Posted on 09/19/2006 7:38:57 PM PDT by bobsunshine
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......
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.
Until this week, Mr. Bush had sought to address the issue through two channels. One was to clarify the limits on interrogation techniques under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions by proposing legislation saying that the nation’s obligations under the article would be satisfied as long as it complied with the Detainee Treatment Act. That legislation was passed by Congress in December and bans “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.” .......
Senator John Cornyn of Texas, a Republican on the Armed Services Committee who has supported the president’s legislation, said Tuesday morning that the White House had agreed to work within the War Crimes Act to refine the obligations under Common Article 3.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Yeah I would suspect this is more McCainiac propaganda. Frist was on the Sean Hannity show and said "they (The Macainiacs and the Dems) do not have the 60 votes they need." Did not come right out and say it but sound pretty much like the RINOS are caving and the NY Times is merely setting the propaganda ground so when the President gets what he wants the Democrat Noise machine can lie and claim victory.
what a mess.
Bush should stand firm, and veto the bill (or try and hold 40 Rs to fillibuster it). let the issue go to the voters, we can hold the terrorists for another 2 years in limbo.
If they are exchanging proposals and counter proposals, it is a negotiation not a showdown. A showdown is when the two sides stubbornly insist on their position. Where do they get these reporters?
This whole business only arose because the Supreme Court is still broken. The Geneva Conventions simply don't apply to terrorists and irregulars who are captured when not in uniform as regular members of the armed forces of a country that is a party to the convention.
The convention was intended to work two ways. That's it's whole point. Extending the privileges of the convention to those who refuse to observe it and constantly violate it contradicts the basic purpose of the convention.
The SCOTUS decision was yet another instance of prostituting our own constitutional laws to foreign laws, and in this case not even doing that right. It's nothing but bowing to foreign opinion in socialist countries.
Let's hope it's true that the McCain faction has caved.
Man, between fawning over the Iranian Hitler and running "america tortures everyone" coverage, its been one big liberal circle jerk at the NY Times this week.
Notice they mention Warner first, with McCain as a side-note.
The MSM isn't quite ready to toss McCain. They've got a couple more years to dangle the yarn in front of him before they yank it away
From the "News is a Product to be Sold" University ;-)
that's why I say - just leave them in limbo - let's see if the same 5 SCOTUS members have the stones to order KSM and the rest - released. my bet is that they do not.
Thanks, missed that one. Next week will be a busy week for the Senate before they take off.
They are also such liars. The program has NOTHING to do with wiretapping and they know it. They know they have a losing position so are setting up the PR to claim the Senate "white washed Bush's crimes". Reality doesn't matter to the Democrat Party Noise Machine. Keeping the money flowing in from the Moonbats does.
This isn't as much as a problem as it seems, so long as the War Crimes Act is amended sufficiently to protect the CIA from being charged, sued, or extradited. Congress appears willing to change that, which will pretty much negate the need for Article III to be clarified.
Can somebody,anybody,point out the conditition the White House dropped?.
"redefining the obligations of the United States"?
Don't ever play poker with President George Bush.
Johnnie that last part of this article was what I heard/saw yesterday...and that I couldn't find a link/source for today.
I was just going to ping you when I read this.
Do you REALLY think this is McCain propaganda??? It sure seems like someone is going to make sure that the story is that "BUSH CAVED"...and I am sure you know why.
Bush's poll numbers have gone way up...and everyone attributes it to his "tough talk" lately...so, if he is seen to have capitulated to that wienie group of stooges, led by McCain...
Well...all of his conservative BASE that have rallied this last few weeks will get disgusted with him again.
I am concerned about the part of this that says they still haven't agreed re: the possiblity of the CIA interrogators being subjected to prosecution...
I KNOW that will be a fight...because McCain and Graham would LOVE to prosecute a CIA interrogator for YELLING at a terrorist and hurting his little feelings....GRRRRRRRRR
From "journalism schools".
As usual, he is correct.
can we torture the Rinos yet???
PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?????????????
Oh, come on. Which of our enemies gives a poop about the Geneva Conventions these days?
That would be the condition that Congress must define what Article III of the Geneva Conventions means, in specific language, in order to provide clarification and guidelines for our CIA agents.
As it is, that requirement has been dropped. Considering that the other part of the bill, which would amend the War Crimes Act in order to protect CIA interrogators from direct prosecution or extradition, remains intact, I don't see the big deal. Other than the bad PR, I guess.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.