From Jennifer Hoelzer, Communications Director for Sen. Ron Wyden

Glenn, I really appreciate your not only talking to me, but your giving me the opportunity to correct what I think is your inaccurate portrayal of my boss’s position on interrogation, which you based almost exclusively on a four-word quote in the New York Times. You suggest that Senator Wyden is in some way retreating from his resolve to put a permanent end to prisoner abuse and that is quite simply wrong. Senator Wyden could not feel more strongly that Congress and the Administration need to establish clear-cut interrogation rules that apply to all agencies and that ensure that the United States never again uses interrogation techniques that are anything but legal, humane and noncoercive. In fact “legal, humane and noncoercive” are the only words directly attributable to him in the New York Times story. As I mentioned in our conversation, I believe that your article unfairly ascribes positions to Senator Wyden that he did not express in his interview with the New York Times or anyone else.

The Bush Administration’s legacy on interrogation policy goes against what we stand for as Americans. It contradicts American laws and values and has both damaged our national security and eroded the U.S.’s moral authority around the world. Beyond that, Senator Wyden is not convinced that coercive interrogation techniques even work. As Senator Wyden told the New York Times – but was not reported – he believes that to correct the wrongs of the Bush Administration two things need to happen: First, we need to declassify as much of what happened under the Bush Administration as possible. Congress and the American people need to know what happened so that we can not only learn from it, but so that we can be 100% sure that it never happens again. And finally, Congress needs to pass a law establishing a strong and clear standard for interrogation that applies to all agencies.

As you point out in your post, Senator Wyden sponsored legislation last year that would require all agencies to comply with the Army Field Manual. Senator Wyden would be very happy if this bill passed tomorrow. However, as he told the New York Times, the Obama Administration holds new promise that we can once and for all get this issue right. During the Bush years we had an administration that was not willing to cooperate or even to have a serious discussion about this issue with Congress. Now that we have a cooperative administration, Senator Wyden believes that we should work with them in crafting a strong and clear standard for all agencies. Your post, I believe inaccurately, suggests that the current Army Field Manual is the only acceptable standard for interrogations. When Senator Wyden and his colleagues worked to come up with a bill that would end coercive interrogations, they seized upon the Army Field Manual because, while it was a somewhat arbitrary standard. it was universally agreed to be legal, humane and noncoercive. As you may or may not be aware, under current law, the Army Field Manual can be revised by the Executive Branch without prior consent from Congress. This is to allow for the possibility of incorporating other legal, humane and noncoercive interrogation techniques that might be discovered to be effective in the future. Just because the Army Field Manual is currently the best available standard for interrogation does not mean we can’t do better.

As the Campaign to Ban Torture recently pointed out in it’s “Declaration of Principles” “We will have one national standard for all U.S. personnel and agencies for the interrogation and treatment of prisoners. Currently the best expression of that standard is the U.S. Army Field Manual, which will be used until any other interrogation technique has been approved based on the Golden Rule principle.” Senator Wyden expressed his approval of these views in a November 21, 2008 letter to the Campaign to Ban Torture which you can find at: http://wyden.senate.gov/newsroom/cbt_letter.pdf.

To suggest that Senator Wyden is backtracking from his position is misleading and wrong. Rather he believes that Congress owes it to the American people to pass the best possible law, to make sure that interrogations are effective and that the abuses of the last 8 years are never repeated. I am not sure how that can be construed as anything short of a serious commitment to, as you say “end torture with an unambiguous legal regime.”