The Belgravia Dispatch: Detainee Treatment Developments

September 21, 2006

Detainee Treatment Developments

A few positive developments on the detainee treatment front: Specter wants to eye-ball the bill, even James Sensenbrenner wants the House side Judiciary Committee to have a look-see too, and eight more Republicans have joined McCain, Graham and Warner (Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Richard Lugar, Mike DeWine, Gordon Smith, John Sununu, Lincoln Chafee, and Chuck Hagel). The Congress remains, on the whole, rather woefully supine, but we are at last seeing increasing signs of life. That's to be welcomed, of course, but the amount of remedial work required remains very significant indeed. As Bruce Fein has recently written, about what he rightly describes as "congressional dereliction":

The most frightening claim made by Bush with congressional acquiescence is reminiscent of the lettres de cachet of prerevolutionary France. (Such letters, with which the king could order the arrest and imprisonment of subjects without trial, helped trigger the storming of the Bastille.) In the aftermath of 9/11, Mr. Bush maintained that he could pluck any American citizen out of his home or off of the sidewalk and detain him indefinitely on the president’s finding that he was an illegal combatant. No court could second-guess the president. Bush soon employed such monarchial power to detain a few citizens and to frighten would-be dissenters, and Republicans in Congress either cheered or fiddled like Nero while the Constitution burned. The Supreme Court ultimately entered the breach and repudiated the president in 2004’s Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. Republicans similarly yawned as President Bush ordained military tribunals to try accused war criminals based on secret evidence and unreliable hearsay in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Convention. The Supreme Court again was forced to countervail the congressional dereliction by holding the tribunals illegal in 2006’s Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. Republicans have shied from challenging Bush by placing party loyalty above institutional loyalty, contrary to the expectations of the Founding Fathers. They do so in the fear that embarrassing or discrediting a Republican president might reverberate to their political disadvantage in a reverse coat-tail effect.

Meantime, while I can understand the Democrats sitting back and watching with glee the internecine Republican warfare, when you are dealing with issues of as much import as ensuring no torture is allowed under American law, I'd expect more from a serious opposition party. Sitting on the sidelines is rather lame, isn't it?

Democrats, who have spent the past few years in a constant attack mode against the Bush administration and Republican congressional leaders, appear to have discovered a new strategy — serving as passive spectators of the GOP infighting.
“The president picked a battle, and he thought it would be with Democrats, but it’s been with Republicans,” said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

Asked where his party stood on the details of setting up military tribunals for suspected terrorists, Reid gladly demurred.

“We have to see what the Republicans do to erase fissures among themselves,” he said.

Posted by Gregory at September 21, 2006 02:36 AM

Comments

Game theory. Work it out.

Posted by: Azael at September 21, 2006 06:05 AM | Permalink to this comment

It is commen sense on the part of the dems to lay low on any issue regarding "security"...as long as 45% of the population believe that changing the strategy in Iraq = "cut and run" and following the Geneva convention = "hating america and loving terrorists" The Dems are stupid but they do not have a deathwish.

Posted by: centrist at September 21, 2006 02:39 PM | Permalink to this comment

Reid sounds way too slimey on this issue for my taste -- my guess is that he suspects (with good reason) that associating himself closely with the likes of McCain, Graham, and Warner makes Democrats vulnerable to being cut off at the knees at the last minute when those three partisans reach a last-minute "compromise" with Bush that they know will be unacceptable to Democrat -- Democrats would take the fall for the failure to pass the bill, and pay for it poltically. But Reid's approach is completely wrong. (McCain, Graham, and Warner may be "principled" on torture, but they are principled when it comes to politics, and simply cannot be trusted to maintain a consistent position if they see an opportunity to exploit "the war on terror" politically.)

Reid should simply announce that the questions and issues raised by people like the former joint chiefs cannot be fully investigated and resolved in the few legislative days left before the elections, and that its wrong to rush through a bill that will potentially place American troops at grave risk and destroy America's moral standing in the international community in the charged atmosphere of an election. Reid should point out Bush's obvious credibility problems on intelligence issues, and declare that Democrats will refuse to consider the bill unless Bush provides the kind of specifics regarding what is permissible treatment of detainess that are found in the Army Field Manual -- and to so while repeatedly condemning Bush for attempting to exploit the "War on Terror" for partisan gain.

Posted by: p.lukasiak at September 21, 2006 02:44 PM | Permalink to this comment

oops, the last sentence in the first paragraph in my comment above should read "McCain, Graham, and Warner may be "principled" on torture, but they are not principled when it comes to politics, and simply cannot be trusted to maintain a consistent position if they see an opportunity to exploit "the war on terror" politically.)"

Posted by: p.lukasiak at September 21, 2006 02:47 PM | Permalink to this comment

Democrats are not sitting on the sidelines. Who do you think is providing nearly all of the votes in favor of alternatives to the Administration's plans? If you look at the committee work of my congressman (Van Hollen) to take an example, you see a position as forthright in favor of the rule of law, and against torture, as from any more famous Republican.

Republicans defying the President are 'man bites dog' and thus interesting copy. One should not assume, though, that just because people trying to sell papers emphasize something that will sell papers -- that some real men are biting a somewhat rabid dog -- that those men are somehow alone in doing so.

Posted by: CharleyCarp at September 21, 2006 02:56 PM | Permalink to this comment

Does anyone else sometimes wonder if the strategists telling Bush what to do are clever enough to have him champion torture, in order to give McCain etc a really easy way to look good by comparison?

After all, Bush won't be running again, so he can afford to stand for evil, if by comparison the next Republican candidate can use that to appear to stand for good.

Posted by: abc at September 21, 2006 06:17 PM | Permalink to this comment

Does anyone else sometimes wonder if the strategists telling Bush what to do are clever enough to have him champion torture, in order to give McCain etc a really easy way to look good by comparison?

um, no....because party primaries are won by the candidates who attract the most party activists, and the 2008 GOP candidate will be someone who is perceived as a Bush loyalist. Unlike the Democratic Party, where its activist base has been engaged in a battle with the DLC for control of the party for the last couple of years, there is currently no real battle to rescue the GOP from the control of the neo-Cons.

Posted by: p.lukasiak at September 21, 2006 11:13 PM | Permalink to this comment

Posted by: axs at September 27, 2006 04:13 PM | Permalink to this comment

	« Mr. President: Don't You Dare Disband The CIA Interrogation Program \| Main \| More Support for McCain » September 21, 2006 Detainee Treatment Developments A few positive developments on the detainee treatment front: Specter wants to eye-ball the bill, even James Sensenbrenner wants the House side Judiciary Committee to have a look-see too, and eight more Republicans have joined McCain, Graham and Warner (Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Richard Lugar, Mike DeWine, Gordon Smith, John Sununu, Lincoln Chafee, and Chuck Hagel). The Congress remains, on the whole, rather woefully supine, but we are at last seeing increasing signs of life. That's to be welcomed, of course, but the amount of remedial work required remains very significant indeed. As Bruce Fein has recently written, about what he rightly describes as "congressional dereliction": The most frightening claim made by Bush with congressional acquiescence is reminiscent of the lettres de cachet of prerevolutionary France. (Such letters, with which the king could order the arrest and imprisonment of subjects without trial, helped trigger the storming of the Bastille.) In the aftermath of 9/11, Mr. Bush maintained that he could pluck any American citizen out of his home or off of the sidewalk and detain him indefinitely on the president’s finding that he was an illegal combatant. No court could second-guess the president. Bush soon employed such monarchial power to detain a few citizens and to frighten would-be dissenters, and Republicans in Congress either cheered or fiddled like Nero while the Constitution burned. The Supreme Court ultimately entered the breach and repudiated the president in 2004’s Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. Republicans similarly yawned as President Bush ordained military tribunals to try accused war criminals based on secret evidence and unreliable hearsay in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Convention. The Supreme Court again was forced to countervail the congressional dereliction by holding the tribunals illegal in 2006’s Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. Republicans have shied from challenging Bush by placing party loyalty above institutional loyalty, contrary to the expectations of the Founding Fathers. They do so in the fear that embarrassing or discrediting a Republican president might reverberate to their political disadvantage in a reverse coat-tail effect. Meantime, while I can understand the Democrats sitting back and watching with glee the internecine Republican warfare, when you are dealing with issues of as much import as ensuring no torture is allowed under American law, I'd expect more from a serious opposition party. Sitting on the sidelines is rather lame, isn't it? Democrats, who have spent the past few years in a constant attack mode against the Bush administration and Republican congressional leaders, appear to have discovered a new strategy — serving as passive spectators of the GOP infighting. “The president picked a battle, and he thought it would be with Democrats, but it’s been with Republicans,” said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. Asked where his party stood on the details of setting up military tribunals for suspected terrorists, Reid gladly demurred. “We have to see what the Republicans do to erase fissures among themselves,” he said. Posted by Gregory at September 21, 2006 02:36 AM Comments Game theory. Work it out. Posted by: Azael at September 21, 2006 06:05 AM \| Permalink to this comment It is commen sense on the part of the dems to lay low on any issue regarding "security"...as long as 45% of the population believe that changing the strategy in Iraq = "cut and run" and following the Geneva convention = "hating america and loving terrorists" The Dems are stupid but they do not have a deathwish. Posted by: centrist at September 21, 2006 02:39 PM \| Permalink to this comment Reid sounds way too slimey on this issue for my taste -- my guess is that he suspects (with good reason) that associating himself closely with the likes of McCain, Graham, and Warner makes Democrats vulnerable to being cut off at the knees at the last minute when those three partisans reach a last-minute "compromise" with Bush that they know will be unacceptable to Democrat -- Democrats would take the fall for the failure to pass the bill, and pay for it poltically. But Reid's approach is completely wrong. (McCain, Graham, and Warner may be "principled" on torture, but they are principled when it comes to politics, and simply cannot be trusted to maintain a consistent position if they see an opportunity to exploit "the war on terror" politically.) Reid should simply announce that the questions and issues raised by people like the former joint chiefs cannot be fully investigated and resolved in the few legislative days left before the elections, and that its wrong to rush through a bill that will potentially place American troops at grave risk and destroy America's moral standing in the international community in the charged atmosphere of an election. Reid should point out Bush's obvious credibility problems on intelligence issues, and declare that Democrats will refuse to consider the bill unless Bush provides the kind of specifics regarding what is permissible treatment of detainess that are found in the Army Field Manual -- and to so while repeatedly condemning Bush for attempting to exploit the "War on Terror" for partisan gain. Posted by: p.lukasiak at September 21, 2006 02:44 PM \| Permalink to this comment oops, the last sentence in the first paragraph in my comment above should read "McCain, Graham, and Warner may be "principled" on torture, but they are not principled when it comes to politics, and simply cannot be trusted to maintain a consistent position if they see an opportunity to exploit "the war on terror" politically.)" Posted by: p.lukasiak at September 21, 2006 02:47 PM \| Permalink to this comment Democrats are not sitting on the sidelines. Who do you think is providing nearly all of the votes in favor of alternatives to the Administration's plans? If you look at the committee work of my congressman (Van Hollen) to take an example, you see a position as forthright in favor of the rule of law, and against torture, as from any more famous Republican. Republicans defying the President are 'man bites dog' and thus interesting copy. One should not assume, though, that just because people trying to sell papers emphasize something that will sell papers -- that some real men are biting a somewhat rabid dog -- that those men are somehow alone in doing so. Posted by: CharleyCarp at September 21, 2006 02:56 PM \| Permalink to this comment Does anyone else sometimes wonder if the strategists telling Bush what to do are clever enough to have him champion torture, in order to give McCain etc a really easy way to look good by comparison? After all, Bush won't be running again, so he can afford to stand for evil, if by comparison the next Republican candidate can use that to appear to stand for good. Posted by: abc at September 21, 2006 06:17 PM \| Permalink to this comment Does anyone else sometimes wonder if the strategists telling Bush what to do are clever enough to have him champion torture, in order to give McCain etc a really easy way to look good by comparison? um, no....because party primaries are won by the candidates who attract the most party activists, and the 2008 GOP candidate will be someone who is perceived as a Bush loyalist. Unlike the Democratic Party, where its activist base has been engaged in a battle with the DLC for control of the party for the last couple of years, there is currently no real battle to rescue the GOP from the control of the neo-Cons. Posted by: p.lukasiak at September 21, 2006 11:13 PM \| Permalink to this comment pl Posted by: axs at September 27, 2006 04:13 PM \| Permalink to this comment		About Belgravia Dispatch Gregory Djerejian, an international lawyer and business executive, comments intermittently on global politics, finance & diplomacy at this site. The views expressed herein are solely his own and do not represent those of any organization. More About the Author Email the Author Recent Entries Lunch w/ the FT... Robert Strange McNamara Biden on Israel/Iran Mea Culpa (Part II) Something of A Mea Culpa Search Search this site: The News Financial Times New York Times Wall Street Journal The Economist The Times The Spectator Daily Telegraph The New Yorker Washington Post New Criterion New Republic National Review The Atlantic The American Conservative Harpers The Week The Guardian Weekly Standard The Nation Real Clear Politics Le Figaro Le Monde El Pais Pravda The Blogs Across the Aisle Marc Ambinder American Footprints The American Scene Bainbridge Jack Balkin Becker-Posner Balloon Juice Steve Clemons Juan Cole The Corner Crooked Timber Cunning Realist Democracy Arsensal Daniel Drezner Washington Monthly James Fallows Glenn Greenwald Nikolas Gvosdev Huffington Post Mark Kleiman Joshua Landis Daniel Larison Marc Lynch Josh Marshall Progressive Realist Obsidian Wings George Packer Gideon Rachman Andrew Sullivan Katrina vanden Heuvel Volokh Conspiracy Steve Walt James Wolcott Matthew Yglesias Foreign Affairs Commentariat Foreign Affairs Foreign Policy Le Monde Diplomatique National Interest Law & Finance Barron's Bloomberg Bull and Bear Wise Calculated Risk Marketwatch Contrary Investor Corporate Counsel Blog DealBreaker Deal Lawyers Blog Financial Sense Forbes Fortune Hussman Funds Bruce MacEwen Barry Ritholz Nouriel Roubini Safe Haven SCOTUS Blog Seeking Alpha The Street 10b-5 Daily Yahoo Finance Think Tanks AEI Baker Institute Brookings Carnegie Cato CFR CSIS Heritage IISS Intl Crisis Group USIP Security Janes Fed. American Scientists Defense Tech Global Security Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Books American Scholar LRB NYRB NYT Book Review Paris Review TLS Granta Grand Street Arts & Letters Daily TNR's The Book The City Curbed Eater Gothamist NY Magazine NY Post NY Press New York Observer Tribeca Trib Vanishing NY Village Voice Epicurean Corner Wine Terroirs The Burgundy Report Richard Kelley Andrew Jefford Archives Browse Archives Syndicate this site: Belgravia Dispatch Maintained by: www.vikeny.com Powered by

	© 2010 Belgravia Dispatch