1115.org

(1) His Word Is Not His Bond

MSNBC:

The Bush administration and Senate Republicans announced agreement Thursday on terms for the interrogation and trial of suspects in the war on terror.

“I’m pleased we have agreement,” said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, emerging from a session in his office where National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley and key lawmakers reviewed the compromise.

Emerging from the session, Hadley called it a “framework for compromise”. But Sen. John Warner had a rather surprising statement to make:

(He) said he won’t consider the agreement sealed until President Bush signs it.

At first blush, that may not sound as sensational as muttering that the smell of sulfur is still in the air. But when a senior, respected Senator from the Republican party says bluntly that the President’s word is not his bond, I find that a lot more mind-boggling than Hugo Chavez’s high jinks.

(2) The Indian Rope Trick

MSNBC:

“The agreement that we’ve entered into gives the president the tools he needs to continue to fight the war on terror and bring these evil people to justice,” said Sen. John McCain of Arizona, one of three rebellious GOP lawmakers who told Bush he couldn’t have the legislation the way he initially asked for it.

“There’s no doubt that the integrity and letter and spirit of the Geneva Conventions have been preserved,” McCain said.

Reuters:

“We got what the president asked for,” White House spokesman Tony Snow said.

So far, at least, what stands out about the public statements is that they are noticeably short of details. No one is spelling out anything.

Which leaves me wondering how on earth they could have pulled off this Indian Rope Trick. There is no way President Bush could have got what he wanted – legal sanction to torture detainees in secret CIA prisons – while preserving the letter and spirit of the Geneva Conventions. Either you torture, and violate at least the spirit of the Geneva Conventions, and probably the letter too. Or you don’t, and President Bush is left sucking wind.

If a compromise was reached, who gave in?

I wonder if we will hear from Colin Powell again after details are revealed. (Or am I being naïve to assume that details will be revealed?)

(3) A Lose-Lose Compromise?

It looks like the White House won by a landslide. The Senators lost. And so did the American people, or American values.

BBC reports* the compromise is that the legislation will include a specific list of interrogation methods that constitute grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. In other words, it will spell out what can’t be done.

The obvious problem – and the reason why White House staff may be exchanging high fives – is that this only invites our interrogation professionals to be creative. This does nothing to prevent torture; it just defines the limits within which our state-authorized torturers will have to operate.

It does nothing to help other countries stop doubting the moral basis of our fight against terror.

AP via WaPo:

The central sticking point had involved a demand from McCain, Sen. John Warner of Virginia and Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina for a provision making it clear that torture of suspects would be barred.

From that position, they settled for prohibiting certain forms of torture?

I imagine that if the legislation passes we will be the only democracy in history to carry a law on its books that plainly authorizes torture.

Are you proud to be an American yet?

(4) What The American People Want

President Bush’s comment on the “compromise”:

The agreement “clears the way to do what the American people expect us to do _ to capture terrorists, to detain terrorists, to question terrorists and then to try them,” he said.

Ironically, the results of a new New York Times/CBS poll show what the American people don’t want this administration to do:

If you ask Americans whether the use of torture is ever justifiable, a clear majority will say that it is not. In the newly released New York Times/CBS poll (PDF), for instance, 56 percent said torture is never justifiable, even “to get information from a suspected terrorist” (question No. 54). Even more striking, 63 percent say that “when it comes to the treatment of prisoners of war,” the U.S. “should follow the international agreements that it and other countries have agreed to,” rather than “do what it thinks is right, even if other countries disagree” (question No. 67).

Poor George! He has such good intentions. He wants to do the people’s will. He just doesn’t have a clue what it is. (Because he never pays attention to polls?)

* I heard this on the BBC world news 60 minutes ago, but have not found it anywhere online yet, including the BBC’s own web site. Accordingly, I’m treating it as not quite confirmed. Which is why I didn’t go back and revise section 2 in light of section 3.

*** Update, 8 pm ****
Here’s AP’s explanation of the interrogation practices compromise:

The accord, however, explicitly states the president has the authority to enforce Geneva Convention standards and enumerates acts that constitute a war crime, including torture, rape, biological experiments and cruel and inhuman treatment. White House officials said these provisions would provide the CIA the clarity it needs to continue with its interrogation program.

Can anyone explain how the hell this means anything, or what the hell it means? For example: “the president has the authority to enforce Geneva Convention standards”. (That isn’t by any chance saying that he also has the discretion to violate them, is it?)

CIA Director Michael Hayden praised the deal a week after saying his agency needed to be confident that its interrogation program for high-value terror suspects is legal.

“If this language becomes law, the Congress will have given us the clarity and the support that we need to move forward with a detention and interrogation program that allows us to continue to defend the homeland, attack al-Qaida and protect American and allied lives,” he wrote to CIA personnel.

They needed to have it clarified that torture, rape and biological experiments are war crimes?

Aren’t they still going to up nights agonizing over whether murder is a war crime?

Reuters adds:

It sets stricter limits than Bush wanted on evidence obtained by coercion, requiring a judge to decide if it is reliable and in the interest of justice.

Evidence from torture would be barred.

Evidence from torture is not allowed, but evidence from “torture” may be allowed? We’re supposed to applaud, right?