Senate committee rejects Bush anti-terror plan
Powell blasts president’s plan for interrogations

WASHINGTON - Defying President Bush, a Senate committee passed a terrorism tribunal bill Thursday protecting foreign suspects’ rights. The 15-9 vote came hours after former Secretary of State Colin Powell protested harsh interrogations of terror suspects as the president lobbied personally for it on Capitol Hill.

“I will resist any bill that does not enable this program to go forward with legal clarity,” Bush told reporters back at the White House after his meeting with lawmakers.

The latest sign of GOP division over White House security policy came Thursday in a letter that Powell sent to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., one of three rebellious senators taking on the White House. Powell said Congress must not pass Bush’s proposal to redefine U.S. compliance with the Geneva Conventions, a treaty that sets international standards for the treatment of prisoners of war.
Story continues below ↓ advertisement

White House spokesman Tony Snow, asked if Powell was merely confused about the White House’s goals, said: “Yes.”

Pressed further on why Powell might write such a letter, Snow said: “We didn’t hear from him, so I don’t know.”

The campaign-season development accompanied Bush’s visit to Capitol Hill, where he conferred behind closed doors with House Republicans. His plan would narrow the U.S. legal interpretation of the Geneva Conventions treaty in a bid to allow tougher interrogations and shield U.S. personnel from being prosecuted for war crimes.

Puts troops at risk, Powell argues
“The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism,” said Powell, who served under Bush and is a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk.”

Bush said that “there’s all kinds of letters coming out” and he cited letters from the Pentagon that support his argument.

Snow said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has weighed in on the issue.

“In a case where the treaty’s terms are inherently vague, it is appropriate for a state to look to its own legal framework, precedents, concepts and norms in interpreting those terms and carrying out its international obligations,” Snow quoted Rice as saying in a letter to lawmakers. “Such practice in the application of a treaty is an accepted reference point in international law.”

Republican dissatisfaction with the administration’s security proposals is becoming more prominent as the midterm election season has arrived. The Bush White House wants Congress to approve greater executive power to spy on, imprison and interrogate terrorism suspects.

Leaving his closed-door meeting with the House GOP caucus, Bush said he “reminded them that the most important job of government is to protect the homeland.”

In an effort to drum up support, the White House released a second letter to lawmakers signed by the military’s top uniformed lawyers. Saying they wanted to “clarify” past testimony on Capitol Hill in which they opposed the administration’s plan, the service lawyers wrote that they “do not object” to sections of Bush’s proposal for the treatment of detainees and found the provisions “helpful.”

Two congressional aides who favor McCain’s plan said the military lawyers signed that letter after refusing to endorse an earlier one offered by the Pentagon’s general counsel, William Haynes, that expressed more forceful support for Bush’s plan.

The aides spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly. Asked if Haynes had encouraged them to write the letter, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said, “Not that I’m aware of.”

Bush's existing measure ruled illegal
Bush was forced to propose the measure after the Supreme Court ruled in June that his existing court system established to prosecute terrorism suspects was illegal and violated the Geneva Conventions. The White House legislation would create military commissions to prosecute terror suspects, as well as redefine acts that constitute war crimes.

For Bush, the election season visit capped a week of high-profile administration pressure to rescue bills mired in turf battles and privacy concerns. It also gave GOP leaders a chance to press for loyalty among Republicans confronted on the campaign trail by war-weary voters.

“I have not really seen anybody running away from the president,” House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, told reporters this week when asked about the caucus’ split. “Frankly, I think that would be a bad idea.”

At nearly the same time Bush met with House Republicans, Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, on Thursday was asking his panel to finish an alternative to the White House plan to prosecute terror suspects and redefine acts that constitute war crimes.

Warner believes the administration proposal would lower the standard for the treatment of prisoners, potentially putting U.S. troops at risk should other countries retaliate.
Reuters contributed to this report.

Why would someone think that non-Americans accused of a crime deserve a trial? ... or for that matter, why whould they even be charged with a crime?

I think Powell is just a Liberal Smear Merchant.

Mr. Powell. With all due respect, please understand that Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions as it is endangers me and has done its part in killing many fine young men that wear your uniform.

This legislation is needed not just here in America, but it needs to be defined at the international level as well.

so colin finds his balls and blasts bush.



kinda sounds like a medical procedure.

Worried about being put on trial for torture, LittleWing?

if suspected terrorists aren't human beings, neither should be our troops in foreign lands.

Prove beyond reasonable doubt that there isn't a single person in Gitmo who hasn't been mistakenly captured. If you, or any supporter of this policy can do this, we on the opposing side will just drop this, now.

Exactly. This isn't about the war on terror. This isn't about whether immigrants should be deported. This is about the fact that it could be you, me, or anyone. It could be me in Japan, it could be you in Bulgaria. This isn't about how the guilty should be treated. This is about how those who have not been convicted should be treated, and aout how everyone deserves a fair trial.

It amazes me that military guys like Powell and McCain cannot understand what President Bush is trying to accomplish.

What they are trying to do is create clarity to the vague Geneva Conventions regarding treatment of detainees. The language of the Geneva Conventions is akin to driving into a town and seeing a speed limit sign that says "Excessive Speed Prohibited." OK, so what is "excessive speed?" What constitutes "torture?" This is what the President wants to define so that CIA interrogators aren't hauled into court and tried for war crimes based on a judge's interpretation of what constitutes torture.

The Liberal Mainstream Media has spun this into the idea that the Bush Administration is seeking the green light to break out the rack and thumb screws. Give me a break.

Also, the notion that if we use aggressive interrogation techniques then we will encourage it elsewhere is ridiculous. What, countries like North Vietnam followed our lead during the Vietnam War? Senator McCain can testify to the contrary.

Ain't torture the act of inflicting pain on a person as a means of coercion? what more interpretation do you need? would there be instances where pain is inflicted that you would not call torture?

The article goes beyond that - forbidding "insulting or unpleasant treatment" and the like. The problem becomes this - if an American soldier was captured, he wouldn't find it "insulting" to be interrogated by a female. What about a Muslim? Different story. And what about "unpleasant treatment?" How far can that go? If this was the language of the corrections system, prisoners would be suing because there were lumps in their mattresses or they didn't like the food.
Again, the problem is that the language is vague. The Bush Administration just wants to be specific, and I seriously doubt that includes hooking up jumper cables to the terrorist's testicles.

You know that. I know that. Our soldiers know that. Where's the question?

Just illustrating that the language of the Geneva Conventions is not applicable to every army (or band of terrorists).
It's when you get to such things as "unpleasant treatment" when things can get out of hand. If I were a CIA interrogator, I wouldn't want to be tried for a war crime because I yelled.

And what would stop them, exactly?
Also....Liberal Mainstream Media? heh. The media doesnt care about party lines, it cares about self interest. Niches exist to fill areas that make people money. If it made more money to report one way or the other, people would do it. Self-interest, wether you're selling liberal or conservative spins.



You mean, the most powerful country in the world wouldnt be setting bad examples by starting to torture people, or use "aggressive interrogation techniques" as you call them? Certainly there are places in the world where they already do these kinds of things. But that just makes us sink to their level. It makes me sick to think we'd resort to these kinds of measures.

You happen to leave out the part about where we will draw the line with this if it were to pass. Okay, I agree that its vague now but since i haven't read the new bill I have no idea where the lines are going to be drawn, can you elaborate or link me to something with more detail?

sure, let's take away rights from humans, then go start wars in countries, telling the people we're doing it to provide them rights than the u.s. society provides because it's morally superior to yours.

Has it ever occurred to you that they disagree with aspects of the current policy exactly because they are military guys, unlike Bush and co?

Has this possibility ever even crossed your mind?

aka....

Well, once the door of the interrogation room closes, nothing would stop them from torturing. But that doesn't mean it is going to happen. For the record, President Bush has said he has neither ordered nor condones torture.

You might think that the Liberal Mainstream Media is a myth....but it exists. Yes, media outlets are motivated by self-interests, but one has to look at the broader picture and patterns that begin to emerge. For example, when the President's approval rating was dipping to the low 30's it was front page news. Now that it is back to the mid-40s, you don't see it above the fold. A second example would be gas prices....absurdidly linked to President Bush and his "misguided wars." Again, above-the-fold news when it hit $3/gallon. These days its been falling. Any above-the-fold on that and, in fairness, credit to President Bush (although he had nothing to do with it to begin with)? No.

As far as the US setting an example - we do everyday. Clarifying Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions does NOT mean that they are seeking the green light to torture. What some are concerned about is other countries creating their own interpretations as the US will have, and thus having far worse standards for themselves. What President Bush is saying that, in light of the recent US Supreme Court ruling, we must clarify what the CIA can and can't do lest they be hauled into court for war crimes and let the judge define what constitutes torture. That's all.

The President has stated repeatedly that he cannot divulge CIA interrogation tactics because this would allow the terrorists to adapt to these tactics (i.e. via training). Our special ops guys train on counter-interrogation techniques.