I am normally not much inclined to give California Senator Dianne Feinstein the benefit of the doubt, mostly because I have a good enough memory to recall the dozens of times she has earned the "DINO" (Democrat In Name Only) label for voting with Republicans. She's not my favorite senator, in other words. She's not even my favorite senator from California -- and likely never will be as long as Barbara Boxer is still serving. But I have to say, the recent kerfluffle over her comments on torture and the Army Field Manual seem to me to be a tempest in a teapot. I am willing to take her at her word that she was quoted out of context in the New York Times, and I am also willing to take her at her word in the clarification of her comments she has subsequently issued.

If you're unaware of the fracas between DiFi (as she is known in the Golden State) and the media (and the blogosphere), here is the offending text from the Times article:

But even some senior Democratic lawmakers who are vehement critics of the Bush administration’s interrogation policies seemed reluctant in recent interviews to commit the new administration to following the Army Field Manual in all cases.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who will take over as chairman 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.

But in an interview on Tuesday, Mrs. Feinstein indicated 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."

Glenn Greenwald at Salon has been one of the leading voices decrying Feinstein's quoted words. His recent article on the subject is full of her quotes from last year, when Feinstein co-sponsored a bill which would have limited all government personnel (including the C.I.A.) to prisoner interrogation techniques in the Army Field Manual. Greenwald detects backtracking from what she said then to what she was quoted as saying now.

But since Feinstein's quote appeared in the New York Times, she has responded twice to the media. The first was to the Washington Independent, where Feinstein's office provided the full quote, with the final sentence that the Times did not see fit to include:

"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. However, my intent is to pass a law that effectively bans torture, complies with all laws and treaties, and provides a single standard across the government."

And, as the furor grew out in the blogosphere, Feinstein finally issued a second statement, this time to Time magazine's "Swampland" blog:

"I strongly believe there should be a single, clear standard for interrogation across the federal government, and that this standard should comply with the Geneva Convention, the United Nations Convention Against Torture, and U.S. law. I plan to introduce legislation in January that would close Guantanamo, make the Army Field Manual the single standard for interrogations, prohibit contractors from being used to carry out interrogations and provide the International Committee of the Red Cross with access to detainees. If the incoming administration decides to propose an alternative to this legislation, I am willing to hear its views. But I believe we must put an end to coercive interrogations by the CIA."

This is pretty unequivocal to me. Feinstein clearly states that she will introduce legislation in January to do exactly what she's been trying to do all along. The only "wiggle room" she has left is to defer to the leader of her party, the incoming President Obama, should he wish to propose alternatives.

Now, one can speculate all one wants about what "really" went on here. Did Feinstein try to soften her stance, and then decide to stiffen it back up in the face of outcry? Was she just quoted out of context in the first place? Did Obama's team brief her that they might want something different in this legislation (in which case it would be Obama who is softening, not Feinstein)? Or was she just showing what some would consider a proper amount of deference to a new president from her own party?

But such speculation, while fun, is rather meaningless at this point. Now, I (as regular readers can attest) am about as anti-torture as is possible. I've written about the subject again and again, and fully support making the Army Field Manual the absolute last word on prisoner treatment. Even my harshest critics wouldn't call me pro-torture, in other words. Which is why I believe I have to speak out now in Dianne Feinstein's defense.

Because, for the time being, I take her at her word. If she does not follow through on her promise next month, then I promise I will (rhetorically) come down on her like a ton of bricks for not doing so. So while much of the blogosphere (the left side of it, at any rate) is saying that the sky is falling, I would suggest that this is no more than an acorn which bonked us in the head during a slow news week.

While it is always important to keep an eye on DiFi -- which will become even more important when she takes over from the hapless Jay "Rocky IV" Rockefeller, IV as Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee -- I actually welcome her strong statement about the legislation she intends to immediately introduce next month. I fully support having such legislation sitting on Obama's desk the minute he takes office. She has, quite publicly, laid down her marker on the issue, and the ball is now in the Obama team's court. Meaning if the legislation is anything less than what she vowed -- "close Guantanamo, make the Army Field Manual the single standard for interrogations, prohibit contractors from being used to carry out interrogations and provide the International Committee of the Red Cross with access to detainees" -- then we will know who to ask first as to why it was watered down. Feinstein has made a promise as to what she will introduce, and (for now) I intend to take her at her word. Because for all we know, it is Feinstein herself pushing Obama to make good on his campaign promise on torture and interrogation and the Army Field Manual.

But until such legislation actually appears, all the sound and fury (so far) seems to be signifying nothing much. Give DiFi a chance, in other words. Her last statement on the matter has earned her that much, at least.

-- Chris Weigant