Dirty Harry stays dirty--for now

■"CIA Holds Terror Suspects in Secret Prisons: Debate is Growing Within Agency About Legality and Morality of Overseas System Set Up After 9/11," by Dana Priest, Washington Post, 2 November 2005, p. A1.

■"Clueless about torture," editorial, USA Today, 2 November 2005, p. 12A.

■"Detainee Policy Sharply Divides Bush Officials: New Military Standards; Fight on Applying Geneva Language to Handling of Terror Suspects," by Tim Golden and Eric Schmitt, New York Times, 2 November 2005, p. A1.

■"Policies on Terrorism Suspects Come Under Fire: Democrats Say CIA's Covert Prisons Hurt U.S. Image; U.N. Official on Torture to Conduct Inquiry," by Dana Priest and Josh White, Washington Post, 3 November 2005, p. A2.

■"EU to investiage reports that CIA set up secret jails," by Associated press, USA Today, 4 November 2005, p. 9A.

When I began briefing the Blueprint for Action slides, I wondered if my section on "Dirty Harry comes clean in the GWOT" would seem too preachy, or frankly, too obscure. I mean, who follows this stuff after the overdose of Abu Ghraib?

Not anymore.

Papers are full of stories: Bush Administration is divided over how to clean up, Congress is getting steamed (both sides of aisle), and the EU and UN are launching investigations.

Scandals are driving this process, and they'll keep on driving this process until we start building a new, transparent rule set on how we process individuals in this global war on terrorism.

I understand the Bush people not wanting to sign up to Geneva Conventions on POWs, because this is a new type of war against a new type of warrior (at least, for us). We need new rules, not a sloppy revamp of war rules from another era in which states fought states. This is our men-with-no-names (special ops) fighting the men-with-no-states (terrorists). We need a new rule set, and we need to grow it fast among our most trusted allies, expanding it over time. If we delay too long, we'll lose too many friends.