White House, Senate Reach 'Compromise' On Torture/Tribunal Bill

Well, here's the news on the faux-compromise between Bush and the Senate-

The Bush administration and Senate Republicans announced agreement Thursday on terms for the interrogation and trial of suspects in the war on terror...

...Details of the agreement were sketchy...

...One official said that under the agreement, the administration agreed to drop language that would have stated an existing ban on cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment was enough to meet Geneva Convention obligations. Convention standards are much broader and include a prohibition on "outrages" against "personal dignity."

In turn, this official said, negotiators agreed to clarify what acts constitute a war crime...

A summary of the general compromise is here: GOP, WH Fashion "Framework of Agreement"

On Monday, I wrote a cynical post expressing doubt that the trio- McCain, Warner, Graham- would risk hurting electoral chances by fighting Bush all the way and they would reach an agreement. I proposed three possible scenarios, of which the second has come to pass: "the Senate trio 'compromise' with the White House, basically give Bush what he wants with slightly nicer wording, and hold a big photo-op together in Washington for the media." These things have gotten too predictable; all the magic is gone.

(UPDATE: Now there is newer information that "Less than an hour after an agreement was announced yesterday with three leading Republican senators, the White House was already laying a path to wiggle out of its one real concession." Unbelievable, but predictable at the same time. Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo sums up this faux-compromise thusly: "from what I could tell the torture compromise is that we agreed not to reinterpret the Geneva Conventions, only to continue violating them... The senate won't formally reinterpret the Geneva Convention or explicitly sanction the president's torture policies. But they'll allow him to keep using them.")

With a mere week left until the current Congressional session ends (they won't be back until after the elections), the White House is desperately hoping the Republicans will work together long enough to approve his agenda. There were likely be a major rush in the House and Senate to get these bills passed before then. I hope this will fail.

Marty Lederman, whose writing on this issue has been excellent, looks at the compromise and declares it to be an almost-complete capitulation to the White House position. He writes-

[T]he Senators have capitualted entirely, that the U.S. will hereafter violate the Geneva Conventions by engaging in Cold Cell, Long Time Standing, etc., and that there will be very little pretense about it. In addition to the elimination of habeas rights in section 6, the bill would delegate to the President the authority to interpret "the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions" "for the United States," except that the bill itself would define certain "grave breaches" of Common Article 3 to be war crimes...

...And then, for good measure -- and this is perhaps the worst part of the bill, for purposes going far beyond the questions of torture and interrogation -- section 7 would preclude courts altogether from ever interpreting the Geneva Conventions -- any part of them -- by providing that "no person may invoke the Geneva Conventions or any protocols thereto in any habeas or civil action or proceeding to which the United States, or a current or former officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent of the United States, is a party as a source of rights, in any court of the United States or its States or territories."...

Related reading: The "scenic route" to torture (Salon War Room)

And blogger Digby sums up how the all-too-familiar media narrative of this will play out-

McCain, the Republican rebel maverick, showed that Republicans are moral and look out for their troops.

Bush, the Republican statesman and leader, showed that he is committed to protecting Americans but that he is willing to listen and compromise when people of good faith express reservations about tactics.

The Democrats showed they are ciphers who don't have the stones to even say a word when the most important moral issue confronting the government is being debated...

...I honestly think it would have been much, much better if they'd have forced their way into the debate and taken a firm stand -- if only to show they give a damn. This is a turn-out election and I have a feeling many a Democrat's stomach will turn as they see this triumph of GOP "leadership" in action. Why bother to vote when the Democrats don't bother to show up?

Yes, I'm very angry at the Democrats for staying on the sideline. A huge mistake.

The media appears to have already internalized the spin that this was a serious compromise.

Meanwhile, there's more GOP bullshit 'compromise'...

...this time on the warrantless wiretapping issue-

Faltering under Republican infighting, President Bush's embattled anti-terrorism agenda has some new momentum from a House member who has rewritten her warrantless wiretapping bill more to his liking and from maverick GOP senators open to talks on how to handle detainees.

Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., is swapping her original bill giving legal status to Bush's domestic surveillance program with one that would grant a key administration request: allow wiretapping without warrants on Americans when the president believes a terrorist attack is "imminent."...

...Under the measure, the administration would be required to share more details of the nature of the threat with the House and Senate leaders and the chairmen of both intelligence committees, who then would decide without administration input which lawmakers would receive the classified information...

I'm sure Rep. Wilson genuinely feels that the oversight provisions here are good, but they are beyond pointless. All this 'compromise' ignores the fact that the President violated the law (something that used to considered a big deal). In addition, all of these proposed wiretapping resolutions are shortsighted... the underlying issue behind this scandal is the President's belief that he has the inherent authority to violate congressional law at will.

So if this 'compromise' (which still regards warrants after an excisable afterthought) passes, the President still has no legal requirement to comply with the new oversight rules, because in his mind ignoring it most- or all- of the time is within his constitutional powers. These bullshit 'compromises' the GOP rubberstamp Congress attempts to pass through are meaningless; they resolve nothing in the grand scheme of things. Until the larger issue of the President's radical views of executive power itself is checked by Congress (the courts are already getting on the ball here), then all of this is just theatre. I don't understand why Congress doesn't understand these fundamental points- if they are just blind or they just choose to ignore for partisan reasons. Probably a little both.

Cenk Uygur gets the last word: "So, in the end, the president who started out by claiming to be a compassionate conservative will go down in history as The Torture President. Just when you thought Bush's legacy couldn't get any worse."