CIA Refused to Operate Secret Jails

FT.com / US / Rendition - CIA ‘refused to operate’ secret jails

From the article:

The Bush administration had to empty its secret prisons and transfer terror suspects to the military-run detention centre at Guantánamo this month in part because CIA interrogators had refused to carry out further interrogations and run the secret facilities, according to former CIA officials and people close to the programme. The former officials said the CIA interrogators’ refusal was a factor in forcing the Bush administration to act earlier than it might have wished.

Now it all makes sense. The CIA agents refused to continue breaking the law, concerned that they were, in fact being ordered to be war criminals. The “I was just following orders” excuse clearly doesn’t cut it.

There have been stories of them seeking insurance against prosecution. But the best insurance, from that point of view, is for the US to legalize torture and announce it won’t let the world prosecute our people by the international rules, even though we agreed to be bound by them years ago. How quaint.

So then the prisoners were transferred out of necessity, not some clever plan for Bush to diffuse criticism of his policies. And Bush’s own statements make much more sense in this context. He believes torture is necessary. And he’s right, in fact, that the program won’t continue unless it gains “clarity.” But clarity for him means legalizing torture.

I propose another form of clarity. Don’t torture. If you truly stumble onto a situation where people are about to die and the only way to save them is to torture someone, you can reasonably argue an exception. But even that should go through due process of law, with the risk of jail and the added care that instills. More likely, however, is that a prisoner won’t be helpful for months under torture until they break. Torture doesn’t really work. And neither does this now transparent attempt to subvert the law.