White House Drops a Condition on Interrogation Bill

[DoYouEverWonder]

September 20, 2006

WASHINGTON, Sept. 19 — Seeking a deal with Senate Republicans on the rules governing the interrogation of terrorism suspects, the White House has dropped its insistence on redefining the obligations of the United States under the Geneva Conventions, members of Congress and aides said Tuesday.

The new White House position, sent to Capitol Hill on Monday night, set off intensified negotiations between administration officials and a small group of Republican senators. The senators have blocked President Bush’s original proposal for legislation to clarify which interrogation techniques are permissible and to establish trial procedures for terrorism suspects now in United States military custody.

The two sides were said to be exchanging proposals and counterproposals late Tuesday in a showdown that could have substantial ramifications for national security policy and the political climate heading toward Election Day.

The developments suggested that the White House had blinked first in its standoff with the senators, who include John W. Warner of Virginia, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and John McCain of Arizona. But few details were available, and it was not clear whether a compromise was imminent or whether the White House had shifted its stance significantly.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/20/washington/20detain.html


The WH sure seems desperate to find a way to be able to continue torturing people. Torture is torture and it is not the American way, no matter how many laws they try to pass.

[Donnachaidh]

1. do you smell the desperation?

I do.

[soothsayer]

9. flop sweat?

[rpannier]

2. Nevertheless

were still faced with the likelihood that scrubbie will ignore it anyway.

[madame defarge]

4. Exactly...he'll just put on another signing statement... n/t

[HereSince1628]

5. Yeah, a signing statement away from declaring freedom

from any limitations on the power of the Executive.

[Parisle]

3. There is still something missing here.....

---- I have yet to see a democrat explaining this issue to the American people, and pointing out significantly that a larger, hidden intent of the proposal would actually serve to somehow cancel Bush's war crimes liability in the world court. And by "explain," I mean "explain." This is not a subject for democrats to allow media interviewers to control. What the hell ever happened to "info-mercials?" That is precisely what the democrats need to employ.

[rodeodance]

7. as far as I know most Dems are standing in the background, letting the

Republicans fight it out. strange

[HereSince1628]

8. I noticed that too. My guess is they're letting the r's fight their fight

no point in getting into the fray and making it partisan at least until the WH compromise is reached...

I don't know whether to think this is a good idea or not. I see ups and downs to it.

I see ANY compromise on US relationship to torture as a halfstep to hell and don't like the notion one is about to be accepted.

[drthais]

11. DING DING DING DING!!!!!!

we have a winner!

I believe that this is EXACTLY what this is all about
I wrote to Warner last night about this

however the 'torture' issue comes down
we do NOT want to see members of this administration
retroactively excused from criminal activity
period.

[magellan]

6. Regardless of what the Senate does

...Bush** will keep on torturing detainees, and Congress will never hold him to account.

[gratuitous]

10. I thought we needed "clarity" Mr. Bush

And this is a war for civilization itself. Is the White House compromising on civilization? Selling out our precious right to choose our own toothpaste and wear absurdly overpriced shoes to the terrorists? When will the GOP stand up for America?

[Supersedeas]

12. when is a condition not really a condition

[loveandlight]

13. any compromise is a loss to us...

In the article they mention that Bush and pals will accept the language of the Detainee Treatment Act that has already passed in December that bans “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.” But isn't that one of the ones he put his signing statement to, basically saying I'll do it any way when I want. It's all just words on paper, they are going to keep on torturing and waring and doing what pleases them regardless.

edited for typos

[MaineDem]

14. Why don't we go to an international body for clarification?

It seems so obvious to me that an international treaty, like the Geneva Conventions, should be interpreted by an international court.

I really don't think each country should interpret it individually.

[warrens]

15. Can I waterboard Cheney?

Pleez, oh, pleez! It's not torture or nothin'.

Matter of fact, by their definition, hardly ANYTHING is torture. As long as it doesn't kill you, cause organ failure, or mental illness, it's not torture.

So I'm guessing pulling Cheney's fingernails, wiring his balls to an old crank telephone, putting hooks through the skin on his back then hanging him for a few days, beating the bottoms of his feet with a wood paddle, sewing his eyelids shut, and all kinds of fun stuff are just hunky dory.

Heck, unless you define skin as an organ, you could probably skin the fat piece of shit alive and roll him in salt.