CIA interrogation compromise
The Bush administration signaled Sunday that it is willing to compromise with Republican lawmakers to save a CIA interrogation program President Bush says is vital to defeating terrorists.National security adviser Stephen Hadley, making the rounds of Sunday talk shows, said the administration believes it can clarify interrogation rules without amending the Geneva Conventions. The comments appeared aimed at closing a rift between Bush and Republicans in the Senate that Bush said threatened to halt CIA interrogation of terrorism suspects.
…
Hadley said legislation should enable the CIA to resume interrogations that use unspecified techniques but under clear rules that comply with the conventions. Lawmakers and the White House could craft a compromise that “achieves Sen. McCain’s requirement that we don’t amend or change Common Article 3,” the provision of the conventions that the Supreme Court ruled in June applies to terrorism detainees, he said.
Specifically, Hadley said, interrogators need clarification about the provision in Common Article 3 that bans “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.”
Appearing on CNN’s Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, Hadley said: “Nobody knows what humiliating treatment is. What does it mean?”
McCain, who spent 5½ years in North Vietnamese prison camps, said tough CIA interrogations can continue within the bounds of the conventions. The ultimate issue is the United States’ position as a moral leader, he said. “We’re the nation that people look up to. We can’t lower our standards because others do,” McCain said on This Week.
One thing that is interesting about this debate is that it is pretty much completely within the Republican Party, Democrats have been pretty much shut out. I don’t know how much planning went into that, it seems to me that both Bush and McCain feel very strongly and are very sincere about their positions here, but it does seem to be politically advantageous for Republicans with the November elections coming up. I am pretty sure that terrorism, security, and the character of our nation are important to a lot of voters. Most I suspect want some sort of compromise, being tough and secure but not degrading our moral authority. However their individual preferences are on how this compromise is achieved, it is a serious issue and only one party is talking about it. I suspect that will matter a lot.
How is it in the Republican’s advantage to have this debate internally? If this were happening in the other party, I’m positive Rove et all would pounce on this, showing that they are indecisive on security. Considering that most of the Republicans are still backing Bush, this also seems like the Democrats are being given a perfect opportunity to grab hold of three high level, very likable Senators and use them for their own agenda.