From the WaPo's on-line SLATE magazine's summary of major US newspapers:
Nearly everyone leads with the tentative deal between the White House
and dissident Senate Republicans on the interrogation and trial of
suspected terrorists. (Mahmoud Abbas' promise to recognize Israel tops
the Wall Street Journal's online newsbox.) The compromise legislation,
which clarifies acceptable questioning techniques and outlines
military commission procedures, seems likely to pass. With a major GOP
rift apparently closed, the papers play up the unity-and-goodwill
theme―the WSJ's quote from Sen. John McCain is typical: "We're all
winners because we've been able to come to an agreement through a
process of negotiations and consensus." But the details―not to mention
crowing from the White House―indicate that the administration is
walking off with a major victory while allowing the Senate to save
face. And by focusing solely on the provisions over which the two
sides disagreed, the major papers overlook potentially troubling areas
of GOP agreement.
The proposed deal's political significance is obvious: It should
allow Congress to head into the fall campaign with a divisive issue
resolved, USA Today notes. Details were hammered out Thursday at a
lengthy Capitol Hill meeting between administration officials and the
Republican opposition's leaders (McCain, Lindsey Graham, and John
Warner). The senators had resisted administration efforts to
reinterpret the nation's Geneva Conventions obligations regarding the
treatment of prisoners. They also were opposed to trials that
permitted classified evidence terror detainees would not be allowed to
confront.
On the surface, the senators seem to have beaten back President
Bush's efforts. The Los Angeles Times certainly plays it that way,
calling the agreement a "major concession" on Bush's part and citing
the approval of at least one major human rights group.
But the New York Times explains that while the Bush administration
agreed not to reinterpret the Geneva Conventions, an international
treaty, the senators agreed that the War Crimes Act, a domestic law,
should define what constitutes "grave breaches" of the conventions. As
for less serious violations of the conventions ("those lying between
cruelty and minor abuse," as the Post puts it), the senators agreed
Bush should be given the authority to judge the conventions' "meaning
and application." (He will have to publish his interpretation, but
details remain sketchy.) In short, the deal seems to be redefinition
once removed, and the Post indicates that may have been all the McCain
side wanted from the beginning. The "biggest hurdle" in negotiations,
the paper reports, "was convincing administration officials that
lawmakers would never accept language that allowed Bush to _appear_ to
be reinterpreting the Geneva Conventions" [emphasis added]. Certainly
presidential counselor Dan Bartlett views the "compromise" as one of
perception only: "We proposed a more direct approach to bringing
clarification. This one is more of the scenic route, but it gets us
there," he says in the pages of the NYT.
As for the other main point of contention―secret evidence―the
senators made more headway; the Post reports defendants will be
allowed to see it in "summary or redacted form." (Of course, the
extent of the redaction is critical: "We are sentencing you to death
because of evidence you ������������ on �������� with ������������" isn't very
helpful.) But the NYT's editorial points out that the administration
has begun trying to back out of even this modest commitment.
Examined closely then, the great compromise seems to be a great
cave-in. As the Post writes in its editorial, "In effect, the
agreement means that U.S. violations of international human rights law
can continue as long as Mr. Bush is president, with Congress's tacit
assent."
Unfortunately the major papers don't dig into what may prove to be a
significant issue with the compromise legislation. As the Christian
Science Monitor reports, even before negotiations began, both the
administration and its Senate opponents had provisions in their
respective bills that would strip detainees of their right to file an
application for a writ of habeas corpus. Apparently the goal is
turning the prison at Guantanamo Bay back into a legal black hole. <
will the DP take up the banner against this "great compromise"? don't
hold your breath. you don't look good in blue -- or black.
for no reason in particular, this reminds me of John Prine's anti-war
song, "the Great Compromise," about the US war on Vietnam:
I knew a girl who was almost a lady
She had a way with all the men in her life
Every inch of her blossomed in beauty
And she was born on the fourth of July
Well she lived in an aluminum house trailer
And she worked in a juke box saloon
And she spent all the money I give her
Just to see the old man in the moon
Chorus:
I used to sleep at the foot of Old Glory
And awake in the dawn's early light
But much to my surprise
When I opened my eyes
I was a victim of the great compromise
Well we'd go out on Saturday evenings
To the drive-in on Route 41
And it was there that I first suspected
That she was doin' what she'd already done
She said "Johnny won't you get me some popcorn"
And she knew I had to walk pretty far
And as soon as I passed through the moonlight
She hopped into a foreign sports car
(Repeat chorus)
Well you know I could have beat up that fellow
But it was her that had hopped into his car
Many times I'd fought to protect her
But this time she was goin' too far
Now some folks they call me a coward
'Cause I left her at the drive-in that night
But I'd druther have names thrown at me
Than to fight for a thing that ain't right
(Repeat chorus)
Now she writes all the fellows love letters
Saying "Greetings, come and see me real soon"
And they go and line up in the barroom
And spend the night in that sick woman's room
But sometimes I get awful lonesome
And I wish she was my girl instead
But she won't let me live with her
And she makes me live in my head
(Repeat chorus)
--
Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own
way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
