Talking About Torture

"'[Vice President Dick] Cheney made mention in the days after 9/11 that he wanted to operate sort of on the dark side,' Cullen said. 'Here was a guy who never served, and now something terrible had happened, and he wanted to show that he was a tough guy. . . . So he's going to operate outside the rules of law. Bad message.'"

Paul Rieckhoff , who served in Iraq, writes in a New York Times op-ed on the strategic value of treating prisoners decently: "I saw countless insurgents surrender when faced with the prospect of a hot meal, a pack of cigarettes and air-conditioning. America's moral integrity was the single most important weapon my platoon had on the streets of Iraq. It saved innumerable lives, encouraged cooperation with our allies and deterred Iraqis from joining the growing insurgency."

Editorial Watch

The Los Angeles Times calls for the sort of "sustained scrutiny that will be impossible if there is a rush to enact the compromise into law before the midterm elections. Democrats, who until now have allowed McCain and Co. to serve as their stand-ins, especially should resist a stampede. . . .

"Before writing Bush a blank check, Congress should insist on a convincing explanation of what the CIA would be allowed to do that would be forbidden for interrogators in the military -- and why."

USA Today writes: "The skids are greased in Congress this week to rush through a deal on how terror suspects should be interrogated and prosecuted. . . .

"While the lawmakers would be elated to get this messy issue behind them before they go home to campaign for re-election, it's worth being wary of a quick fix for an intricate issue that defines the nation's values and how the world sees us. . . .

"What the nation needs is a law that defines how to protect its citizens from terrorism without violating their values. Getting it right is more critical than getting it done fast."

The Boston Globe writes: "Unless Congress wants to set a precedent for other countries to use in mistreating US troops in future conflicts, it should insist that interrogations be conducted in accordance with the Army's field manual and that any special trial commissions use the military's court-martial procedures, which are sound."

The Mysterious 'Compromise'

Adam Liptak writes in the New York Times: "The compromise reached on Thursday between Congressional Republicans and the White House on the interrogations and trials of terrorism suspects is, legal experts said yesterday, a series of interlocking paradoxes.

"It would impose new legal standards that it forbids the courts to enforce.

"It would guarantee terrorist masterminds charged with war crimes an array of procedural protections. But it would bar hundreds of minor figures and people who say they are innocent bystanders from access to the courts to challenge their potentially lifelong detentions.

"And while there is substantial disagreement about just which harsh interrogation techniques the compromise would prohibit, there is no dispute that it would allow military prosecutors to use statements that had been obtained under harsh techniques that are now banned."