Party of the Damned

Mark Mazzetti writes in the New York Times: "The Justice Department has told Congress that American intelligence operatives attempting to thwart terrorist attacks can legally use interrogation methods that might otherwise be prohibited under international law.

"The legal interpretation, outlined in recent letters, sheds new light on the still-secret rules for interrogations by the Central Intelligence Agency. It shows that the administration is arguing that the boundaries for interrogations should be subject to some latitude, even under an executive order issued last summer that President Bush said meant that the C.I.A. would comply with international strictures against harsh treatment of detainees.

"While the Geneva Conventions prohibit 'outrages upon personal dignity,' a letter sent by the Justice Department to Congress on March 5 makes clear that the administration has not drawn a precise line in deciding which interrogation methods would violate that standard, and is reserving the right to make case-by-case judgments.

"'The fact that an act is undertaken to prevent a threatened terrorist attack, rather than for the purpose of humiliation or abuse, would be relevant to a reasonable observer in measuring the outrageousness of the act,' said Brian A. Benczkowski, a deputy assistant attorney general, in the letter, which had not previously been made public. . . .

"Some legal experts critical of the Justice Department interpretation said the department seemed to be arguing that the prospect of thwarting a terror attack could be used to justify interrogation methods that would otherwise be illegal.

"'What they are saying is that if my intent is to defend the United States rather than to humiliate you, than I have not committed an offense,' said Scott L. Silliman, who teaches national security law at Duke University.

"But a senior Justice Department official strongly challenged this interpretation on Friday, saying that the purpose of the interrogation would be just one among many factors weighed in determining whether a specific procedure could be used. . . .

"In one letter written Sept. 27, 2007, Mr. Benczkowski argued that 'to rise to the level of an outrage' and thus be prohibited under the Geneva Conventions, conduct 'must be so deplorable that the reasonable observer would recognize it as something that should be universally condemned.'"

Evan Perez and Siobhan Gorman write in today's Wall Street Journal (subscription required): "Despite a presidential order designed to clarify the limits on interrogation practices, new Justice Department letters to Congress appear to muddy the public understanding of what is and isn't legal when intelligence officials question terrorism suspects. . . .

"The letters from Brian A. Benczkowski, principal deputy assistant attorney general, show that the Bush administration has an opaque view of the legal limits it and Congress have imposed on CIA interrogations. Beyond not making the techniques in use public, it appears the administration feels that whether certain techniques are acceptable depends on the case at hand."

Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden "had written the department several times in the past year seeking clarification from the administration. 'It certainly makes their position less clear at a time when, not just in our country but around the world, people are trying to figure out where the U.S. stands,' he said.

"Sen. Wyden says the letters will help make the case that there needs to be a law that explicitly puts the CIA interrogations under the same restrictions as the military, or some other set of clear standards."