Bait and Switch? Or Not?

After months of fighting John McCain's anti-torture amendment, the White House appears to have fallen in line:

After months of resistance, the White House has agreed to accept Sen. John McCain's call for a law specifically banning cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of foreign suspects in the war on terror, several congressional officials said Thursday.

The congressional officials spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they did not want to pre-empt an expected announcement later in the day at the White House, possibly by President Bush and McCain.

I say "appears" because just a couple days ago it seemed like the White House was rewriting the rules:

The Army has approved a new, classified set of interrogation methods that may complicate negotiations over legislation proposed by Senator John McCain to bar cruel and inhumane treatment of detainees in American custody, military officials said Tuesday.

The techniques are included in a 10-page classified addendum to a new Army field manual that was forwarded this week to Stephen A. Cambone, the under secretary of defense for intelligence policy, for final approval, they said.

The addendum provides dozens of examples and goes into exacting detail on what procedures may or may not be used, and in what circumstances. Army interrogators have never had a set of such specific guidelines that would help teach them how to walk right up to the line between legal and illegal interrogations.

Some military officials said the new guidelines could give the impression that the Army was pushing the limits on legal interrogation at the very moment when Mr. McCain, Republican of Arizona, is involved in intense three-way negotiations with the House and the Bush administration to prohibit the cruel treatment of prisoners.

In a high-level meeting at the Pentagon on Tuesday, some Army and other Pentagon officials raised concerns that Mr. McCain would be furious at what could appear to be a back-door effort to circumvent his intentions.

"This is a stick in McCain's eye," one official said. "It goes right up to the edge. He's not going to be comfortable with this."

But this last paragraph in the AP article confuses the issue again:

McCain's original amendment would have prohibited "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" of anyone in U.S. government custody, regardless of where they are held. It also would have required that service members follow procedures in the Army Field Manual during interrogations of prisoners in Defense Department facilities.

In discussions with the White House, that was altered to bring it into conformity with the Uniform Code of Military Justice. That says that anyone accused of violating interrogation rules can defend themselves if a "reasonable" person could have concluded they were following a lawful order.

So did McCain pre-empt the talks and circumvent the Field Manual changes? Or did the White House try to move the matter into the UCMJ? It's unclear. What I do know is that, with overwhelming majorities in the Senate and House (which passed a nonbinding resolution of support for McCain's amendment yesterday by an almost 3-1 margin), the Bush Administration's hands were tied, and I think their underhanded attempt to wriggle out of the situation failed. Of course, I wouldn't put it past McCain to declare a political victory despite having the teeth taken out of the provision.

Either way, the increased attention on this issue has codified public support against torture (which is amazing that needed to be debated), and put those who support it out on a lonely island. The DCCC should have a lot of fun next year making ads out of yesterday's House vote, isolating the 120 or so legislators that voted for torture.

This isn't the end of the line on this, as Congressional oversight must be maintained so we don't have another Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo ever again. But it's a step.