McCain Defends Interrogation Agreement

GOP Interrogations Deal Grants Bush Leeway On Terror Suspects

(CBS/AP) 
President Bush has been pushing legislation that would endorse the CIA program since June, when the Supreme Court ruled al Qaeda members must be protected under the Geneva Conventions, a 1949 treaty that sets international standards for the treatment of war prisoners.

"Look, we couldn't outline everything that should be done," McCain said. "We tried to outline what couldn't be done under the War Crimes Act, leaving the Geneva Conventions alone, which was our first and utmost priority."

Before the court ruling, the legality of the interrogation program relied on Mr. Bush's assumption that the combatants were not protected under the treaty and, therefore, could be subjected to aggressive techniques.

U.S. officials say the Supreme Court ruling — which also determined the trials Mr. Bush established to prosecute the terrorists were illegal — threw cold water on the program because of fears interrogators could be prosecuted for war crimes.

The White House wanted to have Congress endorse the program with a law narrowly defining Geneva Convention standards, giving the president the latitude he wanted to continue the CIA program.

But when three GOP senators objected and were joined by growing numbers of allies — claiming such a move would be seen as an attempt to back out of the treaty — the White House relented. In a deal struck Thursday, the White House and Senate Republicans agreed to drop from the bill an abbreviated definition of Geneva Convention standards.

But enough legal parsing was added to the bill to achieve the president's desired effect anyway.

The Republican bill provides legal protection for the CIA program by precisely defining and enumerating atrocities widely accepted as war crimes — including torture, rape, biological experiments, and cruel and inhuman treatment.

For acts that do not rise to the level of a war crime but may test the bounds of the Geneva Conventions, the GOP bill allows the president to make the call.

The net effect is to raise the legal bar on war crime violations, making it tougher to prosecute a U.S. official unless the act meets those definitions.

"It sounds like the administration got a pretty good deal actually" because it would reinstate the president's prerogative, said John Yoo, a former Justice Department lawyer who helped write internal memos in 2002 designed to give the government more leeway in aggressive questioning of suspects.

Human rights lawyers disagree on whether this flexibility, along with the bill's definition of cruel treatment, would endorse such techniques as "waterboarding" — a method intended to simulate the sensation of drowning. Waterboarding and similar interrogation methods allegedly used by the CIA are not specifically identified as war crimes although some say these techniques could qualify as cruel and inhumane.

"Look, the ACLU and the New York Times don't like the agreement, but we think people will recognize that it defends both our values and our security," McCain said. "Some want the CIA not to be able to carry out this program. That was never our intent. But it's very important that we have this tool to collect intelligence."

But, legal experts agree, in the end it will be up to the president to determine when most interrogation methods go too far. The bill bans detainees from protesting their detention and treatment in court.

"You always run into the potential ... that we're going to go back to secret prisons and bad things will happen," said John Hutson, a former Navy judge advocate general. "And there's really not a way in legislation to make sure that doesn't happen."

McCain, who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam for five years and was subjected to torture, said it is not for him to say whether or not the CIA should close any secret prisons, but it is important for the United States to be careful about its image in the world.

"But we also have to balance that with the ability to win this war on terror," he said. "And gathering of intelligence is a very important tool."

Congress is expected to vote on the bill before lawmakers leave at the end of next week for midterm elections. While the bill has been agreed to by the Senate, House conservatives have said they were concerned with the provision that requires a defendant access to evidence if used in an attempt to convict him or her. This stipulation could expose sensitive or classified information, they said.