If there is any good reason for this, I can't come up with it:
Accused of Protecting Us From Terrorists
I posted the guidelines for application of "enhanced interrogation techniques" a couple of months ago. When it comes to torture such as POWs in Hanoi experienced, there was no way anyone could call those little pressure applications anything like torture. When applied against the standards of SAVAK, they were at the level of giving the prisoner a really mean look and no dessert with dinner. When placed in the context of gaining time-sensitive critical intelligence from a fresh detainee, I'm surprised that they were as effective as they were. It was a long stretch from Jack Bauer style.
The individuals being interrogated were terrorists, not Geneva Convention protected military combatants. They weren't citizens. They weren't in uniform. They weren't abiding by international law or accepted rules of warfare. They were very bad characters with information that could save lives if they disclosed it.
The interrogators were acting with clear guidance and a legal interpretation of what was permissible to do their job from the very same office that Eric Holder now occupies.
OK, we've got a new administration in place. They can and have changed policies. The new policies are different than the old. But the threat to America still remains and we still may need to have a competent, effective, professional CIA which will get the info we require to minimize our risks. They have to be confident that they can do their job without the threat of a future witch-hunt hanging over them.
What does Holder intend to accomplish? Will America be better off? Will we be safer? Will terrorists decide we are really good guys who shouldn't be harmed? Will the CIA be more effective? Will we have better intelligence? What is Holder's motivation? Who benefits from this? What will be the bottom line?