On Thursday, President George W. Bush "reversed course on Thursday and reluctantly backed Senator John McCain's call for a law banning cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment of prisoners in American custody," the New York Times reported on Friday's front page.[1] -- Reporter Eric Schmitt called the change of course "a particularly significant setback for Vice President Dick Cheney," though "[t]he immediate effect of the measure, if passed, is hard to predict." -- What the White House accepted Thursday was the same thing Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) "had been offering for weeks": a deal to "extend to intelligence officers a protection now afforded to military personnel, who if accused of violating interrogation rules can defend themselves if a 'reasonable' person could have concluded they were following a lawful order." -- "A. John Radsan, who served as assistant general counsel of the C.I.A. from 2002 to 2004, said he believed that 'the C.I.A. is the loser in this,'" Eric Schmitt wrote. -- "While agency officers may benefit from greater clarity about the rules of interrogation, Porter J. Goss, the C.I.A. director, had joined Mr. Cheney in arguing that the agency needed the flexibility to use harsh tactics in some cases. -- The McCain amendment removes the 'gray zone' of tactics less severe than torture but harsher than those allowed by the Army Field Manual, said Mr. Radsan, now at William Mitchell College of Law in St. Paul." -- (UFPPC supported the McCain amendment, calling it "a useful first step," and lobbied Rep. Adam Smith on the question on Nov. 1. -- In an Oct. 20 statement, however, UFPPC noted that the idea that the Army Field Manual is an adequate standard for interrogation practices is false: "In a classified document known as 'the Schmidt report,' whose conclusions were made public in July 2005, the Department of Defense has specifically concluded as a matter of policy that the Army Field Manual's 'ego down and futility' technique permits such treatment as putting people on leashes and forcing them to perform dog tricks, forcing men to wear women's underwear, forcing men to stand naked with females present, and so forth. Thus the notion that is the premise of the McCain amendment -- that the Army Field Manual ensures respect for human dignity and human rights -- is false. The Army Field Manual should be revised to forbid such techniques.") -- Less than an hour after McCain and the president shook hands on the deal in the Oval Office, "Representative Duncan Hunter of California announced he would block the deal as part of a military budget bill unless the White House provided a letter containing specific assurances that the measure would not diminish intelligence-gathering capabilities. Asked if the intelligence authorities had told him that Mr. McCain's measure would harm their ability to do their work, he said: 'The answer to that is yes.'" -- But by Thursday evening, "Rep. Hunter was reassured in writing by John D. Negroponte, the director of national intelligence, that American intelligence-gathering operations would not suffer under Mr. McCain's measure, and he consented to the deal." -- See here for a review of how the McCain amendment came about. -- [NOTE ON DUNCAN HUNTER: Duncan Hunter (R-CA 52nd), a 57-year-old veteran of 24 helicopter combat assaults in Vietnam, is an ardent militarist and xenophobe from San Diego. -- Hunter was elected with Ronald Reagan in 1980 and has devoted his career to advocacy of increased spending for the U.S. national security state. -- Hunter's campaign contributions demonstrate the extent to which the esteem is reciprocated by "defense" industry corporations. -- In 1994, Hunter became chair of the Military Procurement Subcommittee; he is now chair of the House Armed Services Committee. -- Over the years he has supported SDI, the 600-ship navy, the F-22, the Joint Strike Fighter, more B-2s (without reducing the number of B-1s), more nuclear submarines, a build-up in the number of troops, the use of military aircraft for "deep deportation" of illegal immigrants, the 15-ft. high border fence from the Pacific Ocean to Otay Mountain, etc., etc. (The Almanac of American Politics: 2004 [Washington, D.C.: National Journal Group, 2003], pp. 295-97). -- And it was Duncan Hunter who sponsored the cynical Nov. 18 resolution calling for "immediate withdrawal" of U.S. troops from Iraq, a stunt devised to respond to a statement by Rep. John Murtha (D-PA 12th) saying that U.S. troops in Iraq are doing more harm than good and calling for their redeployment.] ...
1.
Washington
PRESIDENT BACKS McCAIN MEASURE ON INMATE ABUSE
By Eric Schmitt
** Face a Bipartisan Push; Cheney and White House Had Fought Bill to Ban Inhuman Tactics **
New York Times
December 16, 2005
Page A1
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16detain.html
WASHINGTON -- Under intense bipartisan Congressional pressure, President Bush reversed course on Thursday and reluctantly backed Senator John McCain's call for a law banning cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment of prisoners in American custody.
A day after the House overwhelmingly endorsed Mr. McCain's measure, the White House took a deal that the senator had been offering for weeks as way to end the legislative impasse, essentially giving intelligence operatives the same legal defense afforded military interrogators who are accused of violating the regulations.
For Mr. Bush, it was a stinging defeat, considering that his party controls both houses of Congress and both chambers had defied his threatened veto to support Mr. McCain's measure resoundingly. It was a particularly significant setback for Vice President Dick Cheney, who since July has led the administration's fight to defeat the amendment or at least exempt the Central Intelligence Agency from its provisions.
Mr. McCain's measure would establish the Army Field Manual as the uniform standard for the interrogation of prisoners and ban the kind of abusive treatment of prisoners that was revealed in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal in Iraq.
"We've sent a message to the world that the United States is not like the terrorists," Mr. McCain, an Arizona Republican, said as he sat next to Mr. Bush in the Oval Office. "What we are is a nation that upholds values and standards of behavior and treatment of all people no matter how evil or bad they are."
Mr. Bush sought to make the best of an awkward political situation by inviting Mr. McCain, his longtime political rival and the nation's most famous former prisoner of war, to the White House to thank him for a measure that the president had opposed for months as Congressional meddling.
On Thursday Mr. Bush said it was important legislation "to achieve a common objective: that is to make it clear to the world that this government does not torture."
Soon after Mr. McCain left the White House, Mr. Bush's national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, who has negotiated with the senator for weeks, said that as a result of the negotiations the law would apply "equally to men and women in uniform and for civilians who are involved in dealing with detainees and interrogations."
The agreement will also extend to intelligence officers a protection now afforded to military personnel, who if accused of violating interrogation rules can defend themselves if a "reasonable" person could have concluded they were following a lawful order. But Mr. Hadley conceded that the administration was unable to get a grant of immunity for C.I.A. interrogators, which he said "was a legitimate thing to consider in this context."
The effect of the deal, Mr. Hadley said, would be to cement in law what he insisted had been administration policy: that the United States would "not use cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment at home or abroad."
The immediate effect of the measure, if passed, is hard to predict. Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, who was at the heart of last year's uproar over whether the administration had allowed torture in the fight against terror, said on CNN that Mr. McCain's amendment "provides additional clarification, in terms of what are the limits of interrogating dangerous terrorists."
"Obviously, we'll study the law carefully," Mr. Gonzales said. "And to the extent that we have to conform our conduct in any way, we will do so. People need to understand what the limits are. And if people don't meet those limits, they're going to be investigated and they're going to be held accountable."
The White House announcement was not the end of what has become a long-running drama on Capitol Hill.
Less than an hour after Mr. McCain and Senator John W. Warner, a Virginia Republican who heads the Armed Services Committee, stood with the president, the Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Representative Duncan Hunter of California, announced he would block the deal as part of a military budget bill unless the White House provided a letter containing specific assurances that the measure would not diminish intelligence-gathering capabilities.
Asked if the intelligence authorities had told him that Mr. McCain's measure would harm their ability to do their work, he said: "The answer to that is yes."
On the other side of the Capitol, Mr. Hunter's counterpart, Mr. Warner, was scrambling to patch the rift by working with the White House to release the letter Mr. Hunter had requested. By Thursday evening, Mr. Hunter was reassured in writing by John D. Negroponte, the director of national intelligence, that American intelligence-gathering operations would not suffer under Mr. McCain's measure, and he consented to the deal, said Josh Holly, a spokesman for the House Armed Services Committee.
Mr. Warner said he was optimistic that his bill would pass. But just in case, he was exploring another option: attaching the newly drafted McCain language to a $453 billion military spending bill, also pending before the Senate. The bill already includes the original McCain provisions, and the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Ted Stevens, Republican of Alaska, said he would accept the language negotiated by the White House.
The McCain measure has veto-proof majorities in both houses. The Senate has backed it 90 to 9, and the House voted Wednesday, 308 to 122, to support it.
At the C.I.A., whose use of harsh interrogation tactics against suspected terrorists was at the core of the debate, the official response was circumspect. "The C.I.A. understands its legal obligations and of course complies with U.S. policy," said Jennifer Dyck, the agency's chief spokeswoman.
But A. John Radsan, who served as assistant general counsel of the C.I.A. from 2002 to 2004, said he believed that "the C.I.A. is the loser in this."
While agency officers may benefit from greater clarity about the rules of interrogation, Porter J. Goss, the C.I.A. director, had joined Mr. Cheney in arguing that the agency needed the flexibility to use harsh tactics in some cases.
The McCain amendment removes the "gray zone" of tactics less severe than torture but harsher than those allowed by the Army Field Manual, said Mr. Radsan, now at William Mitchell College of Law in St. Paul.
Jeffrey H. Smith, who served as C.I.A. general counsel from 1995 to 1996, said he believed there was a gap between Mr. Goss and other top managers, who sided with Mr. Cheney, and many lower-level officers who felt uncomfortable with any perception that they had been allowed to use techniques bordering on torture.
"I think the overall reaction of the rank-and-file officers will be relief that this issue is behind them and the rules are clear," Mr. Smith said.
--Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Scott Shane and David E. Sanger contributed reporting for this article.
|
