THE DIRKA-DIRKA PRESIDENCY
Suddenly, some people reportedly have to think again, after having been part of the Bush-Cheney 'Dirka Dirka' Presidency.
STRATFOR laments that there is a chilling effect going on.
Proper alignment of the risks-rewards implies that, yes, people should worry. They ought to be thinking about building their necessity defense and the cost of the interrogation room, ...
Good grief, I hope there is! This is exactly what you want. To motivate people to think that there might be consequences, a broader context (even "wartime context"), for their actions. Didn't Petreaus try to effect a similar change in attitude, when he took over in Iraq?This is a key problem with the regulate-and-legalize (RULE) approach to 'enhanced interrogation'. If you create zero risk (to torture), you end up with an insatiable demand. (Ask any sub-prime mortgage-broker from 2006, if you need further evidence.)
If this reporting is right, then it confirms how wrong-headed the RULE approach is. If torture is on the list, then one ends up justifying how to keep people out of the torture room, rather than the other way around.
Proper alignment of the risks-rewards implies that, yes, people should worry. They ought to be thinking about building their (personal?) necessity defense and the costs of the interrogation room, rather than whether they will appear like a super-cowboy to the Vice-President for having extracted information quickly.
Then there is this possible distortion from STRATFOR's analysis:
Politics and moral arguments aside, the end effect of the memos’ release is that people who have put their lives on the line in U.S. counterterrorism efforts are now uncertain of whether they should be making that sacrifice. Many of these people are now questioning whether the administration that happens to be in power at any given time will recognize the fact that they were carrying out lawful orders under a previous administration.
Just how many people do we have interrogating suspects? Dozens?
Hayden's op-ed indicates that circa 30 people went into 'enhanced techniques'. How does that imply scores of interrogators, who have "put their lives on the line"?
Too many, perhaps, read these 'reports' uncritically.
Hell, I know people who would look at that assessment and think, "Start firing people until the morale improves ...".
