A constant theme of Barack Obama’s presidential campaign was his pledge to banish secret CIA interrogations rules and to require all American interrogators to follow the military guidelines on interrogation as set forth in the Army Field Manual.
Said Obama last year on the practice of torture: "We cannot win a war unless we maintain the high ground and keep the people on our side. But because the administration decided to take the low road, our troops have more enemies."
So why did Dianne Finestein, in an interview on Tuesday , indicate that extreme cases might call for flexibility? "I think that you have to use the noncoercive standard to the greatest extent possible," she said, raising the possibility that an imminent terrorist threat might require special measures.
Afterward, however, Mrs. Feinstein issued a statement saying : "The law must reflect a single clear standard across the government, and right now, the best choice appears to be the Army Field Manual. I recognize that there are other views, and I am willing to work with the new administration to consider them." A perplexing ambivilance considering that Feinstein, who will become head of the Senate Intelligence Committee in January, led the fight this year to force the C.I.A. to follow military interrogation rules (her bill was passed by Congress but vetoed by President Bush.)
And what to make of Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, another top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, when he said he would consult with the C.I.A. and approve interrogation techniques that went beyond the Army Field Manual as long as they were "legal, humane and noncoercive" (whatever that means). Wyden also declined to say whether C.I.A. techniques ought to be made public.
So what’s the deal with these reversals after such vehement opposition? Just more "unifying" from the Unifier?