Skip to main content

I'd been sitting out this particular brawl, given that so many lefty bloggers were weighing in.

Yesterday, I got drawn in by Jonathan's piece headed Pro-Geneva Convention Coalition Nears Filibuster-Proof Margin.

Now, since, on the whole, lefties tend to support the Geneva Conventions, and because of the filibuster-proof bit, I concluded that Jonathan was saying that the coalition -

The coalition of Democratic Senators and a handful of Republicans -- most notably John Warner, Lindsey Graham and John McCain -- opposed to President Bush's reinterpretation of the Geneva Convention's requirement for fair trials and prohibition against torture...

- was a jolly fine thing worthy of MyDDers support.

I put in a caveat downthread that the Warner bill S 3901(the one apparently supported by this pro-Geneva coalition) wasn't obviously different from the House bill that gives the White House what it wants.

Now, it's the most soul-destroying job in the world (for a comfortably situated white boy, at least!) to compare two pretty similar bills and play spot the difference - most particularly when you know that folks far more knowledgeable than you are are doing the selfsame thing at that very time!

But from what I've read, the differences between the bills, while material, are hardly earthshattering.

For example, this piece from Tom Paine says

he bill, sponsored by Senator Warner and championed by McCain and Graham, contains better military commission procedures, provisions the administration has resisted. And for that, sections of the bill should be applauded.  Unlike the administration's proposed legislation, the Warner bill would not permit defendants to be convicted based on evidence gleaned by torture. Nor would it allow defendants to be excluded from large portions of their own trials.

On the other hand, we have
Section 6, which seeks to end any and all judicial review of overseas detention of non-citizens.

And, in addition, the bill's definition of hostilities -
A provision of the bill defines "unlawful enemy combatants" to include those "engaged in hostilities against the United States."

- could justify the detention of US citizens as well as non-citizens.

I'd say that was quite enough to warrant lefties - and Dem MCs most particularly - being very reluctant to accept the Warner compromise bill without a whole lot more study and reflection.

(We know that the current regime will take a yard if you give it an inch. And even a Dem regime can hardly be assumed trustworthy if written a black check.)

But it seems that, right now, there's a mood amongst Dem MCs to go with the Warner bill - for example, apparently Ike Skelton offered the Warner bill as a substitute amendment during the HASC markup of HR 6054 which was

rejected [] on a straight party-line vote

The framing is the simplest in the world: Warner is the compromise bill - it's Gang of 14 time again. (The Times today, for instance.)

Which makes any MCs opposing the bill opposed to compromise, bomb-throwers, egomaniacs, un-American, etc, etc.

Which Dem MCs have been speaking out against a precipitate decision on legislation under the gun of the November elections?

What is the big hurry with this bill? Is it simply that Bush is worried about the 110th falling into Dem hands?

How bad would the Warner bill really be from his viewpoint? Was the admin bill always just a negotiating position? (Do I even need to ask?)

What sort of timetable for floor action in each house are we looking at?

Originally posted to skeptic06 on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 03:12 PM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site