Opening The Files: 9/17/06
Tortured debate over torture legislation.
A couple weeks ago, President Bush acknowledged the secretly run CIA prisons overseas. He also said that 14 high-value detainees were being moved from these prisons to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The reason for the move soon became obvious: Bush urged Congress to quickly rubberstamp legislation regarding the military commissions set up to try terrorism suspects. By moving these detainees, Bush hope to put a familiar face on just who would be tried by these commissions.
Among the things called for by the Bush administration had been not allowing the accused to see secret evidence against them and a "reinterpretation" of the "vague" language in Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.
And the move was not without some election year opportunism. Anyone who chose to not to endorse the White House's bill could be demonized as wanting "rights for terrorists". The meme was off and running, as John Boehner's comments earlier this week best illustrate.
But wouldn't you know, those "moderates" had to go and screw things up.
For this week, four Republicans sided with all the Democrats on the Senate Armed Services Committee to pass a competing bill for military tribunals. Colin Powell even put his two cents in, criticizing the President's attempt to redefine Article 3 and saying it would put our troops at risk, a sentiment that Sen. John McCain agrees with.
President Bush held a presser in the Rose Garden on Friday were he threatened to end the CIA interrogation program and veto any legislation that does not meet his approval.
Tim Grieve noted the hypothetical question that Bush just couldn't answer. Perhaps the questioner should have phrased it the way that Chris Weigant did for all those proponents of Bush's alternative set of procedures.
Maha provides us with links to Countdown discussing the legal implications of what Bush wants enshrined into law. And she, like DK, feel that those who would advocate torture (which is really what this debate is about) are in fact weak for doing so.
Curious. A.L. wonders why it is that Bush is so worried about asking "a young intelligence officer" to violate the law with regards to CIA interrogations but not when it comes to warrantless spying by the NSA?
Mark Fiore has the latest adventure of the hardest working guy in thetorture business.
And finally, this much linked to article by ambiguity and obfuscation.
Update: Harry Shearer and A. Alexander have more on Bush's need for "clarity". Digby calls this Republican Revolt just the latest act of kabuki theater. And Georgia10 wonders if this is really happening. Unfortunately for all of us, it is.
A couple weeks ago, President Bush acknowledged the secretly run CIA prisons overseas. He also said that 14 high-value detainees were being moved from these prisons to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The reason for the move soon became obvious: Bush urged Congress to quickly rubberstamp legislation regarding the military commissions set up to try terrorism suspects. By moving these detainees, Bush hope to put a familiar face on just who would be tried by these commissions.
Among the things called for by the Bush administration had been not allowing the accused to see secret evidence against them and a "reinterpretation" of the "vague" language in Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.
And the move was not without some election year opportunism. Anyone who chose to not to endorse the White House's bill could be demonized as wanting "rights for terrorists". The meme was off and running, as John Boehner's comments earlier this week best illustrate.
But wouldn't you know, those "moderates" had to go and screw things up.
For this week, four Republicans sided with all the Democrats on the Senate Armed Services Committee to pass a competing bill for military tribunals. Colin Powell even put his two cents in, criticizing the President's attempt to redefine Article 3 and saying it would put our troops at risk, a sentiment that Sen. John McCain agrees with.
President Bush held a presser in the Rose Garden on Friday were he threatened to end the CIA interrogation program and veto any legislation that does not meet his approval.
Tim Grieve noted the hypothetical question that Bush just couldn't answer. Perhaps the questioner should have phrased it the way that Chris Weigant did for all those proponents of Bush's alternative set of procedures.
Maha provides us with links to Countdown discussing the legal implications of what Bush wants enshrined into law. And she, like DK, feel that those who would advocate torture (which is really what this debate is about) are in fact weak for doing so.
Curious. A.L. wonders why it is that Bush is so worried about asking "a young intelligence officer" to violate the law with regards to CIA interrogations but not when it comes to warrantless spying by the NSA?
Mark Fiore has the latest adventure of the hardest working guy in the
And finally, this much linked to article by ambiguity and obfuscation.
Update: Harry Shearer and A. Alexander have more on Bush's need for "clarity". Digby calls this Republican Revolt just the latest act of kabuki theater. And Georgia10 wonders if this is really happening. Unfortunately for all of us, it is.
Labels: OTF
Post a Comment