Powell joins GOP clash over terror - Ex-secretary of state, senators counter Bush
Powell joins GOP clash over terror - Ex-secretary of state, senators counter Bush
By Richard Simon, Julian E. Barnes and Janet Hook, Tribune Newspapers: Los Angeles Times; Times staff writer Paul Richter in
Washington contributed to this report
Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune
Published September 15, 2006
WASHINGTON -- A Republican-controlled Senate committee dealt a blow to President Bush's national security agenda Thursday, approving a bill that expands the legal rights afforded to terrorism detainees. The rebuke capped a day of bruising political combat in which Bush traveled to the Capitol to seek support but was confronted by a stinging repudiation by former Secretary of State Colin Powell.
In the debate over the president's anti-terrorism legislation, the Bush administration expected to distinguish Republicans from Democrats on the crucial issue of national security and provide its allies with a needed election-year boost. Instead, the controversy provoked an intraparty battle that has split the GOP.
That rift deepened Thursday when Powell waded into the debate with a letter in which he sided with Republicans who advocate stricter protections for terrorism detainees and warned against Bush's proposal, which allows for harsher treatment and more extreme methods of interrogation.
"The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism," Powell said, adding that Bush's proposal "would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our troops at risk."
Powell's broad criticism of the president's approach to terrorism, underscoring the falling-out between Bush and his former top diplomat, surprised many in Washington.
The Senate panel rebuff to the White House came from the Armed Services Committee, which approved 15-9 a bill backed by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). The panel's 11 Democrats joined McCain and three other Republicans--Chairman John Warner of Virginia, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Sen. Susan Collins of Maine--to recommend the full Senate adopt the bill. The "no" votes were cast by Republicans.
It was a remarkable setback for Bush just as he had seemed to be strengthening his political position in debate over national security policy. Over the last week, Bush had thrown Democrats on the defensive with hard-hitting speeches on terrorism while the president's allies tried to cast doubt about Democrats' toughness in the face of the threat.
With less than two months before the midterm elections, there were hints that Bush was beginning to succeed in getting political advantage from his relentless focus on security issues. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll showed that, after his series of speeches, Bush's overall approval rating and marks on handling the war in Iraq had risen modestly.
The poll was released Thursday, a day that began with the president sweeping up to Capitol Hill to rally his GOP troops in a closed-door meeting and ended with a fight over military tribunals in which Bush was pitted, not against Democrats, but against senior members of his own party.
Powell's public rejection of the White House view is unusual coming from a former Cabinet member, but it has been clear for some time that the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff disagreed with the administration's conservative line on many points.
Powell had let it be known before his resignation in early 2005 that he had doubts about the war in Iraq.
During his four years in office, he carried on a running battle with administration hawks on a variety of issues, including the need for the United States to follow international norms. He feared that the war in Iraq was damaging the U.S. forces, and warned that scandal surrounding the mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib had badly hurt America's moral standing in the world.
Powell made it clear that by the time he left he was tired of clashes with Vice President Dick Cheney and other hard-liners. He conceded publicly that because of the failures of the intelligence community, he had urged UN members to join forces against Iraq based on faulty evidence.
For their part Thursday, Bush's allies released letters of support for the administration plan, including one from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Campaign `choice' less clear
The day's muddled results could undercut any political advantage that the Republican National Committee had been seeking to cast the national security debate in partisan terms.
"Here you have a bunch of Republicans infighting," said Phil Singer, spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. "It undermines the RNC effort to cast this election as a choice" between diametrically opposed political parties when it comes to the war on terror.
The debate also reopens divisions between the president and McCain, who had been Bush's leading opponent in the 2000 presidential primary and a frequent thorn in his side during his first term in the White House.
The center of the fight over detainees is Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which establishes basic protections that must be offered to all combatants--whether they are terrorists, warring tribes, insurgents or any other kind of irregular fighter.
The administration's bill would redefine Common Article 3, which outlaws torture as well as "affront to personal dignity." The administration contends the article is too vague, and White House spokesman Tony Snow said the administration was trying, not to amend the Geneva Conventions but to "clarify" it.
No, we're not trying to change anything," Snow said. "We're trying to figure out what it means."
Without clarifying Geneva, said John Negroponte, the director of national intelligence, the CIA would be forced to close down a program under which it detains and interrogates so-called high-value detainees because intelligence officers would be unsure of the rules and could be exposed to prosecution or lawsuits.
But McCain said the bill he supports has ample legal protections for interrogators. He has argued that redefining Geneva would send a message that the U.S. was no longer following the accepted definitions of Common Article 3, giving other countries and armed groups an excuse to strip international protections from captured U.S. soldiers.
Bush ally sees `uphill battle'
Backers of the administration's bill conceded it was unlikely that Bush's proposal would prevail.
"We're fighting an uphill battle," said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas).
By day's end, administration officials and their congressional allies conceded the battle was probably lost in the Senate and that Bush would have to regroup when the Senate bill is reconciled later with a differing House version that closely mirrors Bush's proposal.
Bush, after a private meeting with House GOP rank and file, praised the House Armed Services Committee for passing tribunal legislation "in a bipartisan fashion that will give us the tools and wherewithal to protect this country."
The House is expected to approve its tribunal legislation next week.
The legislation was necessitated by a Supreme Court ruling in June striking down the administration's earlier rules for prosecuting accused terrorists, in part because the administration's system of military commissions violated the Geneva Conventions' Common Article 3 protections.
The White House has pressed Congress to swiftly enact the legislation so that alleged Sept. 11 planner Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and 13 other suspected top leaders of Al Qaeda now at the U.S. detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, can be put on trial.
By Richard Simon, Julian E. Barnes and Janet Hook, Tribune Newspapers: Los Angeles Times; Times staff writer Paul Richter in
Washington contributed to this report
Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune
Published September 15, 2006
WASHINGTON -- A Republican-controlled Senate committee dealt a blow to President Bush's national security agenda Thursday, approving a bill that expands the legal rights afforded to terrorism detainees. The rebuke capped a day of bruising political combat in which Bush traveled to the Capitol to seek support but was confronted by a stinging repudiation by former Secretary of State Colin Powell.
In the debate over the president's anti-terrorism legislation, the Bush administration expected to distinguish Republicans from Democrats on the crucial issue of national security and provide its allies with a needed election-year boost. Instead, the controversy provoked an intraparty battle that has split the GOP.
That rift deepened Thursday when Powell waded into the debate with a letter in which he sided with Republicans who advocate stricter protections for terrorism detainees and warned against Bush's proposal, which allows for harsher treatment and more extreme methods of interrogation.
"The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism," Powell said, adding that Bush's proposal "would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our troops at risk."
Powell's broad criticism of the president's approach to terrorism, underscoring the falling-out between Bush and his former top diplomat, surprised many in Washington.
The Senate panel rebuff to the White House came from the Armed Services Committee, which approved 15-9 a bill backed by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). The panel's 11 Democrats joined McCain and three other Republicans--Chairman John Warner of Virginia, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Sen. Susan Collins of Maine--to recommend the full Senate adopt the bill. The "no" votes were cast by Republicans.
It was a remarkable setback for Bush just as he had seemed to be strengthening his political position in debate over national security policy. Over the last week, Bush had thrown Democrats on the defensive with hard-hitting speeches on terrorism while the president's allies tried to cast doubt about Democrats' toughness in the face of the threat.
With less than two months before the midterm elections, there were hints that Bush was beginning to succeed in getting political advantage from his relentless focus on security issues. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll showed that, after his series of speeches, Bush's overall approval rating and marks on handling the war in Iraq had risen modestly.
The poll was released Thursday, a day that began with the president sweeping up to Capitol Hill to rally his GOP troops in a closed-door meeting and ended with a fight over military tribunals in which Bush was pitted, not against Democrats, but against senior members of his own party.
Powell's public rejection of the White House view is unusual coming from a former Cabinet member, but it has been clear for some time that the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff disagreed with the administration's conservative line on many points.
Powell had let it be known before his resignation in early 2005 that he had doubts about the war in Iraq.
During his four years in office, he carried on a running battle with administration hawks on a variety of issues, including the need for the United States to follow international norms. He feared that the war in Iraq was damaging the U.S. forces, and warned that scandal surrounding the mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib had badly hurt America's moral standing in the world.
Powell made it clear that by the time he left he was tired of clashes with Vice President Dick Cheney and other hard-liners. He conceded publicly that because of the failures of the intelligence community, he had urged UN members to join forces against Iraq based on faulty evidence.
For their part Thursday, Bush's allies released letters of support for the administration plan, including one from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Campaign `choice' less clear
The day's muddled results could undercut any political advantage that the Republican National Committee had been seeking to cast the national security debate in partisan terms.
"Here you have a bunch of Republicans infighting," said Phil Singer, spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. "It undermines the RNC effort to cast this election as a choice" between diametrically opposed political parties when it comes to the war on terror.
The debate also reopens divisions between the president and McCain, who had been Bush's leading opponent in the 2000 presidential primary and a frequent thorn in his side during his first term in the White House.
The center of the fight over detainees is Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which establishes basic protections that must be offered to all combatants--whether they are terrorists, warring tribes, insurgents or any other kind of irregular fighter.
The administration's bill would redefine Common Article 3, which outlaws torture as well as "affront to personal dignity." The administration contends the article is too vague, and White House spokesman Tony Snow said the administration was trying, not to amend the Geneva Conventions but to "clarify" it.
No, we're not trying to change anything," Snow said. "We're trying to figure out what it means."
Without clarifying Geneva, said John Negroponte, the director of national intelligence, the CIA would be forced to close down a program under which it detains and interrogates so-called high-value detainees because intelligence officers would be unsure of the rules and could be exposed to prosecution or lawsuits.
But McCain said the bill he supports has ample legal protections for interrogators. He has argued that redefining Geneva would send a message that the U.S. was no longer following the accepted definitions of Common Article 3, giving other countries and armed groups an excuse to strip international protections from captured U.S. soldiers.
Bush ally sees `uphill battle'
Backers of the administration's bill conceded it was unlikely that Bush's proposal would prevail.
"We're fighting an uphill battle," said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas).
By day's end, administration officials and their congressional allies conceded the battle was probably lost in the Senate and that Bush would have to regroup when the Senate bill is reconciled later with a differing House version that closely mirrors Bush's proposal.
Bush, after a private meeting with House GOP rank and file, praised the House Armed Services Committee for passing tribunal legislation "in a bipartisan fashion that will give us the tools and wherewithal to protect this country."
The House is expected to approve its tribunal legislation next week.
The legislation was necessitated by a Supreme Court ruling in June striking down the administration's earlier rules for prosecuting accused terrorists, in part because the administration's system of military commissions violated the Geneva Conventions' Common Article 3 protections.
The White House has pressed Congress to swiftly enact the legislation so that alleged Sept. 11 planner Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and 13 other suspected top leaders of Al Qaeda now at the U.S. detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, can be put on trial.
posted by Carlos T Mock @ 10:32 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home