I’m hanging out at the Clinton Global Initiative conference in the Manhattan Sheraton today, since the Clinton folks offered press credentials and I thought, what the hell. I can go pretend to be a reporter, or something. There are supposed to be other bloggers here beside the group in Harlem last week, most of whom probably couldn’t make it.

So I packed up my laptop and emergency clean shirt, and here I am.

This morning’s big news is that the White House has, apparently, dropped their plans to “clarify” Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Kate Zernike writes for the New York Times:

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.

However,

The senators propose to provide clearer guidelines for interrogators by amending the War Crimes Act to enumerate several “grave breaches” that constitute violations of Common Article 3.

Several issues appeared to remain in flux, among them whether the two sides could agree on language protecting C.I.A. officers from legal action for past interrogations and for any conducted in the future. Beyond the issue of interrogations, the two sides have also been at odds over the rights that should be granted to terrorism suspects during trials, in particular whether they should be able to see all evidence, including classified material, that a jury might use to convict them. [Emphasis added]

See Digby for more commentary.