Reply
Fri 15 Sep, 2006 08:04 am
The real reason Bush is trying to change the Geneva Convention is to try to protect members of the Bush Administration from war crime accusations and international trials. ---BBB
September 15, 2006
An Unexpected Collision Over Detainees
By CARL HULSE - New York Times
WASHINGTON, Sept. 14, 2006
President Bush and Congressional Republicans spent the last 10 days laying the foundation for a titanic pre-election struggle over national security, and now they have one. But the fight playing out this week on Capitol Hill is not what they had in mind.
Instead of drawing contrasts with Democrats, the president's call for creating military tribunals to try terror suspects ?- a key substantive and political component of his fall agenda ?- has erupted into a remarkably intense clash pitting some of the best-known warriors in the Republican Party against Mr. Bush and the Congressional leadership.
At issue are definitions of what is permissible in trials and interrogations that both sides view as central to the character of the nation, the way the United States is perceived abroad and the rules of the game for what Mr. Bush has said will be a multigenerational battle against Islamic terrorists.
Democrats have so far remained on the sidelines, sidestepping Republican efforts to draw them into a fight over Mr. Bush's leadership on national security heading toward the midterm election. Democrats are rapt spectators, however, shielded by the stern opposition to the president being expressed by three Republicans with impeccable credentials on military matters: Senators John McCain of Arizona, John W. Warner of Virginia and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. The three were joined on Thursday by Colin L. Powell, formerly the secretary of state and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in challenging the administration's approach.
It is one of those rare Congressional moments when the policy is as monumental as the politics.
On one side are the Republican veterans of the uniformed services, arguing that the president's proposal would effectively gut the nearly 60-year-old Geneva Conventions, sending a dark signal to the rest of the world and leaving United States military without adequate protection against torture and mistreatment.
On the other are the Bush administration and Republican leaders of both the House and Senate who say new tools are urgently needed to pursue and interrogate terror suspects and to protect the covert operatives who play an increasingly important role in chasing them.
Republicans concede that the fight among themselves is a major political distraction, particularly given the credentials of the Republican opposition, led by Mr. McCain, the former prisoner of war in Vietnam who was tortured in captivity.
"It is a big problem," said Representative Ray LaHood of Illinois, a senior House Republican. "These guys have a lot of weight and a lot of standing. McCain is a tough guy to beat on this."
But Mr. Bush, who visited the Capitol on Thursday to rally House Republicans behind his approach, is also tough. He will no doubt do everything possible to get a deal, if not on the floor of the Senate then in conference between the House and the Senate. But the immediate result in political terms has been to create a battle among Republicans about core principles less than eight weeks before Election Day.
"This whole issue is going to send a signal about who America is in 2006," Mr. Graham said.
Brushing aside the objections of Mr. Bush and most of his Republican colleagues in Congress, Mr. Warner led the Senate Armed Services Committee to produce legislation on Thursday that would provide detainees with protections beyond those sought by Mr. Bush, setting up a collision with the House, where a measure approved by the administration is advancing.
House Republicans say the Senate plan is misguided and will hobble the American military. Representative Duncan Hunter, Republican of California and chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said it would lead to "the lawyer brigade" being attached to combat troops to counsel detainees.
Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York and chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, said: "I just think John McCain is wrong on this. If we capture bin Laden tomorrow and we have to hold his head under water to find out when the next attack is going to happen, we ought to be able to do it."
Mr. McCain's opponents acknowledge that, given his experiences, he is a powerful advocate on this subject, but that the shadow war against terrorists has new legal complexities.
"I have never led in combat, but I do have some experience with the law," said Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas and a former State Supreme Court justice who has jousted with Mr. McCain over the legislation.
There is no doubt that Mr. Cornyn and his fellow Republicans would much rather be dueling with the Democrats over this issue, which they see as their chief election-year advantage.
After their meeting with the president, House Republicans sought to play up their differences with House Democrats on the detainee legislation although the bill passed the Armed Services Committee on an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote.
Republicans will also try to continue to pound Democrats on other security measures, like legislation to authorize the administration's eavesdropping program. But the political power of that issue gets muddied as well because some House and Senate Republicans want to impose more restrictions on the program than the administration finds acceptable.
Recent polls continue to show Republicans with an advantage on security issues, but they are mixed as to whether the president's most recent push is raising his popularity. In addition, widespread public dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq is clouding election prospects for Republicans.
But with the focus on the treatment of detainees there is a potential benefit for Republicans since it does at least temporarily change the subject from Iraq.
Democrats say that no matter how bipartisan the opposition to the administration's tribunal plan, they expect that Republicans will try to blame Democrats for any delay. They note that House Republicans have taken to referring to bipartisan Senate legislation on immigration, a measure most House Republicans abhor, as the Reid-Kennedy bill, named for the Democrats Harry Reid of Nevada and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, despite the substantial participation of Mr. McCain.
"At the end of the day, they will forget John McCain, Lindsey Graham and John Warner and say it is all about the Democrats holding up President Bush's plan to make American safer," said Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate.
But Mr. Durbin said, "We are not going to take it sitting down."
Military lawyers coerced
Sen. Graham: White House Held Military Lawyers In 5 Hour Meeting and ?'Tried To Force Them To Sign A Prepared Statement'
9/15/06
This morning, President Bush was questioned about Gen. Colin Powell's letter criticizing White House legislation that would authorize torture. Bush tried to downplay Powell's letter by pointing to another letter signed by the military's top uniformed lawyers saying they supported Bush's plan:
BUSH: There's all kinds of letters coming out ?- and today, by the way, active duty personnel in the Pentagon, the JAG, supported the concept that I have just outlined to you.
But during today's White House press conference, a reporter cited comments by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) ?- a former JAG and an opponent of the Bush's detainee policies ?- claiming that the White House had placed extreme pressure on the military lawyers to sign a statement, and that the lawyers had refused to sign the initial statement crafted for them by the White House:
REPORTER: Sen. Graham is telling reporters on Capitol Hill that the White House had them in a meeting for five hours last night and tried to force them to sign a prepared statement and he said reading this JAG letter they ended up writing leaves total ambiguity on interpretation, this is Sen. Lindsey Graham. What's your response to that?
Snow acknowledged "they were asked to write a letter" but said, "if you start going into who asked whom to write letters, I don't know." Watch it:
Tony Snow and Press Spar: 'Torture' For All of Them
Tony Snow and Press Spar: 'Torture' For All of Them
By E&P Staff
Published: September 14, 2006
Tony Snow conducted one of his most fascinating briefings today in his relatively short time as White House press secretary.
Most of it had to do with the administration's attempt to redefine -- or as it claims, simply make clearer -- certain key parts of the Geneva Convention's rules on torture and interrogation. In the course of it, Snow charged that former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who had just written a letter critical of this move, was "confused" about the matter, and several key GOP senators, including John McCain, similarly not on the right path.
It seemed reasonable enough -- if one can ignore the fact that the Geneva prohibitions have lasted almost 60 years without others feeling a crying need to clarify or re-define them, perhaps because doing so, critics charge, opens it up for everyone else, including some really bad guys, to come up with their own standards, endangering our captured soldiers.
Snow said the issue had never "come up" before. Does this mean we never tried to raise the questions before because we had never felt an urge to torture previously? Or what?
Here are some excerpts.
Q The critics of this, Republicans that you've talked about, think that you are seeking to alter Article III, because you are, in effect, lowering the standards of Article III by the elimination of this language.
MR. SNOW: No, it's a straw man. As a matter of fact, what we're trying to do is we're trying to reach out and work with them to come up with the issues. ...
Q Right. But in your attempt to redefine it --
MR. SNOW: No, it's to define it.
Q Well, right, but that's your interpretation of it. But you're defining it in a way that does not address "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating --
MR. SNOW: Sure, it does.
Q -- and degrading treatment" because you find that to be vague?
MR. SNOW: No, all of it is vague, and therefore, what you do is you try to provide some clarity by saying, here are the subset of behaviors that we think fall under those terms.
I think we're talking past each other here --
Q You claim -- all right, I'll restate the question. You claim that you are not redefining --
MR. SNOW: Right. Look at this --
Q -- Article III. Everyone who opposes you on this, from Secretary Powell, to Senator Warner, to Senator Graham, to Senator McCain, says, in effect, you are trying to redefine it by excluding language you consider vague that they think is actually important.
MR. SNOW: No, no, no -- oh, thank you, thank you. No, no, that's -- okay, thank you. No, we're not excluding it. We're defining what that language means, so, heart be still. No, the fact is the language is vague, and so nobody knows exactly what would be prohibited or not prohibited under it.
And we're saying, no, here are the things that ought to be prohibited under it. And that's an important point, and I'm glad you asked, because I didn't quite understand. We're saying that the language is vague, and therefore you define it by putting together the proper framework for saying, I'm sorry, if you do this, you're guilty of cruel and inhumane treatment -- or cruel and degrading treatment. You are in violation of Common Article III if you do the following, and the following are the things that are specified in the Detainee Treatment Act. ...
Q I'm asking you if you want to replace the --
MR. SNOW: Okay, well, that's what we're trying to do -- we're not trying to replace. The fact is these terms for the purposes of enactment and implementation, for the purposes of the people who are out in the field trying to do interrogation, it has absolutely no meat on the bones. There is no specification of which methods are legal and which are not, which approaches are, which are not, what activities would constitute cruel and inhumane or degrading treatment and which would not. What we're trying to say is, no, guys, we'll tell you what is, and we'll do it in the context of a law that you've already passed and is already operative.
Q Does that not invite other countries to do the same, to have other interpretations of Article III?
MR. SNOW: What it allows every country to do is to have an interpretation. Our European allies don't have an interpretation.
Q And your critics say that's bad for U.S. troops if you allow those kinds of interpretations.
MR. SNOW: No, I think just the opposite. As a matter of fact, the five guys who are Judge Advocates General right now say we need it. The people who interpret the law, the people who serve as the chief legal officers within the Pentagon themselves say we need it. ..
Q Tony, I'm confused. Everybody I talked to today on the Hill says, look, you've had the Geneva Conventions in place since 1947. This isn't the Migratory Birds Treaty we're talking about. This is the Geneva Conventions.
MR. SNOW: Right.
Q And it's a very simple argument. We don't want to talk about the definition of amend or change, but that it stands on its own as written, hasn't been tinkered with since 1947, doesn't need to be tinkered with now. So if that seems to be the position from a former JAG and a former POW and a former Secretary of the Navy, where's the room to work anything out?
MR. SNOW: Well, I think there is. For instance, in 1987, we didn't know what the Genocide Convention said, so we passed a law to deal with it.
Q Not the Geneva Conventions.
MR. SNOW: It appears. Yes, the Geneva Convention.
Q But not Article -- it has nothing with this specific article --
MR. SNOW: Well, that's because Common Article III had never been construed as applying to any conflict in which the United States had ever been a party. And furthermore, it has not been construed as applying to conflicts for the most part that afflicted any of our allies, to which they've been a party. It is something that they had never had to think about, and for which there was not a substantial and settled body of law that would define what the terms mean. And this is a key point. Nobody has defined in law what the terms mean. And we think it's important not only that we define what the terms mean, but that our -- the people who are working for us, either as soldiers in the field, or those who are doing the questioning for the CIA, they have to know that it passes constitutional muster, and it is defined and approved as abiding by our international treaty obligations.
The reason nobody talked about this from 1948 is, it hadn't come up. And there are times -- you'll be surprised to know --
Q There's been a lot of wars.
MR. SNOW: But, you know what, Helen, it didn't apply to most of those wars. It didn't apply to most of those wars which is why people have not asked the questions.
Q This seems -- hang on a second -- this seems to be --
MR. SNOW: Well, and let me just make the point here, the predicate of your question was, it had been sitting around and everybody knew what the meaning was, and the fact is, nobody knew what the meaning was.
Q That's not my reading of it. That's what's coming off of the Hill, so if this sounds eminently reasonable, what you're explaining --
MR. SNOW: Yes.
Q And so you have these guys with a little bit of experience and certainly their own perspectives that have been developed by very direct experience with this stuff, they're saying, you know what, not so reasonable; we don't need to do this.
MR. SNOW: Well, again, I think it will be interesting to see how this plays out. I think people are still talking about it.
***
Q Why use U.S. law when this is an international convention, international document --
MR. SNOW: Because -- precisely because you do -- I think if you put before the American public: do you want international tribunals that do not acknowledge U.S. law and are not answerable to U.S. citizens to define what may happen to U.S. citizens, I think they would find that unreasonable and unjust. What we do try to do is take a look in observing our treaty obligations where there is settled law, and in this particular case there is no settled law. And I would refer you, for the more nuanced portions of your questions, to the lawyers who can go through chapter and verse.
Q But I find it kind of odd that you keep talking about you're following international law, but you want to interject where it comes -- where it suits you to follow your own law?
MR. SNOW: No, no. There is no clarity on these phrases. We're not interjecting --
Q But you have the people to go through --
MR. SNOW: Will you please -- so what you're saying is, at a time like this -- will you please show me the statute that lays out precisely what these terms mean? I'd be interested in seeing it?
***
Q What are other countries to make of the U.S., as you put it, adding definition to the Geneva Convention? Is the U.S., in effect, saying, all the rest of you do this, too -- adversaries and friends, alike?
MR. SNOW: Look, I think this is something that we'd be -- we would not be frightened if adversaries did this. We would not be at all frightened if they did this.
I think there's a perception going around that this is going to condone and counsel all sorts of horrible treatment. It's not. And therefore, if we allow -- if we set a standard to treaty obligations that in the past have been vague -- and again, we did it with genocide; we did it with other things. This is not unusual. And I think what we're doing is setting a standard for clarity and transparency, because we do want people to know what the rules are, and the people we especially want to know what the rules are are our people going out in the field who are going to be charged with trying to bring back information and save American lives. We want it to be legal. We want it to be constitutional. We want it to be consistent with Common Article III.
Bush lobbies Congress on terror suspects
Bush lobbies Congress on terror suspects
By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer
Thu Sep 14, 3:26 PM ET
"I will resist any bill that does not enable this program to go forward with legal clarity," Bush told reporters back at the White House after his meeting with lawmakers."
White House spokesman Tony Snow, asked if Powell was confused about the White House's goals, said "Yes." Later, Snow said he probably shouldn't have used the word "confused."
"I know that Colin Powell wants to beat the terrorists too," he said.
The latest sign of GOP division over White House security policy came Thursday in a letter that Powell sent to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., one of three rebellious senators taking on the White House. Powell said Congress must not pass Bush's proposal to redefine U.S. compliance with the Geneva Conventions, a treaty that sets international standards for the treatment of prisoners of war.
The campaign-season development accompanied Bush's visit to Capitol Hill, where he conferred behind closed doors with House Republicans. His plan would narrow the U.S. legal interpretation of the Geneva Conventions treaty in a bid to allow tougher interrogations and shield U.S. personnel from being prosecuted for war crimes.
"The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism," said Powell, who served under Bush and is a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk."
Bush said that "there's all kinds of letters coming out" and he cited letters from the Pentagon that support his argument.
Snow said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has weighed in on the issue.
"In a case where the treaty's terms are inherently vague, it is appropriate for a state to look to its own legal framework, precedents, concepts and norms in interpreting those terms and carrying out its international obligations," Snow quoted Rice as saying in a letter to lawmakers. "Such practice in the application of a treaty is an accepted reference point in international law."
Republican dissatisfaction with the administration's security proposals is becoming more prominent as the midterm election season has arrived. The Bush White House wants Congress to approve greater executive power to spy on, imprison and interrogate terrorism suspects.
Leaving his closed-door meeting with the House GOP caucus, Bush said he "reminded them that the most important job of government is to protect the homeland."
In an effort to drum up support, the White House released a second letter to lawmakers signed by the military's top uniformed lawyers. Saying they wanted to "clarify" past testimony on Capitol Hill in which they opposed the administration's plan, the service lawyers wrote that they "do not object" to sections of Bush's proposal for the treatment of detainees and found the provisions "helpful."
Two congressional aides who favor McCain's plan said the military lawyers signed that letter after refusing to endorse an earlier one offered by the Pentagon's general counsel, William Haynes, that expressed more forceful support for Bush's plan.
The aides spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly. Asked if Haynes had encouraged them to write the letter, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said, "Not that I'm aware of."
Bush was forced to propose the measure after the Supreme Court ruled in June that his existing court system established to prosecute terrorism suspects was illegal and violated the Geneva Conventions. The White House legislation would create military commissions to prosecute terror suspects, as well as redefine acts that constitute war crimes.
For Bush, the election season visit capped a week of high-profile administration pressure to rescue bills mired in turf battles and privacy concerns. It also gave GOP leaders a chance to press for loyalty among Republicans confronted on the campaign trail by war-weary voters.
"I have not really seen anybody running away from the president," House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, told reporters this week when asked about the caucus' split. "Frankly, I think that would be a bad idea."
At nearly the same time Bush met with House Republicans, Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record), R-Va., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, on Thursday was asking his panel to finish an alternative to the White House plan to prosecute terror suspects and redefine acts that constitute war crimes.
Warner believes the administration proposal would lower the standard for the treatment of prisoners, potentially putting U.S. troops at risk should other countries retaliate.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace