Wow is right. The Detainee/Torture "compromise."
On the torture "compromise," basically it sounds like there will be certain specified "grave breaches" (such as waterboarding?) that will be explicitly prohibited. Beyond that,
So, whatever the President says isn't torture, isn't torture, and that "interpretation" is nonreviewable by any court in the land. (whether the law is constitutional is another matter.)
Also, there is no foreign precedent allowed in review, so the whole thing seems to match what the White House wanted. A short list of "grave breaches," but anything beyond that is at the discretion of the President to define just what Geneva means.
This Republican leadership is about to write torture into American law.
(Unfortunately more: This "compromise" will largely approve the "trials" that Bush had set up at Guantanamo.
Also, take a look at how Hadley defines torture in the agreement.
From Hadley's description, there's nothing in this legislation prohibiting waterboarding, sleep deprivation, cold room, etc. If the president previously interpreted Geneva to allow them....
The White House got it all. They got everything.
More still. According to the NYTimes, the "grave breaches" section is several pages long. If anyone sees that list I would be seriously interested. I'll wager right now that we can find holes that can be "interpreted" under Geneva to do some horrific things.
That was always the problem with this "clarity" argument, that in listing specific prohibitions, it opens the door to exploitation and corruption of Geneva's intent.)
the compromise also specifies that "[a]s provided by the Constitution and by this section, the President has the authority for the United States to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions . . . ."
So, whatever the President says isn't torture, isn't torture, and that "interpretation" is nonreviewable by any court in the land. (whether the law is constitutional is another matter.)
Also, there is no foreign precedent allowed in review, so the whole thing seems to match what the White House wanted. A short list of "grave breaches," but anything beyond that is at the discretion of the President to define just what Geneva means.
This Republican leadership is about to write torture into American law.
(Unfortunately more: This "compromise" will largely approve the "trials" that Bush had set up at Guantanamo.
(AP) "During those trials, coerced testimony would be admissible if a judge allows and if it was obtained before cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment was forbidden by a 2005 law."
Also, take a look at how Hadley defines torture in the agreement.
(AFP) But he said that "torture, cruel or inhuman treatment, performing biological experiments, obviously murder, mutilation or maiming, intentionally causing serious bodily injury, rape, sexual assault or abuse, taking hostages" would be prohibited.
From Hadley's description, there's nothing in this legislation prohibiting waterboarding, sleep deprivation, cold room, etc. If the president previously interpreted Geneva to allow them....
The White House got it all. They got everything.
More still. According to the NYTimes, the "grave breaches" section is several pages long. If anyone sees that list I would be seriously interested. I'll wager right now that we can find holes that can be "interpreted" under Geneva to do some horrific things.
That was always the problem with this "clarity" argument, that in listing specific prohibitions, it opens the door to exploitation and corruption of Geneva's intent.)
posted by mikevotes at
7:02 AM
4 Comments:
So do you think this was all a set-up - that a few 'rebel' Republicans opposed the White House? And their big compromise ISN'T but we are too stupid to understand?
What did Bush do to these rebels to get them to change their tune???
By
Ptelea, at 11:32 PM
Oh goodie I can't wait.
This means we are going to win the War on Terror now, right?
Riiiight.
"If you can't beat 'em, join 'em." I knew there was a reason I always hated that expression.
By
Praguetwin, at 1:37 AM
Nice.
By
Reality-Based Educator, at 7:28 AM
ptelea, I've never been able to decide.
After the whole thing with the McCain "torture amendment" I found it impossible to believe that the White House would bring this conflict without running it by McCain/Graham first, but now, looking at the outcome, I'm beginning to think they brought it public to up the pressure on McCain.
He has spoken repeatedly about the calls and pressure he has been feeling from the Republican base, and with his presidential ambition hanging in the balance, the White House might have gone public to utilize that pressure to break what had been a behind the scenes deadlock.
I don't know. I have never figured out the politics of this.
Sumo, yes and no. I keep feeling like we can't go any farther, but we do.
Praguetwin, this legislation only allows you to beat' em.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 7:55 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home