In President Bush?s effort to refocus voter attention on national security and away from the war in Iraq, it?s not Democrats causing him trouble. It?s a small band of Senate Republicans.
Four Senate members of Bush?s party joined all 11 Democrats on the Senate Armed Services Committee the other day to approve rival legislation on war detainee treatment sponsored by Chairman John Warner, of Virginia; John McCain, of Arizona; and Lindsey Graham, of South Carolina. GOP Sen. Susan Collins of Maine voted with them.
The trio?s bill requires the Geneva Convention?s protections against torture as well as the right to see critical evidence against them apply to detainees. It comes at a time when Bush wants Republicans in Congress to reinstate his harsher approach, rejected by the Supreme Court.
Bush showed his concern by his decision to hold a news conference the morning after a rare visit to Capitol Hill, where he thanked the House Armed Services Committee for passing his version that would allow unspecified “alternative” interrogation measures to be used by the CIA. But his problem is on the other side of the Capitol.
He clearly intended the argument over how detainees are to be treated to be a key element in the Sept. 11 anniversary drive to emphasize how terrorism threatens the safety of Americans at home.
The president has repeatedly argued that such safety is tied to the ability to gain information from detainees about plans for any future attacks, even as some military officials have said harsh treatment is usually not the best way to cull intelligence from prisoners.
At stake is not only Bush?s proposed detainee protections, which the Senate opponents say could undercut the Geneva Conventions on torture and put future American prisoners in similar jeopardy. Many in the Senate are belatedly seeking to stop the president from expanding executive power in a wartime environment.
Nor is the rebellion against Bush on the detainee issue confined to the Senate. In earlier congressional testimony, top military lawyers also raised objections to the Bush approach in an unusual open rebuff to the president.
That led the White House to release a letter Thursday signed by some of them saying they “do not object” to aspects of that approach. But that development in turn led Graham, a former Air Force lawyer, to say he will seek a committee hearing to get to the bottom of the signers? switch.
Another major Republican voice with great military experience also weighed in. Retired Gen. Colin Powell, Bush?s first secretary of state, wrote a letter to McCain challenging Bush?s approach. “I do not support such a step and believe it would be inconsistent,” he wrote, with McCain?s position tying acceptable interrogation practices to the Geneva Convention language. “The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism,” he added.
In his news conference Friday, Bush said his only purpose in his approach is to achieve the “clarity” absent in the Geneva Conventions, so that American interrogators will know what they can do. If such clarity is not provided by Congress, the president warned, the necessary interrogations willstop, because the questioners will balk at sticking their necks out.
It?s a threat that may persuade the opposing Senate Republicans to fall in line. But it may not, and Bush dodged whether he would veto the rival bill if it passes. Such passage, however, would enable him to argue that the Democrats, who will have provided the bulk of the votes, were responsible for endangering the safety of Americans at home.
One way or the other, national security will remain on the front burner in the November elections. And the Bush administration will again count on convincing voters, as it did in 2002 and 2004, that keeping Republicans in power is their best bet against the terrorist threat.
Jules Witcover, a Baltimore Examiner columnist, is syndicated by Tribune Media Services. He has covered national affairs from Washington for more than 50 years and is the author of 11 books, and co-author of five others, on American politics and history.
