Blair: Army interrogation manual to apply to CIA

[almaty 19]

my son is an army interrogator...and has been to iraq..they are more careful and follow procedures..the issue is not u.s. personnel..but contractors, who do not at times....

[Ban Hammer 13,355]

my son is an army interrogator...and has been to iraq..they are more careful and follow procedures..the issue is not u.s. personnel..but contractors, who do not at times....

them evil contractors!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

my son is an army interrogator...and has been to iraq..they are more careful and follow procedures..the issue is not u.s. personnel..but contractors, who do not at times....

From what I understand the really dirty stuff like Extraordinary Rendition (and the stuff with contractors) happens off books anyway. So likely applying this standard to the CIA officially will make little difference as the organisation can still (and probably always has) found ways to wash its hands of responsiblity (torture by proxy being one of those).

I'm still gobsmacked by that interview Bush did a couple of years ago where he appeared clueless when asked about the activities of private military contractors, and had to "ask the secretary" for more information. That was pretty much the low point on that subject as far as I'm concerned.

I suspect this push to apply ethical standards to the CIA and military probably has a lot to do with high profile incidents like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay which have damaged the country's reputation.

[almaty 19]

my son is an army interrogator...and has been to iraq..they are more careful and follow procedures..the issue is not u.s. personnel..but contractors, who do not at times....

them evil contractors!

yes..fire them all.oh, i forgot you are one and i are one...i, in the corporate world...

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

my son is an army interrogator...and has been to iraq..they are more careful and follow procedures..the issue is not u.s. personnel..but contractors, who do not at times....

From what I understand the really dirty stuff like Extraordinary Rendition (and the stuff with contractors) happens off books anyway. So likely applying this standard to the CIA officially will make little difference as the organisation can still (and probably always has) found ways to wash its hands of responsiblity (torture by proxy being one of those).

I'm still gobsmacked by that interview Bush did a couple of years ago where he appeared clueless when asked about the activities of private military contractors, and had to "ask the secretary" for more information. That was pretty much the low point on that subject as far as I'm concerned.

I suspect this push to apply ethical standards to the CIA and military probably has a lot to do with high profile incidents like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay which have damaged the country's reputation.

gobsmacked - now there's a word you don't hear every day.

[Ban Hammer 13,355]

my son is an army interrogator...and has been to iraq..they are more careful and follow procedures..the issue is not u.s. personnel..but contractors, who do not at times....

them evil contractors!

yes..fire them all.oh, i forgot you are one and i are one...i, in the corporate world...

[almaty 19]

my son is an army interrogator...and has been to iraq..they are more careful and follow procedures..the issue is not u.s. personnel..but contractors, who do not at times....

them evil contractors!

yes..fire them all.oh, i forgot you are one and i are one...i, in the corporate world...

viva contractors!!!!!!!!!!!

[alienlovechild 75]

I suspect this push to apply ethical standards to the CIA and military probably has a lot to do with high profile incidents like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay which have damaged the country's reputation.

Most of discussion on treatment of detainees or POWs is largely a PR issue having very little to wars in Afghanistan or Iraq. Obama's wants to fight a more popular war that won't attract in any more allies to the fight it makes a few people happy who are far more concerned about the enemy than making real policy changes to win or get out the conflicts. The reality is the the biggest critics on Gitmo think the war on terror is a waste of time or doesn't exist so why bother thinking beyond a single issue.

Obama's decision on Gitmo was for the cameras and take the public's mind off foreign policy and a tough economy. It was the low hanging fruit easy towrite an executive order on and it really will change nothing. For example, how many stories on Abu Grahib before the 2004 election compared to how many after the Iraqi government took over the prison? It from daily coverage to virtually none in the last four years. Is there out there naive enough to think the Iraqis aren't using cigarettee butts and pliers on some prisoners while the U.S. spends an ordinate amount of time on 255 people in Gitmo?