Norm-speak^TM was on full display today as the Minneapolis Star Tribune published a letter from Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) on torture. Norm still claims to oppose torture, claims he opposes its use by the military and the CIA and then tries to confuse voters over what the real issue is. No amount of splitting hairs, no attempt to redirect the conversation will cover up Norm's pro-torture positions. When Norm tries to claim he is not a reliable pro-torture vote in the Senate, he is lying.

Letter of the day: Issue's not waterboarding, but Army manual

February 11, 2008

As a senator who has been a strong supporter of efforts to reassert that the United States does not engage in torture, I think it is important to clarify my position with respect to a provision in the Intelligence Authorization bill that seeks to apply the rules of the Army Field Manual to the CIA, which was questioned in an opinion piece published in these pages Feb. 7.

First of all, I share the view that waterboarding is torture and should never be used as an interrogation technique. I proudly voted for the Detainee Treatment Act and Military Commissions Act, which ensured that cruel and inhumane techniques such as waterboarding would not be employed against any detainee held by the United States.

I am also pleased that the CIA is no longer engaged in waterboarding. The CIA director officially prohibited waterboarding in 2006, after it had already not been used for three years.

However, I do not agree with the provision in the Intelligence Bill that seeks to apply the Army Field Manual to the CIA. The Army Field Manual was written for military agents facing military scenarios. Simply put, the CIA is not the Army and it operates under very different circumstances. Requiring the CIA to adhere to the requirements of the Army carries with it a host of implications that go far beyond the issue of waterboarding.

The debate over this legislation is not about waterboarding. I agree the CIA should not waterboard, and I'm relieved that it isn't done anymore. The question is whether the Army Field Manual is the appropriate handbook for the CIA -- and on that point I disagree.

SEN. NORM COLEMAN, WASHINGTON

Let's examine this letter paragraph by paragraph.

In the first paragraph, Norm claims that he has supported "efforts to reassert" that US should stop torturing prisoners. As Chair of the Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations Norm could have called hearings, exposed and probably stopped the abuses at Bagram Airbase in Afghanistan, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay and the extraordinary renditions. The fact is Norm did nothing.

Furthermore, Norm voted for the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act which gives prisoners we capture in the Teh War of Terrah^TM no rights whatsoever. When prisoners of war cannot question why they have been detained (habeas corpus), when they have no access to legal representation, when they have been virtually disappeared into a system with no independent checks against abuse, how is it that Norm has raised even a single manicured finger against torture?

Right away in his first paragraph, he begins his attempt to distract the conversation about his record into legalistic hair-splitting. So the parts of the Army field that forbid torture should not apply to the CIA? Insert your favorite eight letter word here for what comes out of the back end of steer, plops onto the ground and can be dangerously smelly to step in.

The second paragraph contains Norm's first lies. The Detainee Treatment Act bars our prisoners of war at Guantanamo from bringing habeas corpus challenges. In other words, they cannot challenge the US to prove they are imprisoned for legitimate reasons.

The Military Commission Act doesn't protect prisoner rights. Far from it.

The MCA eliminates the constitutional due process right of habeas corpus for detainees at Guantánamo Bay and elsewhere. It allows our government to continue to hold hundreds of prisoners for more than five years without charges.

It also gives any president the power to declare — on his or her own — who is an enemy combatant, decide who should be held indefinitely without being charged with a crime and define what is — and what is not — torture and abuse.
(ACLU

Far from standing up for anything, Norm enabled the illegal detention, torture and even murders of some innocent people that will be one of the multitude of crimes of the Bush Administration.

In the third paragraph, Norm claims that the CIA has stopped waterboarding and hasn't since 2003. Norm wants us to trust him and the Bush Administration and believe they have stopped. Norm and this Administration have lied about so many things that they are a little hard to believe. After lying about WMDs, lying that the Iraq War was going well, lying about torturing, lying about secret prisons, lying about extraordinary rendition, we're supposed to believe them when they say they've stopped?

In the fourth paragraph, Norm attempts a political triple back-flip. But it is as if he turns the cameras off so we cannot see the landing: "Requiring the CIA to adhere to the requirements of the Army carries with it a host of implications that go far beyond the issue of waterboarding." Really Norm? What would a few of those "host of implications" be? Let me guess at a few of them:

• CIA agents who torture prisoners might be prosecuted.
• CIA agents may claim they were ordered to torture.
• CIA supervisors may claim that they were being pressured from higher up to torture or point to a policy paper.
• Army soldiers under supervision by CIA agents wouldn't torture prisoners.
• Possible war crime prosecutions against Bush Administration officials?

Let me interpret that last paragraph from Norm-speak^TM into plain English:

"The debate over this legislation is not about waterboarding. I agree the CIA should not waterboard, and I'm relieved that it isn't done anymore. The question is whether the Army Field Manual is the appropriate handbook for the CIA -- and on that point I disagree."

I don't want this debate to be about torture. I agree that the CIA should not torture, but you'll have to trust me and the Bush Administration that they've stopped. So don't think about that, think about whether the Army Field Manual is the appropriate handbook for the CIA. That would be much better than thinking about my pro-torture voting record.

BTW, Norm voted for telecom immunity for telecoms who cooperated with the Bush Administrations illegal, warrantless wiretapping program. Just thought you'd like to know that, too.