Reply #29: It sounds like they want to allow for them in the current bill under discussion though...

[cascadiance]

From the CCR's page:

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/383/t/4089/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=27695

is this report, there seems to be some "wiggle speak" to allow for ways for this practice to happen again...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/sap_111/saps1390s_20090715.pdf

July 15, 2009
(Senate)

STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY

S. 1390 – National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010
(Sen. Levin, D-Michigan, and Sen. McCain, R-Arizona)

The Administration supports Senate passage of S. 1390, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. The Administration appreciates the Senate Armed Services Committee’s continued strong support of our national defense, including its support for the Department’s topline budget requests for both the base budget and for overseas contingency operations.

The Administration appreciates, among other things, the leadership of the Committee in supporting many of the President’s initiatives to terminate or reduce programs that have troubled histories or that failed to demonstrate adequate performance when compared to other programs and activities needed to carry out U.S. national security objectives. In addition, the Administration appreciates that the Committee included some authorities that are important to field and combatant commanders, such as the Commanders’ Emergency Response Program, the Security and Stabilization Assistance program, and the extension of Contingency Construction Authority.

The Administration believes that the Committee has identified many of the key elements that need to be changed in the existing law with respect to military commissions in order to make the commissions an effective and fair system of justice, and looks forward to continuing its close cooperation with the Congress to further refine any issues of potential concern.

...

Interrogation Duties: The Administration objects to section 823 in its current form, which would prohibit contractor personnel from interrogating persons detained during or in the aftermath of hostilities under any circumstances. In some limited cases, a contract interrogator may possess the best combination of skills to obtain critical intelligence and this provision, therefore, could prevent U.S. Forces from conducting lawful interrogations in the most effective manner. The Administration fully supports the application of ordinary Defense Department rules and regulations to contractors engaged in interrogations (as contemplated in subsection (a)(2) of the current section 823), and could support a revised version of the section that would apply such provisions to contractors who participate in interrogations. The Administration also would object to any amendment requiring video recording of all intelligence interrogations. Although the Administration is open to studying a possible video recording requirement, implementing a mandatory requirement at this time would be imprudent, unduly burdensome, and could risk significant unintended consequences in current and future military operations.

...

Sorry, did leave the "contractor" word out of my previous subject line by mistake... Understand your confusion now...