There is, however, no way I can come up with any way to put a positive spin on ths administration decision:
The Bush administration in recent days has been lobbying to block legislation supported by Republican senators that would bar the U.S. military from engaging in “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment” of detainees, from hiding prisoners from the Red Cross, and from using interrogation methods not authorized by a new Army field manual.
Vice President Cheney met Thursday evening with three senior Republican members of the Senate Armed Services Committee to press the administration’s case that legislation on these matters would usurp the president’s authority and — in the words of a White House official — interfere with his ability “to protect Americans effectively from terrorist attack.”
It was the second time that Cheney has met with Senate members to tamp down what the White House views as an incipient Republican rebellion. The lawmakers have publicly expressed frustration about what they consider to be the administration’s failure to hold any senior military officials responsible for notorious detainee abuse in Iraq and the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
This week’s session was attended by Armed Services Chairman John W. Warner (R-Va.) and committee members John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.). Warner and Graham last week chaired hearings that explored detainee abuse and interrogation tactics at Guantanamo Bay and the concerns of senior military lawyers that vague administration policies have left the door open to abuse.
Neither Cheney’s office nor the lawmakers would say exactly what was discussed at the meeting, citing a routine pledge of confidentiality. But Cheney has long been the administration’s chief defender of presidential prerogatives, and at the meeting he reiterated opposition to congressional intervention on the topic of detainee interrogations, according to a source privy to what happened.
The White House, in a further indication of its strong feelings, bluntly warned in a statement sent to Capitol Hill on Thursday that President Bush’s advisers would urge him to veto the $442 billion defense bill “if legislation is presented that would restrict the President’s authority to protect Americans effectively from terrorist attack and bring terrorists to justice.”
Unless someone can convince me otherwise (and that will take some work), I fail to see how a bill that bans “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment” will somehow impede the “President’s authority to protect Americans effectively from terrorist attack and bring terrorists to justice.” In fact, I find it stunning that the administration could even defend this position under the guise of bringing “terrorists to justice.” Maybe justice is defined as indiscriminate beatings somewhere in the world, but it shouldn’t be in the United States.
This statement leads me to believe that this administration would like to continue their detainee policies without the scrutiny of Congress and the American people, and in effect establish a policy of, to borrow a phrase, ‘no controlling legal authority.’ That doesn’t wash.
Jeff Maier
John,
It is pretty clear that the administration wants to have largely unchecked power to take any action without scrutiny: from the Congress, from the media or from the people. Clearly, it is limited on domestic matters so it will push as hard as possible in foreign policy and national security matters. It will demand, stonewall, evade and judge shop until it gets the outcome that it wants.
At some point, you cannot blame Bush and his cohort. Their objectives have been pretty clear for awhile. You also cannot expect Democrats to be able to block these initiatives from the position of the Minority. I really wonder when some of the honorable senior Republicans are going to step in and remember that men of good conscience are required, at times, to place country before party.
I’m specifically thinking of Lugar and Warner — both of whom I’ve voted for (even as a Democrat) when I lived in their respective states.
Of course, now I would probably vote for nearly any Democrat who ran against them. I’ve been pretty independent throughout my life but GW Bush, Karl Rove, etc. have shown me the error of my ways. I’d like to see someone like Lugar remind me that I was right.
capelza
Has Pres. Bush ever vetoed anything?
I do have to give the WH credit for not giving a flying flip about appearances, but that said, this is really bad. Refusal to release the Abu Ghraib photos coming at the same time and it honestly stinks of something that IS unAmerican. I don’t use that term very often, but something smells.
The admin would be foolish to assume that those in the Islamic world do not read the WaPo and that this won’t fuel any backfire. Not to mention the rest of the world, and my own American soul.
Lord I miss Mark Hatfield…
Veeshir
There’s not a lot of meat in there. There are no quotes from the Administration on exactly why they oppose this. We only know that they want to stop it and the Post gives us only some examples of provisions. The sub-head on the front page says, White House says legislation regulating detainee treatment would usurp presidential authority.
Perhaps they’re against it for other reasons than that they want to torture every random Muslim they pick up? You know, the way they did at abu Ghraib. Notice they manage to get that in there again.
I’m not defending Bush on this, I’m saying we don’t know what’s going on. The Washington Post leaves a lot out of the article and I don’t trust them to be impartial.
They’ve shown themselves to be far too biased to be trusted.
I have to admit, I trust Bush far more than the Washington Post.
Sojourner
Those of you, like Stormy and DougJ, who argue that the detainees were treated no worse than fraternity pledges should step forward and demand that these materials be released. Otherwise it’s safe to conclude that you don’t really believe that.
Norden
Are you really against degrading treatment? On what grounds?
Bob
Yeah, what’s wrong with releasing photos of detainees eating chicken dinners and adjusting their air conditioning?
Doug and Stormy know why.
Jcricket
John: Someone with a similar world-view (I believe) to your own put it very well on his blog
The fact that LGF, Rush, Powerline (blog of the year!) and others have continued to be torture apologists shows that it really hasn’t sunk in. Some of them so strongly believe that admitting the truth is aiding the enemy that they’ve lost sight of the fact that we be acting in ways that make us proud to show off our behavior. Therefore I support the release of the evidence of what really happened at Abu Ghraib.
Simply hiding behind “we’ve seen it already” isn’t going to help anyone. Actively working to stifle the flow of information is only going to make the American public ignorant (don’t forget, the rest of the world is getting their news from sources not bound by what Cheney and Bush dictate). Most importantly, it’s not going to prevent this kind of abuse from happening again.
Kimmitt
Enh, the American people have spoken. This liberty and democracy stuff is hard work.
CaseyL
The photos should be released.
The photos should be released because too many people continue to peddle the lie that “it wasn’t that bad” and “there were only a few bad apples.”
The liars know they’re lying. They’re sadists, pure and simple. But the photos would take away the last shreds of obfuscation they’re hiding behind.
The photos should be released because too many people are still willing to give the Bush Admin the benefit of the doubt. Releasing the photos would take away the last shreds of doubt.
The Bush Admin is a gang of thugs that has shat on everything America stands for. Their supporters enable them, either by lying or by hiding from the truth.
This country needs to have its collective nose rubbed in the shit that the Bush Admin has created.
KC
Jesus John, it’s no secret these guys have a Nixonite idea about the expansion of presidential powers (and I’m not using the term “Nixonite” in the pejorrative sense either). It’s clear they do not want any judicial or legislative intrusion into the powers of the Executive Branch, no matter how reasonable in some cases. Cheney has made a great deal, and many on the right have, about the powers of the presidency being too circumspect. Given the executive order on presidential records, the administration’s fight against FOIA, its lack of cooperation on oversight issues, and its willingness to challenge the judiciary on pretty much everything that might require it to be modestly forthcoming, their decision block the release of the torture photos seems typical to me.
jg
I know he threatened to veto his own bill to fund the Iraq war because it revoked the rich people’s tax cuts which led to the neo-cons favorite Kerry soundbite ‘I voted for it before I voted against it’. I still find it so amazing that half the country never asked how a senator got 2 votes.
Gary Farber
I don’t know how much to attribute to the writer versus the source, but note the weasel wording here: “….that President Bush’s advisers would urge him to veto the $442 billion defense bill….”
Not “that the President would veto” but that his “advisers would urge.”
That’s a great way to phrase it if you want to intimidate, but not have to follow through and still not have made a false threat.