Friday, September 15, 2006

Afghanistan Takes Its Toll On Liberal Leadership

Carolyn Bennett has announced that tommorow she will be dropping out of the Liberal Leadership Race and throwing her weight behind the Anybody but Iggy Campaign and endorsing Bob Rae.

Afghanistan is quickly becoming the desisive and devisive issue in this Leadership Campaign. And Iggy's stalwart defense of the moral principle of humanitarian war is in conflict with traditional Canadian Liberalism.

Could it be because of her position on Afghanistan dovetails with Rae's?


Lets lookee see.....


Carolyn Bennett:Fifty years later, Canadian soldiers are being killed in Afghanistan and we feel terrible. The nature of conflict has changed dramatically. No longer are we dealing with two nation-states that can be separated by a neutral zone that peacekeepers can survey. The threats to peace are now, more often than not, internal - though often not visibly identifiable - elements.

Canada lobbied hard to build support for a human security agenda, eventually leading the UN to adopt a "responsibility to protect" approach that will allow international intervention when citizens are at risk due to the inability, or unwillingness, of a government to "protect" its citizens.

Having said that, like most Canadians I believe that we made the right decision in not going into Iraq. Instead, we demonstrated our sincere and responsible commitment to the rebuilding of Afghanistan and the promotion of democracy by sending Canadian troops on a one-year mission.

Originally, our mission was to protect the schools and the civilians; that is to say, human security. We were to help ensure that Afghanistan was put on the road to democracy. I am not sure that Canadians fully understood that enhancing our role in NATO's "Operation Enduring Freedom" would dramatically change our original commitment.

I believe most Canadians are uncomfortable with this active combat role for our troops. However, whether it is East Timor, Haiti, Sudan, Afghanistan or now south Lebanon, I believe that, if allowed to debate and ponder the alternatives, Canadians would support the fundamental shift from peacekeeping to protecting human security.

But what has been missing is the meaningful debate which should be de rigueur in an open democracy.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's decision to extend our role in Afghanistan until 2009 was a cynical and misguided political move. He had two objectives: please George Bush and divide Canadian Liberals. He sought to portray those who opposed an extension of the mission as a withdrawal of support for the mission and our troops.

During my recent travels throughout Canada, I have heard from countless military families. They are concerned that the extension may mean that the same soldiers could be deployed more than three times. This is a huge risk to their mental health as well to potential loss of life.

The commitment to 2009 in Afghanistan has dramatically affected our ability to help with the human security agenda in other parts of the world, particularly now in the Middle East.

I believe Canadians support the Liberal approach of ensuring that we maintain an independent foreign policy. Our refusal to send troops to Iraq stands as the most recent and striking example.

We know that Harper would have sent Canadian troops into Iraq. Now that he is in power, our foreign policy is moving in lockstep with that of the United States. The problem is not that Harper has no views of his own; it is simply that his views are consistent with those of U.S. Republican-style conservatives. Harper's default position is in full alignment with American policy.

The Prime Minister should stop threatening cynical "confidence" votes on matters that clearly merit more debate. His tactic of pushing for quick yes/no answers to complex questions diminishes our democracy.

Harper's rote appeasement of U.S. President George Bush and facile "with us or against us" interpretation of the complexities of military involvement is not modern leadership. Canadians deserve a genuine dialogue about the trade-offs and the tough decisions that need to be made in defence, foreign policy and development.

I am determined that that dialogue takes place.

"Supporting our troops" means Canadians must know where they are, what they are doing and why. They must understand that traditional peacekeeping is no longer possible.

They must give their informed consent for a fundamental shift in Canadian policy to that of "responsibility to protect" and a human security agenda that will clearly put more soldiers in harm's way.

Canadians need to know that they have the ability to reject a role in active combat and must understand the exit strategy from Operation Enduring Freedom.

Canadians also need to know that Ottawa is doing everything possible to support the diplomacy and development aid that will lead to a lasting peace. This is the best way to respect Pearson's legacy.



Bob Rae: We should stick to our guns

The NATO mission in Afghanistan should be re-evaluated, but Canada should not pull out unilaterally, Liberal leadership candidate Bob Rae said yesterday.

The Afghanistan mission has changed from its original purpose to establish a new government in the country that is friendly to the West to a counter-insurgency operation, he said in a meeting with The Gazette's editorial board.

As such, all participating NATO countries should discuss its conduct and duration, he suggested.

"But we can't just snap our fingers and say this week that we lost too many troops and we have to come home," Rae said.

Bob believes in a foreign policy that is in keeping with the best Canadian traditions.

Parliament narrowly supported the Harper agenda for the Canadian military and Afghanistan. Bob has been speaking out during his current campaign tour about how he thought the Harper motion was a "set-up" and he would have voted against it: "Our role as a country is peacekeeping, constitution making."

The recent six- hour debate in the House of Commons on Canada's role in Afghanistan was hardly adequate to make an informed judgment about such a fundamental change in Canada’s role.

The unilateral extension of the combat mission is a departure from Canada's traditional role of peacekeeping and reconstruction. Bob believes Canada could have instead focused our military, aid and diplomatic resources on reconstruction and re-building that war-torn country and that we also should have heard how the Afghan mission affects our ability to contribute to resolving other troubled situations.

In contrast, Mr. Harper is a leader who would have involved Canada in the Iraq war and vows to move ahead with a significant and prolonged combat role for Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan.

Bob Rae Liberal Leadership Candidate - op-eds

This brings me to the situation in Afghanistan. As I wrote in 2004, the international community was right to overthrow the Taliban- under a UN mandate- because that regime was exporting terrorism.

It was right for Canada to have been part of that successful multilateral effort. But we need to keep in mind that Canada’s ongoing mission in Afghanistan has changed several times to reflect evolving realities.

In 2002 we sent a battle group to Kandahar; in 2003 we sent 2,000 troops to Kabul as part of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force; in 2004 we reduced this to a 700-person reconnaissance team; in 2005 we sent a Provincial Reconstruction Team to Kandahar. Finally, early this year, Canada deployed a combat Task Force to Kandahar and took command of the multi-national brigade headquarters.

Mr. Martin’s government approved the combat component for one year- until early 2007- to help ensure stability on the ground in Kandahar for reconstruction.

But in “jamming” the Canadian Parliament, Mr. Harper has effectively tied up most of Canada’s available military resources until 2009 and locked us into a mission geared mainly toward counter-insurgency. There are serious risks with this.

Let’s be clear: Canada is in a war, and the questions around this fact have not been given an adequate airing. The rushed six-hour Parliamentary debate did not show proper consideration for the complexities of the proposed mission nor for the troops being asked to undertake it. On issues of such importance, Canadians have a right to expect better from a Prime Minister.

Afghan President Karzai himself has recently been critical of how the counter-insurgency efforts are being conducted, and urged a reassessment of the balance between combat against the Taliban and investments in reconstruction. He has said that improving local government, and strengthening the Afghan police and army is the surer way to tackle the problems of terrorism and insurgency.

President Karzai stated last week, “I have systematically, consistently and on a daily basis warned the international community of what was developing in Afghanistan... and of a change in approach by the international community in this regard."

In such a prolonged combat role, Canadian troops risk becoming seen as an unwelcome army of occupation by ordinary Afghanis, rather than as their allies.

The responsibility to protect innocent civilians should not be invoked to justify any and all military interventions. Unfortunately, some have appropriated it to rationalize the Iraq war, as well as Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan. It does not fit either case. The coalition that invaded Iraq in 2003 did so ostensibly on the pretext of searching for weapons of mass destruction. And the international community intervened in Afghanistan because that country was the source of the 9-11 terrorist attacks.

We need less rhetoric and more realism about Afghanistan. An unpoliced border with northern Pakistan, an economy still deeply dependent on poppy production and the heroin trade, powerful warlords with extensive foreign networks: the notion of a quick military victory and a sudden transition to liberal democracy seems problematic. We need to be realistic about what we can achieve, and how long it will take.

There are other options for Canada in Afghanistan between traditional peacekeeping and a largely counter-insurgency role, even if the Prime Minister does not want to discuss them. Our focus should be on reconstruction, aimed at enabling the Afghan people to provide security within their own borders, and helping them build a legitimate economy.

In foreign deployments, we must maintain a balanced approach, and not lose our way as a people committed to diplomacy, aid, reconstruction, and deliberate, responsible decisions when it comes to military action. We should indeed remember who we are.

Canada’s long-standing commitment to multilateralism, peacekeeping and reconstruction is not quaint, romantic or a sacred cow. Our foreign policy traditions, far from being out-moded, offer an effective framework and a sound set of values for helping stabilize and rebuild in situations of global conflict.



Also See:


Liberal Leadership Race

Afghanistan



The image “http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4319/673/320/2006-08-31-Troops.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.


Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , ,, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,, , , , , , , , , , , ,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , ,


Tags

Posted by at No comments:

Torture Insurance

Torture weakens our country's moral strengthThe administration is being disgustingly disingenuous when it claims it will abide by the Geneva Conventions - but sends to Congress a bill that would authorize the CIA to engage in interrogation tactics the world understands as torture. The bill would also rewrite America's obligations under the Geneva Conventions. That is, the administration is telling a bald-faced lie when it says it's opposed to torture

Of course it is. Bush refers to torture this way.....

Of course, Mr. Bush didn't come out and say he's lobbying for torture. Instead he refers to "an alternative set of procedures" for interrogation. But the administration no longer conceals what it wants. It wants authorization for the CIA to hide detainees in overseas prisons where even the International Committee of the Red Cross won't have access. It wants permission to interrogate those detainees with abusive practices that in the past have included induced hypothermia and "waterboarding," or simulated drowning. And it wants the right to try such detainees, and perhaps sentence them to death, on the basis of evidence that the defendants cannot see and that may have been extracted during those abusive interrogation sessions.


Yep they are otherwise the CIA wouldn't need insurance against facing crimes against humanity charges and violations of the Geneva Convention.

Many CIA officers involved in questioning war-on-terror detainees have signed up for a government-reimbursed insurance plan that would pay their legal expenses if they are sued or charged with criminal wrongdoing, The Washington Post reported yesterday.
Citing unnamed current and former intelligence officials, the newspaper said the trend reflects heightened anxiety at the Central Intelligence Agency that officers may be vulnerable to accusations they were involved in abuse, torture, human rights violations and other misconduct.
They worry that they will not have Justice Department representation in court or congressional inquiries, the report said.
The Post said the anxieties stem partly from public controversy about a system of secret CIA prisons.

What worriees the CIA and Bush is that they may be charged in international court for torture and Geneva convention violations between 9/11 and now.

Bush fears war crimes prosecution, impeachment

Bush called on Congress to define these “vague and undefined” terms in Common Article 3 because “our military and intelligence personnel” involved in capture and interrogation “could now be at risk of prosecution under the War Crimes Act.”

Congress enacted the War Crimes Act in 1996. That act defines violations of Geneva’s Common Article 3 as war crimes. Those convicted face life imprisonment or even the death penalty if the victim dies.

The president is undoubtedly familiar with the doctrine of command responsibility, where commanders, all the way up the chain of command to the commander in chief, can be held liable for war crimes their inferiors commit if the commander knew or should have known they might be committed and did nothing to stop or prevent them.

Bush defensively denied that the United States engages in torture and foreswore authorizing it. But it has been well documented that policies set at the highest levels of our government have resulted in the torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of U.S. prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo.

Indeed, Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act in December, which codifies the prohibition in United States law against cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of prisoners in U.S. custody. In his speech, Bush took credit for working with Sen. John McCain to pass the DTA.

In fact, Bush fought the McCain “anti-torture” amendment tooth and nail, at times threatening to veto the entire appropriations bill to which it was appended. At one point, Bush sent Dick Cheney to convince McCain to exempt the CIA from the prohibition on cruel treatment, but McCain refused.

Bush signed the bill, but attached a “signing statement” where he reserved the right to violate the DTA if, as commander in chief, he thought it necessary.

Throughout his speech, Bush carefully denied his administration had violated any laws during its “tough” interrogations of prisoners. Yet, the very same day, the Pentagon released a new interrogation manual that prohibits techniques including “waterboarding,” which amounts to torture.

Having got the information they needed Bush is closing the barn door after the horse has left. The CIA may no longer torture but it will still contract out such torture.....

Secret Prisons: Implications of the Administration's Maneuver Stratfor

Ultimately, the Bush administration's decision to rescind the use of "secret prisons" does nothing to prohibit this kind of work with foreign intelligence services, which was a mainstay of the CIA before the 9/11 attacks. Even in cases where Washington has serious differences with a host government over strategic or political issues, there can remain close cooperation between intelligence services on the interrogation of al Qaeda suspects. Consider the unlikely example involving the United States and Syria in 2002: The United States rendered a Syrian-born Canadian citizen, Maher Arar, back to Syria -- at the cost of a major strain in U.S.-Canadian relations.

The end of the CIA program, whether permanent or temporary, will not leave the United States with any blind spots in its war against al Qaeda. In fact, considering that only a few al Qaeda members were ever held by the CIA, most of the suspects interrogated in this war have been questioned by foreign proxies -- even since clandestine interrogation centers came into use. The flow of intelligence can be expected to continue -- and it perhaps could be argued that it might increase, as political attention in the United States concerning the treatment of prisoners turns elsewhere and foreign services continue their work without interference.

And we should not forget that it is not just the CIA that contracts out torture and prison operations....US: Pentagon Spends Billions to Outsource Torture

But did the torture really get America the information it needed or is this all misdirection to be able to maintain a program that in fact is of little real value?

The Myth of the Ticking Time Bomb

Of course, the President could not, he said with a knowing wink to his audience, describe “the specific methods used in these CIA interrogations” because “it would help the terrorists learn how to resist questioning.” Although these “procedures were tough,” they had proved vital, the President assured us, in extracting “information about terrorist plans we could not get anywhere else” and thus prevented Al Qaeda from “launching another attack against the American homeland.” If Congress and the Supreme Court would simply set aside their constitutional qualms about these “tough” methods, Bush concluded, then the “brave men and women” who work in this CIA program can continue “to obtain information that will save innocent lives.”

As in so many of these ticking-bomb tales, Bush’s supposed successes crumble on closer examination. Just four days later, The New York Times reported that the FBI claimed it got the key information from Abu Zubaydah with its noncoercive methods and that other agencies already had much of his supposedly “vital” intelligence

Time to Impeach Bush!

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4319/673/1600/impeach_bush_finger_2_edited.0.jpg
See

CIA



Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted by at No comments:

Neo Cons Force Poor Countries Into Debt

What you can't get by bombing countries into the stone age you do by economically starving them of capital. Corruption is a conviant excuse when it isn't done by Halliburton. And it is being held in the anti-democratic one party city state of Singapore. But of course unlike other one party states the Americans oppose such as Cuba, they support Singapore because it allows for a free market.

World Bank can't allow misuse of funds

World Bank President Wolfowitz, a former high-ranking U.S. Defense Department official and an architect of the Iraq War, has blocked more than $1 billion in loans to a range of countries for illegal practices.

Wolfowitz's campaign has run into some high-profile opposition.

The British government threatened Thursday to withhold a 50 million pound ($94 million) contribution to the bank to protest the conditions it places on aid to poor countries.


The image “http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2006/09/15/PH2006091500381.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors. I can't hear you

Wolfowitz Takes Hard Line on Corruption

Non-governmental organizations say the World Bank needs not only to reduce the number of conditions attached to its loans, but also to work to stop tying economic policy reforms such as liberalization and privatization to its aid for poor countries.

More than 160 NGOs boycott IMF-World Bank meetings

More than 160 non-governmental groups on Friday declared a boycott of IMF and World Bank meetings in Singapore to protest against a clampdown on free speech and the banning of activists.

"In solidarity with those denied entry into Singapore and denied the exercise of their fundemantal rights to freedom of expression and association, we will stay away from all meetings and seminars at the World Bank and IMF 2006 annual meetings in Singapore,” the 164 organisations said in a statement.

"We call on all social movements, civil society organisations and networks and individuals to uphold the rights of peoples to freedom of expression and association, and to honour this boycott by staying away from the official meetings in Singapore.”

The statement was issued on the sidelines of an International People’s Forum Against the IMF and World Bank where about 500 people gathered on Friday on the Indonesian island of Batam, about an hour by boat from Singapore





Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , ,

Posted by at No comments:

I'll Dance Upon Your Grave

"You want politicians that focus on important issues, not ... mudslinging," DiNovo, who danced onto the stage at her victory party to Stevie Wonder's "Higher Ground," told about 400 cheering supporters.
PETER POWER/TORONTO STAR
At the Lithuanian House on Bloor St. West, NDP candidate Cheri DiNovo celebrates her victory last night in the Toronto by-election for the Parkdale-High Park riding. She defeated Liberal candidate Sylvia Watson, and Tory David Hutcheon to replace Gerard Kennedy who is taking a shot at federal politics. Left to right is Rosario Marchese, NDP leader Howard Hampton, Cheri DiNovo, in white, and Peggy Nash.

To the mudslingers this seems appropriate....


The Brown Girl
by
Steeleye Span

i'll dance upon your grave for twelve months and a day.
i'll do as much for you as any maiden may.
i'll make you rue the very day that you were born.
i'm a bonny brown girl.

i'll dance upon your grave for twelve months and a day
for twelve months and a day.
you'll die for betraying a bonny brown girl
all on one summer's day.

i'll dance upon your grave for twelve months and a day.
i'll do as much for you as any maiden may.
i'll make you rue the very day that you were born.
i'm a bonny brown girl.


SEE:

DiNovo


Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted by at No comments:

Kim Campbell Redux

Remember that famous line from former Conservative PM Kim Campbell that "an election is no time to discuss serious issues". I Well it looks like history is repeating itself.

Harper said it wasn't the time to discuss government policies.
Harper, Charest don't see eye to eye on gun registry


Also See

Dawson College Shootings



Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Posted by at No comments:

Cuddly Bobbie Rae


In response to the Dawson College shootings Liberal Leadership Candidate Bob Rae appeared with his teddy bear in hand. "It's an absolutely bewildering event. I guess we'll reflect on what it means," said Liberal leadership candidate Bob Rae, reached last night. "It just makes you want to hug everyone around you."



Also See

Dawson College Shootings

Liberal Leadership

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , ,

Posted by at No comments:

I Am A Star Trek Character

A little time waster.....

Your results:
You are Deanna Troi
































Deanna Troi
 70%
James T. Kirk (Captain)
 70%
Geordi LaForge
 65%
Jean-Luc Picard
 60%
Worf
 60%
An Expendable Character (Redshirt)
 55%
Spock
 47%
Chekov
 45%
Leonard McCoy (Bones)
 45%
Will Riker
 40%
Mr. Sulu
 40%
Uhura
 35%
Data
 30%
Mr. Scott
 20%
Beverly Crusher
 15%
You are a caring and loving individual.
You understand people's emotions and
you are able to comfort and counsel them.


Click here to take the Star Trek Personality Quiz

See more of the my characters and quizzes I have taken click here.


Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , ,
Posted by at 1 comment:

Thursday, September 14, 2006

Fun With Guns


The gun alleged college killer Kimveer Gill displays proudly on his blog is a restricted firearm under Canadian law but popular with the country's shooting fraternity.

“To be perfectly honest it's a lot of fun to shoot,” said Tony Bernardo, executive director of the Canadian Shooting Sports Association, who also owns a Beretta CX4 Storm. The association, lobbies against tougher gun restrictions.

“The little pistol calibre it comes in gives virtually no recoil. It's very accurate. The firearm is just one of those firearms that's just a lot of fun to spend a day at the range with.”

Gee and in college cafeterias too. Very accurate Gill shot 20 people with it, killing one.In probalby under a minute.And it gets better

“Those people who own them are a little horrified at this particular moment. Nobody envisions that this thing would be used in that manner. That's not what it was made for.”

Excuse me what the hell was it made for ...oh yeah shooting cans. Right, gimme a break.

A tip o' the blog to Cowboys For Social Responsibility for this.

See:

Car Registry Didn't Prevent This

Life Is A Video Game

Right Whing Whines About Gun Registry

Gun Control


Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,, , , , ,
Posted by at No comments:

About Time


Now lets take the bastards to the International Court for Crimes against Humanity. Having lost his battle in court to allow for secret denetion and torture Bush is trying to get torture allowed through the backdoor. Seeking quote unquote clarification of Article 3 of the Geneva Convention for being to vague, after fifty years, and trying to add a provision in his bill that would allow CIA agents not to be charged with violations post 9/11, this is a real slap in the face.

Now it is time to add this to the long list of reasons for Impeachment. Certainly all the violations of the laws of Amercian and the acts which it is a signatory to is far more serious than moral turpitude that the Republicans used against Clinton.

After the November elections watch the Impeach Bush campaign begin in earnest.

Rebuff for Bush on terror trials in a Senate test

The Senate Armed Services Committee defied President George W. Bush on Thursday, with four Republicans joining Democrats in approving a plan for the trial and interrogation of terrorism suspects that the White House has rejected as unacceptable. The White House had said their legislation would leave the United States no option but to shut down a CIA program to interrogate high-level terrorism suspects. Bush traveled to Capitol Hill with Vice President Dick Cheney on Thursday morning. The administration also released a brief letter in which the top lawyers for the military branches said they found no legal objection to the White House proposal to redefine a key provision of the Geneva Conventions.
But Colin Powell, Bush's former secretary of state, sided with the senators, saying in a letter that the president's plan to redefine the Geneva Conventions would encourage the world to "doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism," and "put our own troops at risk."
Powell's statement amounted to a rare public breach with the White House he served, but reflected his strong opposition while in office to the administration's assertions, beginning shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, that the war against Al Qaeda should not be bound by the Geneva Conventions.
The White House made clear that it would fight on despite the Republican rebellion, with Bush saying he would "resist any bill" that did not provide a legal basis for the CIA to continue to employ what he has called "alternative interrogation practices" for terrorism suspects.
The main dispute between the White House and the Senate Republicans revolves around a provision known as Common Article 3, which prohibits inhumane treatment of combatants seized in wartime. General Michael Hayden, the CIA director, has argued that the article's prohibition against "outrages upon personal dignity" must be clarified so that troops and CIA personnel know what is permissible in the interrogation of terrorism suspects.
But Senators Warner, McCain and Graham say the Bush proposal would send a signal that the United States has abandoned its commitment to human rights, and invite other nations to reinterpret the Geneva Conventions as they see fit, eliminating protections for American troops seized in future conflicts.
The senators also dismissed the letter from the military lawyers, saying they had questions about whether it amounted to an authentic endorsement of the White House proposal. They said they put more weight on extensive public testimony in which the lawyers raised doubts about the Bush plan.
Some military officials briefed on the military lawyers' position also disputed the notion that the lawyers had reversed course. They said the lawyers agreed to sign a letter at a meeting on Wednesday after discussing the language over several hours.
The lawyers would agree only to say that they could not find anything illegal about the specific issue of amending Common Article 3, the defense officials said, but still do not endorse several points in the administration's approach.
The senators say their bill will protect the CIA by refining the war crimes act, which criminalizes violations of Common Article 3, to specifically enumerate what violations constitute war crimes.
"What General Hayden wants us to do is immunize him not from liability but from criticism," McCain said after the vote, "because if one of his techniques is made public and he gets criticized, then he can say, 'Well, Congress told me to do it.' He's trying to protect his reputation at the risk of America's reputation."
The other chief dispute concerns the evidence admitted at trial. The Bush plan would allow hearsay and evidence obtained by coercion if it is considered reliable, while the Senate proposal would exclude any testimony obtained by "cruel inhuman, or degrading treatment."
The White House would bar the suspect from seeing classified evidence shown to the jury weighing his case; the senators say that this amounts to a secret trial, and that the suspect must be allowed to see anything the jury sees. They offered a compromise under which a judge would substitute a declassified summary of the evidence.
The committee vote was 15 to 9, with all Democrats joining the four Republicans. The measure now goes to the Senate floor, where Senators Warner, Graham and McCain believe they have a majority made up of Democrats and as many as a half-dozen other Republicans.
Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, warned the administration against taking on McCain, a former prisoner of war.
"They're trying to reinterpret the Geneva Conventions," Levin said, "but the best expert on that is somebody who has very personal experience with those who violate Geneva, and that's Senator McCain."
The situation in the House is very different, with that chamber on track to approve the measure backed by the White House.
"We'll do what the president wants," said Representative Duncan Hunter of California, the Republican who is chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.
The White House and Republicans on either side of the issue maneuvered furiously for advantage all day.
As the Senate Armed Services Committee met to vote on its alternative to the president's legislation, an anonymous Republican invoked a Senate rule to stop it from meeting, forcing Warner to go to the Senate floor to ask that the hold be lifted. He then praised the Democrats for being "totally cooperative" on the issue, a pointed rebuke to members of his own party who have been pushing the White House view. And he prevailed upon Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Republican leader, to persuade the senator calling for the hold to lift it.
The White House must now decide whether to press its allies in the Senate to amend the bill on the floor, or to step back and wait until the bill passes and the House and Senate work out differences in conference.
The bill may face amendment in any case. Some Democrats object to a provision that would block detainees from challenging their detention in court. More than two dozen retired federal judges sent a letter to Congress arguing that such a provision would lead to unlawful permanent detention, and defy Supreme Court precedent.
Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Mark Mazzetti and Carl Hulse contributed reporting.
n but to shut down a CIA program to interrogate high-level terrorism suspects.The White House had said their legislation would leave the United States no option but to shut down a CIo interrogate high-level terrorism suspects.
See

CIA

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)