Quotes of the Day

The just-announced deal between the White House and three Republican senators over rules to govern military tribunals and interrogation of so-called enemy combatants in the war on terror amounts to an ambiguous compromise in which all sides are claiming victory.

One part of the dispute arose several weeks ago when President Bush called on Congress to interpret the Geneva Conventions, offering legal guidance on what would and would not be permissible during CIA interrogations of terrorist suspects. The senators opposed the idea, arguing that to in effect amend the Geneva Conventions would be a mistake, in part because other nations might try to do the same as a possible justification for mistreating American prisoners in their custody.

The other part of the dispute emerged from a Supreme Court decision last summer in the case of a Guantanamo prisoner named Hamdan. The court ruled that the prisoner was entitled to additional due process rights at trial, a move that required Congress to define those rights in statute.

The three Republican senators who opposed a White House version of the bill — Senators John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and John Warner of Virginia — said the just-announced compromise with the White House met their fundamental requirements by first leaving the provisions of the Geneva Conventions untouched and second, by guaranteeing prisoners facing military tribunals basic rights and fairness. The Bush Administration had favored a watering down of some of those rights.

The White House, for its part, also quickly labeled the compromise a success. It pointed to areas of broad discretion for President Bush in implementing the legislation, and, most important, saying that the deal would allow a key CIA interrogation program for suspected terrorists to go forward.

In a conference call with reporters soon after the compromise was reached, Bush's National Security Advisor, Stephen Hadley, hailed the deal as an example of "all Republicans coming together" to promote the national interest — a clear indication of the political pressure the White House and G.O.P. senators were under to reach agreement and prevent a widening rift over the issue inside the party.

Hadley said the legislation will enumerate "grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions which, if committed, could expose U.S. officials to criminal prosecution. The list includes acts such as rape, murder and intentional infliction of bodily harm. For less-than-grave breaches, however, President Bush would be given authority to interpret the Geneva Conventions provisions through an executive order. Defendants and their lawyers will not be given access to classified material in military tribunals, and prosecutors will enjoy wide latitude, according to Hadley, in the use of hearsay evidence, with burden on the accused to show that such evidence is either unreliable on irrelevant before it could be excluded.

For all the talk of a grand compromise, the deal threatens continued limbo to the vast majority of roughly 450 prisoners currently at Guantanamo. Many of them have "habeas corpus" cases pending before US federal courts — cases filed after a 2004 Supreme Court decision that allowed them to bring cases forcing the U.S. government to either criminally charge or release them.

But the new legislative agreement — which could be presented for a signature in the Oval Office as soon as House and Senate versions of the bill are reconciled, probably by next week — would provide new language that, in effect, voids those pending cases.

Earlier this week, the American Bar Association wrote to members of Congress protesting provisions of the House proposal, notably Section 5, which "strips judicial review of existing habeas corpus claims for detainees in U.S. custody."

If it became law, such a provision would set trial rules for notorious alleged terrorists like presumed 9/11 mastermind Khaled Sheik Mohammad, as hundreds of prisoners who have never been criminally charged with anything are denied a hearing to determine on what basis they are being held.

"Eliminating habeas will effectively sanction precisely the coercive interrogations that Graham, Warner and McCain have tried to oppose by allowing people to be detained indefinitely based on evidence elicited by torture," argues Jonathan Hafetz of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, who represents Guantanmo prisoners. He points, for example, to Mohammad al-Qahtani, the so-called 20th hijacker, who was repeatedly abused during his interrogation at Guantanamo, and who has since implicated some 30 other fellow prisoners who are still being held without trial.

• ADAM ZAGORIN
• Bush and the renegade G.O.P. senators finally agree on a bill to define how terror suspects should be treated. And everyone is claiming victory