TERRORISM

Political Deficit

"I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it," a newly-reelected President Bush declared in Nov. 2004. Less than halfway through his second term, Bush is finding his account is overdrawn. Clinging to failing war on terror policies (ranging from his illegal domestic wiretapping program to his illegally-constituted military tribunals and his push for torture), Bush trekked to Capitol Hill yesterday to engage face-to-face with key members of his political party who are leading the opposition to a White House plan for interrogating and prosecuting terrorism suspects. The visit did little to change any minds; the Senate Armed Services Committee rejected Bush's plan for the treatment of detainees just hours after he left. Some of the president's traditional allies have so far been unwilling to stomach Bush's bad terror policies, frustrating Karl Rove's efforts to play politics with the issue. Three conservative military veterans -- Sens. John Warner (R-VA), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and John McCain (R-AZ) -- have led the rebellion, gaining the support of other colleagues, including Maine Sen. Susan Collins (R). Bush also met recently with a host of conservative journalists, seeking their support in the battle he now faces. "[T]here might be some Independents I can convince, but the key will be whether Republicans understand the stakes," he told them. Bush can expect a majority of Americans and members of Congress to continue to oppose him as long as he inflexibly holds to his rejected policies with the mindset that only his understanding is the correct one.

GENERAL DISCONTENT: McCain's efforts to pass legislation on the treatment of detainees that does not contravene the Geneva Convention (specifically Common Article 3 which stipulates prisoners of war should be "treated humanely") was lent some major support from two retired four-star generals. Former Secretary of State and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Colin Powell re-emerged yesterday, writing in a letter, "The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of out fight against terrorism. To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts. Furthermore it would put our own troops at risk." Another former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. John Vessey, rebutted the administration's argument that the war on terror is a new type of conflict to which Geneva may not apply. “In my short 46 years in the Armed Forces, Americans confronted the horrors of the prison camps of the Japanese in World War II, the North Koreans in 1950-53, and the North Vietnamese in the long years of the Vietnam War, as well as knowledge of the Nazi’s holocaust depredations in World War II. Through those years, we held to our own values. We should continue to do so,” Vessey wrote. Twenty-eight other generals and admirals expressed similar sentiments in a letter yesterday.

ADMINISTRATION RESORTS TO ARM-TWISTING: The letters from former military brass put the administration on the defensive yesterday. Bush shot back to reporters, "There's all kinds of letters coming out -- and today, by the way, active duty personnel in the Pentagon, the JAG, supported the concept that I have just outlined to you." The news that military lawyers, who had objected to the administration's definition of torture when the policy was being developed in early 2003, now supported the Bush policy appeared to be good news for the administration. But yesterday, Sen. Graham, a former JAG himself, informed reporters on Capitol Hill that the administration had twisted arms in securing the JAG's support. According to Graham, the JAGs were held in a meeting "for five hours" by administration personnel, who "tried to force them to sign a prepared statement." The AP reported, "Two congressional aides who favor McCain's plan said the military lawyers signed that letter after refusing to endorse an earlier one offered by the Pentagon's general counsel, William Haynes, that expressed more forceful support for Bush's plan." (Haynes, a Bush judicial nominee, has been a forceful legal advocate for harsh detention policies.) Ultimately, the letter signed onto by the JAG "leaves total ambiguity on interpretation," according to Graham.

FIGHTING FOR OUR VALUES: “This whole issue is going to send a signal about who America is in 2006,” Graham said about the debate with the White House. While the White House is pushing to narrowly define interrogation practices that might subject CIA interrogators or others to charges of committing war crimes, McCain and company are insisting that the U.S. live up to its treaty obligations and follow the Geneva dictates. Moving away from Geneva "would open the door for many repressive nations around the world to redefine their acceptance of the conventions, which could leave U.S. troops at risk in future conflicts." Reflecting on his experience as a prisoner of war in a Vietnamese detention camp, McCain told CNN yesterday that the Geneva Convention compelled the Vietnamese to eventually better their treatment of him. He added, "There was also an American that was captured in Somalia, not that long ago, where he was being mistreated and we insisted that he be treated according to the Geneva Conventions Common Article 3 and he was. And he was later released. We have the moral high ground because we adhere to the Geneva Conventions and we're not like these other countries and we understand that al Qaeda would never observe it, but many of us are afraid there will be additional wars in the history of the United States." Graham, McCain, and Warner are also insisting that "defendants cannot be excluded from seeing secret evidence that can be used against him" and that "any evidence that has been extracted under coercion must be approved by the judge before it is admissible." The Senate Armed Services bill does contain some problems, as well though, including the curtailment of habeas corpus and judicial review.

BIPARTISAN SUPPORT FOR NSA BILL OPPOSED BY BUSH: Outside of the interrogation issue, Bush is also finding resistance to dealing with the NSA domestic wiretapping program. The Senate Judiciary Committee passed three separate bills. The bills sponsored by Sens. Arlen Specter (R-PA), Mike DeWine (R-OH), and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) offer "mutually contradictory" approaches. Specter's approach, which has been dubbed a "compromise" bill by the media, "is not a compromise but a full-fledged capitulation on the part of the legislative branch to executive claims of power." Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) indicated yesterday that the Specter bill would be met with fierce resistance on the Senate floor. While Specter's bill "would sharply diminish judicial oversight of intelligence surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and expand unilateral presidential authority," Feinstein's bill would "would reaffirm that FISA is the exclusive mechanism for conducting domestic intelligence surveillance," and would protect "Americans’ civil liberties while making reasonable changes to ensure that the U.S. intelligence community can continue to operate and protect the nation with the necessary FISA court oversight." Despite being opposed by the Bush administration, Feinstein's bill was the only version to pass the Judiciary Committee with bipartisan support and should form the basis of legislation that can be passed to preserve the NSA program.