Bush Seems Apt To Compromise On Detainees genre: Just Jihad & Polispeak & Six Degrees of Speculation
The Bush administration appears resigned to the need to compromise on new legislation related to the handling of detainees in order to address the recent Supreme Court ruling. It became apparent today that there were enough Republican dissenters to prevent the passage of the measure sought by the President and despite the fact that the he could veto the Senate version, the GOP would prefer to avoid any further indications of divisions within the Party as we approach the midterm election. The Washington Post has the latest update on the efforts to reach an acceptable agreement.
Senate aides and White House officials did not divulge the changes to the initial proposal, but they made it clear that negotiations were restarting after days of heated charges and countercharges. Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), a central figure in the dispute, said there is now a "50-50 chance" of a deal being struck by week's end.
Since the dispute burst into the open Wednesday, five other Republican senators -- Susan Collins (Maine), Olympia J. Snowe (Maine), Chuck Hagel (Neb.), John E. Sununu (N.H.) and Lincoln D. Chafee (R.I.) -- have indicated they will side with the dissidents, and the numbers were threatening to grow.
The dissidents' hand has only grown stronger. House Republican leaders decided yesterday to drop a vote planned for this week on Bush's bill on military trials, agreeing instead to refer it to the Judiciary Committee for further consideration. White House and GOP leaders had hoped an overwhelming vote in the House this week would increase the pressure on McCain, Graham and Warner to relent.
More troubling to the White House and GOP leaders, Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.), chairman of the House International Relations Committee, indicated he may ask to examine portions of the bill pertaining to international treaties, leadership aides acknowledged.
One cannot underestimate the apparent dissention on the issue given the negative voter sentiment that seems to indicate that the President and his Party are in jeopardy of losing control of the House and possibly the Senate. I interpret the fact that so many Republican Senators are willing to challenge the administration to indicate overwhelming concern that the White House has a tin ear when it comes to the potential damage his proposed guidelines would have on U.S. credibility and respect...not to mention the risk to American soldiers that could potentially be captured by our current or future enemies.
It's crossed my mind that Senator Graham, like Senator Spector, has on occasion appeared to take a position in opposition to the President only to eventually compromise such that the legislation is virtually what the administration had sought in the first place...but given the fact that Senator McCain held his ground on the military code legislation, I'm hopeful this isn't going to turn out to be a lot of howling that in the end becomes a wimper. If so, it wouldn't be the first time the GOP "played" an issue.
Beyond the dispute over the Geneva Conventions, the White House and the dissidents are clashing on how and whether classified information should be divulged to commission defendants, and whether evidence obtained through coercive interrogations should be admissible at trials.
The White House would like more latitude to withhold classified information, but the dissidents say it is a fundamental rule of jurisprudence that defendants be able to confront the evidence being used against them. The dissidents are also concerned that the use of coerced evidence could open convictions to appeal.
Mark Salter, McCain's chief of staff, said the Arizona senator is hoping for assurances from the White House that CIA interrogators would abide by the standards of treatment for detainees codified last year after a fight with the White House over interrogation at military prisons. But such assurances would not be enough unless Bush agrees to drop any new definitions of treatment under the Geneva Conventions.
While I understand and agree that the crimes committed or planned by captured terrorists are despicable, I find no rationale for denying them the due process that we afford to U.S. criminals who commit heinous crimes. Further, I cannot see why the precedent set in the trial of Timothy McVeigh for the Oklahoma City domestic terrorist bombing should not be the model for foreign terrorists. In saying as much, I am not suggesting that we should divulge national security details to the general public...but the detainees should have the benefit of a fair judicial process. If we decide to abandon that basic premise, we undermine the freedoms we seek to defend and our efforts to bring democracy to the Middle East.
Daniel DiRito | September 18, 2006 | 8:42 PM
Post a comment