"But, the problem is the complete deferral to the President on this determination"

You can add Vice President to that list:

Changes Bush has authorized to Executive Order 12333 give Chenny (Vice President) more power, these include that added passage [my bold]:

"1.4 The Intelligence Community. The agencies within the Intelligence Community shall, in accordance with applicable United States law and with the other provisions of this Order, conduct intelligence activities necessary for the conduct of foreign relations and the protection of the national security of the United States, including:

(a) Collection of information needed by the President and, in the performance of Executive functions, the Vice President, the National Security Council, the Secretaries of State and Defense, and other Executive Branch officials for the performance of their duties and responsibilities;

...

(b)(1) Develop such objectives and guidance for the Intelligence Community necessary, in the Director's judgment, to ensure timely and effective collection, processing, analysis, and dissemination of intelligence, of whatever nature and from whatever source derived, concerning current and potential threats to the security of the United States and its interests, and to ensure that the National Foreign Intelligence Program (NFIP) is structured adequately to achieve these requirements; and

(2) Working with the Intelligence Community, ensure that United States intelligence collection activities are integrated in:

(i) collecting against enduring and emerging national security intelligence issues;

(ii) maximizing the value to the national security; and

(iii) ensuring that all collected data is available to the maximum extent practicable for integration, analysis, and dissemination to those who can act on, add value to, or otherwise apply it to mission needs."
http://cryptome.org/eo12333-amend.htm

Why-o-why you guys don't seem to read my emails, I don't know!!

Regs, Shaggy

On KPFA Radio's Morning Show today (plug) the point was made that the whole torture thing, bad is it is, was overshadowing the other feature of this agreement, and that was to deny Habeus Corpus to these detainees, such as those in Guantanamo. No opportunity to have any sort of judicial review of the "case" against them. 900 years of legal history, 2 centuries of the Constitution, out the window. Call McCain tragic if you will, but he is being party to the dismemberment of the Constitution, and that's an outrage, not just a tragedy.

Cynicism is almost always rewarded when assessing the intentions of the Bush Administration and the moral rectitude of GOP lickspittles in the House and Senate.

In a perverse way, we should be happy that McCain gave the President such broad authority. If the "compromise" had been limited to the issues of habeas corpus and the War Crimes Act, the legal issues would have been sufficiently complex to confuse and bewilder the press. But allowing the President (of all people) to define torture? That's such an obvious gift that even a 7-year old would understand its significance.

If Democrats are going to rise up and make a stand, they should do so on this point alone. Giving the guy who wants to torture the sole authority to define what constitutes torture is a fairly easy position to attack. Habeas corpus and the War Crimes Act are a bit too complicated for the press...

Sadly, the only way that this issue will gain currency with the American people is if the McCain accolytes among the Washington punditry call him on it.

Actually, "Huckleberry" strikes me as an ethnic slur. I share your sense of betrayal, but I think it is better to call it what it is - betrayal. I agree with everything substantive that you said, but I think your substantive points are powerful enough that they do not require embellishment.

In 2002, the rest of the world was feeling sorry for us American citizens because we'd had this dreadful president foisted on us by a faulty vote count, arm-twisting, and a testerone-free Supreme Court. But we were still good people...

In 2004, the rest of the world began to think it might revise its opinion of the "average American" after Bush squeaked through the electoral process again.

In 2006, you can bet the whole damn world is looking at us squinty-eyed in much the same way we are looking at John McCain and thinking, we thought these people were decent and trustworthy. But they've shown otherwise. They've allowed this to happen. We might still be able to redeem ourselves in the eyes of decent people, but I think if we were going to, we'd have done it by now.

This ought to be the moment when John McCain loses his status as a serious contender for the Presidency. If he can't stand up to a pissy little man like G.W. Bush on a moral issue as clear-cut as torture, than he doesn't deserve to be a significant figure in our political landscape.

Cripes, how do you think I feel coming from the UK where we have a leader who does not lead but follows!!!

Regs, Shaggy

The administration can thank the Fox network for the program "24" for greasing the skids for torture. Jack Bauer threatens and tortures people for information, gets it and saves the day. It works for him. The program never has a situation when a guy gives Jack bogus information and derails the hero. Putting it into an entertaining program makes it more palatable. The big difference between a fictional TV show and the reality of what Bush/Cheney are demanding is that Jack gets his answers right away in a specific situation - "where is the nerve gas?" - and stops the torture.
Bush is demanding the legalization for torture of detainees any time after their capture. Intelligence professionals (Professionals- Bush's new branding, used in last week's Rose Garden hissy fit) say that information extracted by torture from detainees long after their capture is worthless. What timely information can be gained years after a person is captured? This would apply to detainees at GitMo who were captured in 2001. Intelligence professionals also argue against torture because the information is often given to make the torture stop. The sensation of drowning makes people say anything. This is certainly the case with Maher Arar who was kidnapped from JFK airport and extraordinarily rendered to Syria for off-the-books torture. He told them what they wanted to hear just to make it stop. What good is intelligence gathered in this fashion?
McCain should know this from personal experience. He has lost all credibility on the subject by lying down with the dogs in the White House today. It was a good example of Gramm-standing - being against it for the media, then acquiescing to the president in the end.

I did at one point have a bit of respect for McCain but that evaporated like the morning dew.  I agree what he did was a betrayal. 

But (and I probably might not get rated universally high for this comment) I feel the dems need to take some heat for this whole debacle.  They need to lead just as much as McCain, if not more so and say torture is un-American.  And the dems will probably just roll over and let Bush pet their tummies like they are lap dogs...again.  But I will be interested to see if they have any "pit bull" in them in terms of leadership if they take control of one or both of the bodies of Congress after the election.

Yes. tragic, shmagic. McCain is a coward. A whiny-ass titty baby. It's just that simple. And so is every politician, Democrat or Republican, who allows this bill to pass instead of fighting it to his or her dying breath. If you can't stand up to George Bush on the issue of torture, you are worthless as a human being.

We didn't need torture when we had 20,000 nuclear warheads aimed at us by a country whose declared intent was to bury us.

Am I the only one who sees this whole bill and the dance around it as a sham? The idea is to pass something which appears "tough" before the election to reinforce Bush's theme. It also gives the dynamic threesome some pretend independence.

After 2006 when it comes up (and fails) judicial review it won't matter since the election will be over.

--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape

I'm thinking rdf has it right, as all a political ploy. Here we've got an administration looking bad about "losing" the war in Iraq and even the supposed GWOT, with people feeling less secure and the distinction between which party keeps us strong, a creation of PR to start with, vanishing. Then there come the growing revelations of abuses both at home, directed at people at least a little bit like "us," and abroad, turning into a real embarrassment. So how perfect: you turn the embarrassment around by making it not what you look like when caught with your pants down but intentional mooning, with anyone who objects not macho enough to join the shennanigans. 

This doesn't mean I have a clue how to reduce its effectiveness. If that means I'm like Kerry allegedly was after Swift Boating, so be it. I'm just cynical. 

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

Am I asking for too much, or is Colin Powell perhaps good for another letter?

Why can't some Democrat, or better yet a bunch of them, take up the mantle of defending national character, national image, our own troops if captured, morality, or something? Can we stand for the troops here?

I'm really not happy with any assessment that America's people have gone so low that this is a political issue to fear.

Is there any reason NOT to seek the high ground?

McCain's not tragic; he's an opportunist who pretends he won't compromise his principles - but he always caves in in the end.

Tom

I'd like to read it too as information I have says it's retroactive to 1997:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001589.php

F***ing DISGRACEFUL!!

Regs, Shaggy

This is the sentence in Lederman that really chills: "...The President's interpretation and application of the Geneva Conventions will be virtually unreviewable, no matter who the affected parties may be, in this and other armed conflicts, now and in the future . . . across the board."

Aside from all other considerations, do you think a Democratic president would seek to have this overturned? Politicians with big enough egos and fires in bellies, jittery with the realization that they made it, may not be willing to toss out executive powers they once disparaged.

Should we have tortured Timothy McVeigh?

D.G.: As for the larger issue torture is a horrible thing that whether a moral absolutist or relativist should horrify everyone. However, it is not at all clear that most Americans don't see Arabs and Muslims as an enormous threat to American lives and that they dersever whatever they get, especially in the name of protecting lives.

Torture is bad, but them A-rabs deserve it? Daniel, Israel aside, do you really believe this? I don’t think America has become that bigoted just because a small group of fanatics had incredible luck in carrying out an attack on us. I am surprised by a new poll showing that 31% still think Saddam was tied to 9/11, but I put that down to the willfully blind or the ill-informed who get their news from the Factor or the Tonight Show or Joe Blow at the local tavern.

The left has never been an "apologist" for al Qaeda (did you get that word from being called one for Israel?). There is no reason, in the first place, to enact legislation regarding treatment of “combatants.” Geneva, UCMJ, and even McCain’s Detainee Amendment are clear enough. Congress should not be enacting anything. What does this legislation really allow? A "suspect," an American or another possibly innocent victim, can be grabbed off the street, held in a secret prison without access to counsel or notification of anyone, with no rights, and tortured (but only with torture that Bush doesn’t define as torture- beatings, waterboarding, physical stresses) -indefinitely. No habeus corpus? This is not America. If the Dems do not raise total hell over this, it will confirm them as sell-outs for some future measly scraps. If Americans do not raise hell over this, then America has lost its soul.

A year or two ago, a detainee in Afghanistan was beaten to death (one of many in a short period).<> He was proven to be innocent almost immediately but was “interrogated” anyway. He was hung up and beaten on the legs. No severe burning or traumas to organs were inflicted, so the beating would be legitimized under this law. But, he was a Muslim.

I agree with you wholeheartedly! If he had any integrity at all, he would have shown it after South Carolina, and he would not have gone along with this totally insane debacle.

Bu$hco delenda est

For a PDF of the GOP/WH pro-torture agreement see:

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/09/senators-snatch-defeat-from-jaws-of.html

It is a part of Marty Lederman's "Senators Snatch Defeat From Jaws of Victory: U.S. to be First Nation to Authorize Violations of Geneva"

Seriously, moral considerations aside, why would you want to? After the initial stage, he seemed proud to say what he had done.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

I agree with most of this, all but the reference to 24. So, people can't differentiate between a TV and reality? Not sure I buy that, especially in light of the recent CBS poll that said 50+% say torture should "never" be used.

And I think the people who think it's OK don't really need 24 to make them feel that way... 

Dissent Protects Democracy.

This "pillowfight," as one commentator described it, and the complete buckling of the Democrats in the face of it, convinces me that the Dems will not win the electoral majority in November. The day after election day will dawn on a continued Republican majority in both houses.

I am deeply discouraged at the display of slackjawed moral cowardice by elected Democrats all down the line. "Lead, follow, or get out of the way," goes the old saw. Democrats just got run over. In front of the whole country. And they expect me to wax enthusiastic about the prospect of their ascendancy into the leadership positions.

Thanks.

mp

If you have to ask what jazz is, you'll never know.
-- Louis Armstrong

And how about Australia, following your President unquestioningly.

Why are the democrats so silent? No participatory democracy!

Because torture is not about extracting information. That's the excuse that's given, not the reason for the action. The purpose of torture is to create fear and to assert imperial authority.
When Bush sent the word down to "take the gloves off" he wasn't really looking for actionable intelligence--and we've seen that he pretty clearly didn't get much.

This is about all those old soviet values: fear, intimidation and the assertion of naked power. It's not about getting information. It's about getting tough with the "enemy."

Naugiedoggy, I am inclined to agree with you.  Any political party which is too cowardly to speak up about abominations such as this, as well as the Katrina inaction, the Iraq morass, the pending attack on Iran, etc., is too cowardly to be trusted to run the government.  I suspect that a great many  potential voters will just sit out the election in disgust, based on that.  There is a  psychological "condition" called fear of success that seems to afflict the Democrats.  No matter how outrageous the acts of the Republicans, Democrats fail to take advantage of them, for fear they will be asked to take charge of the government.  This is not the greatest generation of Democrats. 

Hoppy in Sacramento

You don't seem read to carefully. Torture is unacceptable against anyone. Even though the Muslims in Iraq seem to be the biggest practioners of torture. However, Bush, the right have gauged correctly that many Americans are willing to use torture both to mitigate their fear and to seek vengence on Al anQaeda, Hezbollah and the like. This debases America.

However, it does not help that the left are both regular apologists and deniers of the evil done by Bin Laden and Hezbollah. Do you really believe as you imply that car bombing, murdering people by the thousands is acceptable?

Unfortunately the fools on both the left and the right are putting both Americans values and saftey at risk.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Many of the Dems are pro-choice imperialists as opposed to most Republicans who are anti-choice imperialists. Since many Dems are supportive of imperialist policy that can't make substantive foreign policy critiques of the Bush administration.

Tom

If I might, let me disagree slightly. Torture is rarely of any use in getting information from those of foreign enemies.

I am just old enough to remember the fear in my grandparents' eyes during Joe McCarthy's outbursts, and how much it reminded them of the Czarist Okhrana. Lenin did not invent the Russian secret police, they of the night raids and the rubber hoses.

What torture, when institutionalized, could do was intimidate the population such that many minor offenders would immediately confess. Of course, they would be tortured anyway, for that is the way such things are done. The Soviets did "refine" such things, as with the perversion of psychiatry, to attack that which makes people who they are. The Asian communists were just a bit more brutal about it.

There is less of it in the US, but to look at some of the corpses burned before they were lynched didn't exactly speak of going gentle into that good night. I can't make up my mind if it was better or worse that it seemed to be mutual in some of the Indian Wars.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

The majority doesn’t condone torture under any circumstances (even against Muslims, fascist or not). It seems the paranoia required to totally dehumanize a group, so that torture is acceptable for that group, has not been reached. Bush Inc. tried very hard to generate that fear and they came close (they have gotten carte blanche in their GWOT, so far). And, of course, there are some Americans who would just as soon see us nuke half of the Middle East, but I don’t think we’re going to follow their lead.  OTOH, there are many conservatives who support the President in his WOT, but they do not think America is about torture.

Christie,

You gave me a 1. What part of what I said is not true?

Tom

For the record, I maybe have to make clear that I'm not at all trying to put myself on high European horses. The xenophobia on this side of the pond is equally much of a warning signal, and more of a grass root movement than the scare for "islamo-fascists" over at your side.

There is madness ascending. Jumbo jets exploding into the WTC, people jumping to their deaths and the towers collapsing produced a feeling in Americans like a debilitating kick in the gut. That feeling has not completely faded and is renewed again and again for political exploitation. I’m glad that you can see that this anti-Islam crusade is related to xenophobia. It really is about demonizing a group that is different. But the aim here is not just thickheaded bigotry- it’s all about political gain

I agree with Juliette's take on the caving in of the Republican senators on the torture bill, with the exception of her view of McCain as a tragic figure. This view assumes that he was motivated by principle in his initial opposition to Bush's attempt to have Congress legitimize the CIA's use of torture. Given the "negotiations" proceeded, however, it seems to me that McCain was either deeply cynical or a figure of farce. Cynical in that one could make the case that he, Graham, and Warner were going through the charade of opposing Bush, knowing that this would preempt the timid Democrats from speaking out themselves. They could then cave in to Bush after a few days, meanwhile having distracted our attention from Iraq and created the illusion that Republican senators do not just rubber stamp Bush's agenda. And farcical if McCain's initial opposition truly was based on principle and his own experience with torture. It doesn't say much for his moral backbone if he so easily gives up on his principle without having gained anything of substance from the "negotiations" with the White House. To call McCain a tragic figure gives him more credit for honor and moral rectitude than he merits. He sacrificed any such claims once he decided in 2004 to lend strong support to Bush's re-election and the folly in Iraq so as to court the far right wing of the Republican party for his expected presidential bid in 2008. If McCain is the best example of an honorable legislator that the Republican party has to offer, then it and we are in truly bad shape.