Schlepping
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]
Regarding ‘in particular whether they should be able to see all evidence, including classified material, that a jury might use to convict them’, Why are we even having this as an issue? Isn’t there precedent that can be referred to from some prior conflict?
Comment by Marilyn — September 20, 2006 @ 11:51 am
It is my hope the dems will block all legislation on Art. 3. Bush would do another of his famous signing statements that would negate any compromises made in the senate. So it would be best to let it stand until another prez is in office. Besides, I like the idea of the CIA being nervous over their illegal actions. I am not worried over Bushies threat that interrogations would end–another whopper from Bushit.
Comment by Somedaysoon — September 20, 2006 @ 7:35 pm
[…] Further, this is of interest… For some reason, Bill and his reaction to being asked to sign a baseball comes to mind. […]
Pingback by Tide Pools « Marisacat — September 21, 2006 @ 8:42 am
I get the impression that the Senate Dems won’t filibuster, but for the life of me, I can’t figure out why not.
Senate Dems,
Do most American voters approve or disapprove of waterboarding, freezing, etc.?
If your answer is “disapprove,” then FILIBUSTERING IS A VOTE-WINNER.
And:
Senate Dems, McCain doesn’t speak for you!!! You speak for yourselves!!!
Comment by Herman — September 22, 2006 @ 12:34 pm