[Crossposted to Loaded Orygun, Oregon's Progressive Community...]
A column that hasn't gotten a whole lot of attention in the Oregon blogosphere so far is one by the terrific Glenn Greenwald, now publishing at Salon.com. In it, Greenwald takes Senators Feinstein and Oregon's own Ron Wyden to task, for what he called backtracking on standards both had touted strongly over the last year regarding torture. Both had separately championed the Army Field Manual as a strong guide of accepted non-coercive techniques, and urged a unified American standard for all agencies following one guideline--which they said they hoped the AFM would fulfill.
(As an Oregon blogger, I'm going to leave Feinstein out of it.) Wyden's people gave a response, which left Glenn unsatisfied/unpersuaded. So I found the opportunity to ask Chief of Staff Josh Kardon for further clarification. Josh and I have a strong channel open, so I was confident I'd get some better insight into what Wyden is really thinking. Glenn's initial concern, the Wyden camp's first response, and my interactions with Kardon, all below the fold...
First Glenn:
Wyden's comments were even worse:
Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, another top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, said he would consult with the C.I.A. and approve interrogation techniques that went beyond the Army Field Manual as long as they were "legal, humane and noncoercive." But Mr. Wyden declined to say whether C.I.A. techniques ought to be made public.
What makes this so notable is that, for the last year, Feinstein and Wyden were both insistent that the only way to end torture and restore America's standing in the world was to require CIA compliance with the Army Field Manual -- period. But as long as George Bush was President, it was cheap and easy for Feinstein and Wyden to argue that, because they knew there was no chance it would ever happen.
Glenn gives Communications Director Jennifer Hoelzer her own page for the response:
Senator Wyden could not feel more strongly that Congress and the Administration need to establish clear-cut interrogation rules that apply to all agencies and that ensure that the United States never again uses interrogation techniques that are anything but legal, humane and noncoercive. In fact "legal, humane and noncoercive" are the only words directly attributable to him in the New York Times story. As I mentioned in our conversation, I believe that your article unfairly ascribes positions to Senator Wyden that he did not express in his interview with the New York Times or anyone else.
Glenn's rebuttal was that he thinks her later acknowledgement that perhaps the AFM isn't the best repository of the unified standard, is a backtrack from a unified standard or one that would allow the CIA or other intel agencies to use their own rules. With a lot of respect for Glenn, after asking CoS Kardon a series of written questions I think Glenn got a little worried about a backtrack where it doesn't necessarily seem one has taken place (at least where it concerns Wyden).
I really wasn't ready to give Wyden a pass based on this statement, because I think it seemed to dodge the central issues of a 'unified' standard, and whether CIA or other intel agencies could actually skirt it with their "special" set of rules. The response simply talked about whether the AFM was the best standard or not,which didn't do much to affirm a continuing desire on Wyden's part to get everybody complying with solely non-coercive methods. It sounded a bit like, "Well, if politics forces Obama to use some other set of standards besides AFM, we'll need to work for those new solutions together." I can totally understand why that sounded like capitulation language, using Obama as a cover to shrink from prior statements that an executive policy of torture must not stand.
Kardon explains the disconnect in an extended statement on what Wyden means when he highlights that the Executive can change the AFM: in more craven hands than Obama's--or even Obama's, perhaps?--the President can put rules into the AFM that Congress did not get the chance to approve. If Congress asserts the right to statutorially prevent torture, and sets a unified standard--maybe even one not subject to Executive adjustment like the AFM--to include only non-coercive techniques, why shouldn't Wyden support it? Kardon:
Senator Wyden insists on codifying a single, unified standard and he believes that the current AFM is the best standard that has been written thus far. He is willing to listen to proposed changes to the current AFM based on the "Golden Rule" principle if proposed by President Obama, but he unequivocally opposes any changes to the AFM that would result in a weakening of the AFM's standards. As he has fought for and voted for the AFM rules in the past, he would gladly do so again, but he is willing to hear first from the Obama administration to see if there are changes they wish to propose to improve the AFM legislation. But again, if proposed changes in any way weaken the protections currently contained in the AFM, Senator Wyden will steadfastly oppose those changes.
<div>It is important to remember that as you point out, currently, any president can amend the AFM without first coming to Congress. And despite the best efforts of Senator Wyden and his colleagues, the AFM does not currently apply to any intelligence agencies, including the CIA.
While Senator Wyden believes President-elect Obama is likely to do the right thing by administrative rule shortly after his swearing-in, he does not trust all future Presidents to do the right thing. For these reasons, Senator Wyden is absolutely determined to codify and unify the rules for interrogations.
Further, Senator Wyden is completely committed to achieving the speedy and complete declassification of all information pertaining to how exactly it came to pass that the Bush administration adopted inhumane interrogation standards.
</div><div>Finally, I think you might benefit by reading a previously un-publicized letter Senator Wyden sent to a leading torture-reform group, weeks before the flap over 4 words in a NY Times story. The letter can be found here:
</div><div> </div>
This was a good answer and a strong rationale, but I was still skeptical because I didn't hear a direct answer to to the pivotal question: would Wyden support a situation where an agency like CIA got to follow rules and use techniques that every other agency could not use? I asked two very specific questions to pin Kardon down on the Senator's intentions:
It's one thing to advocate for the inclusion of successful non-coercive techniques as proposed by agencies including CIA, into the AFM. It's another to allow those agencies to practice their proposals BEFORE they are included. Is the Senator's position now to either reccomend or allow the latter circumstance to occur?
A. Absolutely not. [emph mine]
And then I got as basic as I could:
So the Senator will not support legislation that allows ANY agency, CIA or otherwise, to follow rules for interrogation that are not exactly the same for every other agency?
A. Correct.
Gotta say, that's good enough for me. I'm grateful to Mr. Kardon for giving me the time to talk me down, as Rachel Maddow might say, and perhaps to help Glenn and others see a different read on Wyden's position based on these clarifications. I think getting the answers "absolutely not" and "correct" are rare gems of direct specificity in political interviewing, so I give the kudos when I get two in a row. I tried to leave as little wiggle room as possible, so bookmark this page and come back to it if things go sour during the session.
One thing Glenn may not know about Wyden's folks, surely at least Kardon (I haven't had the pleasure with Ms. Hoelzer yet)--they will fight through the skepticism and disagreement with you, if you think it's important. If he wasn't satisfied, Greenwald could have pressed her as I did with Josh, to see if she could be pinned down on what concerned him. On the other hand, she failed to see what Glenn's central concern was in the first place, and her response subsequently sounded like it had a different purpose--which, in the way that political speech often covers what is NOT said, left an opening for skeptics to believe the Senator was trying to parse his way out of a policy backtrack. Straight answers are just more reassuring, and I think I got them out of Kardon, finally. Loaded Orygun--when you need the local touch to massage the truth out of the burgermeister and his flacks!