The part of the Army Field Manual pertaining to the interrogation for intelligence of prisoners prohibits "mutilation, cruel treatment and torture." The manual also provides that "prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity." Further, the manual specifically states: "No physical or moral coercion shall be exercised against protected persons, in particular to obtain information from them or from third parties."
Now I ask you, who is it that gets to define what terms like "cruel treatment" and "moral coercion" and "physical coercion" mean? Senator Dick Durbin seems to believe that messing with the thermostat and playing loud Christina Aguilera music is equivalent to "torture" on par with what was seen in the Soviet gulags. Clearly, "cruel treatment" is a relative term.
In light of this somewhat less-than-thorough "ban" on torture, the Pentagon has decided to re-write the Army Field Manual so that, as one Defense Department spokesman put it, they could "create safeguards so that all detainees are treated humanely but can still be questioned effectively."
So how does the media choose to report this? About how you'd guess...
Pentagon to omit Geneva ban from new army manual: report
LOS ANGELES (AFP) - New policies on prisoners being drawn up by the Pentagon will reportedly omit a key tenet of the Geneva Convention that explicitly bans "humiliating and degrading treatment."
Citing unidentified but knowledgeable military officials, the Los Angeles Times said the step would mark a further, potentially permanent, shift by the US government away from strict adherence to international human rights standards.
The new manual isn't even out yet. All we know for sure is that the Pentagon is re-working the language in the Army Field Manual that prohibits torture and mistreatment of prisoners. Some anonymous (imagine that, the media using anonymous sources to bash the Bush administration) person is saying that the current language is being taken out.
What isn't said is that it will likely be replaced by something a little less vague. Thanks to Senator McCain the Army Field Manual is now the "law of the land" when it comes to military interrogations. It only makes sense, then, that the military should expand the language in the manual so that it is more clear and encompassing.
But the way the media is playing this the military is getting rid of language that prohibits torture altogether. That is a rather nasty accusation to make, especially when based on nothing more than a bit of unfounded and anonymous rumor.
This is just plain irresponsible reporting. What will likely happen is sometime in the future the Pentagon will release its changes to the Army Field Manual, it will include more specific language as to acceptable interrogation procedures than was originally included, and the media won't issue a retraction on all the stories they're running now.
Not that it would matter if they did as the damage has already been done. The usual-suspect liberal demagogues have already picked up on the angle being played by the media and are scoring the requisite partisan points.
Jeff Goldstein has more.