[Infowarrior] - NYT: White House Drops a Condition on Interrogation Bill

[Richard Forno]

September 20, 2006
White House Drops a Condition on Interrogation Bill
By KATE ZERNIKE
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/20/washington/20detain.html?ei=5094&en=466fd1
0d4bd27ba5&hp=&ex=1158724800&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print

WASHINGTON, Sept. 19 ‹ Seeking a deal with Senate Republicans on the rules
governing the interrogation of terrorism suspects, the White House has
dropped its insistence on redefining the obligations of the United States
under the Geneva Conventions, members of Congress and aides said Tuesday.

The new White House position, sent to Capitol Hill on Monday night, set off
intensified negotiations between administration officials and a small group
of Republican senators. The senators have blocked President Bush¹s original
proposal for legislation to clarify which interrogation techniques are
permissible and to establish trial procedures for terrorism suspects now in
United States military custody.

The two sides were said to be exchanging proposals and counterproposals late
Tuesday in a showdown that could have substantial ramifications for national
security policy and the political climate heading toward Election Day.

The developments suggested that the White House had blinked first in its
standoff with the senators, who include John W. Warner of Virginia, the
chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and John McCain of Arizona. But
few details were available, and it was not clear whether a compromise was
imminent or whether the White House had shifted its stance significantly.

Until this week, Mr. Bush had sought to address the issue through two
channels. One was to clarify the limits on interrogation techniques under
Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions by proposing legislation saying
that the nation¹s obligations under the article would be satisfied as long
as it complied with the Detainee Treatment Act. That legislation was passed
by Congress in December and bans ³cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.²

The other was to seek changes in the War Crimes Act, a step the
administration had said was necessary to provide interrogators for the
Central Intelligence Agency with protection from prosecution at home and
abroad. The Republican group led by Mr. Warner favors addressing the issue
through changes to the War Crimes Act but has resisted efforts to recast the
nation¹s obligations under the Geneva Conventions.

Senator John Cornyn of Texas, a Republican on the Armed Services Committee
who has supported the president¹s legislation, said Tuesday morning that the
White House had agreed to work within the War Crimes Act to refine the
obligations under Common Article 3.

³There¹s agreement on the goal,² Mr. Cornyn said, ³that is, that we continue
to comply with our international treaty obligations and all of our domestic
laws, but at the same time not tie the hands of our intelligence officials.²

Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, another Republican on the committee who
has backed the president¹s approach, said: ³It¹s an argument between people
with strong wills. Sometimes you have to step back and re-evaluate; the
president has done that. Apparently he¹s said, O.K., let me look at this in
a different way.²

Mr. Warner declined to comment on specific proposals, saying only that he
had ³great optimism² that an agreement could come soon.

White House officials declined to discuss their offer and said they expected
negotiations to continue for at least another day.

³We are continuing negotiations in good faith and remain cautiously
optimistic about our ability to reach a resolution,² said Dana Perino, the
deputy White House press secretary.

Common Article 3 guarantees humane treatment to combatants seized during
wartime. The two sides agree that the article¹s language prohibiting
³outrages upon human dignity² is too vague and leaves military and C.I.A.
personnel uncertain about what techniques they may use in interrogating
detainees.

The White House has argued that without more ³clarity,² it will have no
choice but to shut down a C.I.A. program for interrogating top terrorism
suspects. But Mr. Warner, Mr. McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham of South
Carolina have argued against any changes in the language interpreting the
article, saying such a change would invite other countries to reinterpret
the Geneva Conventions as they saw fit, which in turn could endanger
captured American troops.

The senators propose to provide clearer guidelines for interrogators by
amending the War Crimes Act to enumerate several ³grave breaches² that
constitute violations of Common Article 3.

Several issues appeared to remain in flux, among them whether the two sides
could agree on language protecting C.I.A. officers from legal action for
past interrogations and for any conducted in the future. Beyond the issue of
interrogations, the two sides have also been at odds over the rights that
should be granted to terrorism suspects during trials, in particular whether
they should be able to see all evidence, including classified material, that
a jury might use to convict them.

Mr. Graham declined to discuss specifics of the talks but said, ³I am very
pleased with the tone and the progress.²

Mr. McCain said only that discussions continued. ³There has been no
rejection of anything by anybody,² he said.

In the House, where the Armed Services Committee backed a bill that looked
much like the legislation originally proposed by the White House, leaders
said they still supported the president¹s bill. But they postponed a vote on
the legislation until next week, while the Judiciary Committee examines it,
and said they would look to the Senate for any signs of compromise.

Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the majority leader, said, ³I think
the president is on very firm ground here.²

Sheryl Gay Stolberg contributed reporting.