carrying the American soldiers barely made it across because of ice in the river. But make it they did, their commanding officer proudly leading the way, all 2,000 of them. They made it to shore, regrouped, and marched toward Trenton, where the Hessians were camped.

Chaos followed, but it was chaos on one side only. The Colonial forces routed the Hessians, sending them running from cover. The whole affair lasted only 45 minutes, and Colonial soldiers took 900 Hessians prisoner. The tired, hungry Americans also found food, supplies, and especially ammunition.

http://www.socialstudiesforkids.com/articles/ushistory/washingtondelaware.htm

In Afghanistan, we are fighting an army presumably of volunteers on their own soil. Who has the most heart and soul in this. Sure, we have the training, the discipline and the technology. And our soldiers are dedicated and know what they are fighting for, but for what are the contractors fighting? A paycheck? I don't want to jump to a conclusion unfairly, but this issue certainly deserves more investigation. After all, we did win difficult wars with less training and technology when we had a real army, without a bunch of paid contractors, fighting for us.

[bushmeister0]

23. One could also cite the Roman emperors hiring German mercenaries

to be their body guards. We see how well that worked out. Especially, for Caligula.

[KakistocracyHater]

33. 6 weeks basic training for OUR side

theirs? !!!!!!Til the moneh runs out!!!!!!

It's very nightmarish but it seems to be a huge confidence game-just hang in there a little longer......or something might happen........wait just a little bit more.......

[McCamy Taylor]

22. This is a big problem IMHO. How can they say no to video if nothing wrong is going on?

An administration that acts like it is hiding something probably is hiding something.

[EFerrari]

26. They seem to have the video capacity all set up -- many detainees

reported cameras everywhere to their lawyers.

[sfwriter]

29. This is the "Change" I get back from my Constitution...

Inflation I guess, but I remember when a whole constitution would go a lot further.

[Piewhacket]

32. More chickenchit moral 'unclarity' from team Obama. Where are fucking the grown ups?

Of course video tape them. You flippin goddamn betcha.

Contractors should operate under military law, since the military has custody.
The jailor has primary responsibility for the proper treatment of prisoners.
Have a military special prosecutor review the video thereafter for criminal acts.
And PROSECUTE.