Michael Hayden and Michael Mukasey write in today’s Wall Street Journal:
The limits of the Army Field Manual are entirely appropriate for young soldiers, for the conditions in which they operate, for the detainees they routinely question, and for the kinds of tactically relevant information they pursue. Those limits are not appropriate, however, for more experienced people in controlled circumstances with high-value detainees. Indeed, the Army Field Manual was created with awareness that there was an alternative protocol for high-value detainees.
What people don’t seem to understand is that we should wantthe Army and the CIA to have different interrogation rules. The Army’s rules should be highly restrictive in recognition of the fact that its core competency is warfighting, not intelligence gathering. Indeed, soldiers often rotate in and out of assignments, in my many cases leaving them with insufficient time to learn how to become a skilled interrogator. The CIA, on the other hand, is the prime agency for gathering human intelligence. It should have a cadre of experienced career interrogators and a set of rules that conform to national and international law but that are closer to the limit of what’s legal than the Army’s rules.
The idea of subjecting the CIA to the Army Field Manual makes even less sense when you realize that the Army can revise the manual whenever it sees fit. It would be like the FAA, instead of promulgating safety regulations, stating “All airlines shall follow whatever safety regulations United Airlines puts in place.” That’s hardly the way to codify solid regulation. In fact, the Army could easily modify the Field Manual to say “CIA interrogators may use whatever techniques they see fit.”
Finally, it’s worth noting that it’s called the Army Field Manual on Interrogation. As the name implies, it’s a field manual designed for usage by troops in the field, not practiced interrogators operating in controlled environments.