House OKs Terrorism Detainee Bill
Senate Is Expected To Pass Measure On Thursday
-
Play CBS Video Video The Detainee Agreement Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., discusses the detainee agreement and the troop levels in Iraq.
-
Video Are We Safer? A controversial intelligence report continues to raise questions about whether the United States is really winning the war on terror. David Martin reports.
-
(CBS/AP)
-
Interactive Domestic Surveillance The debate over the Bush administration's controversial wiretapping program.
-
Interactive 21st Century Spying The biggest overhaul of the U.S. intelligence community in half a century.
-
Interactive Bush Presidency The president's agenda, plus facts, figures, major events and key personalities.
The 253-168 vote in the House came shortly after senators agreed to limit debate on their own nearly identical bill, all but assuring its passage on Thursday.
Republican leaders are hoping to work out differences and send Bush a final version before leaving town this weekend to campaign for the Nov. 7 congressional elections.
For nearly two weeks the GOP have been embarrassed as the White House and rebellious Republican senators have fought publicly over whether Bush's plan would give him too much authority. But they struck a compromise last Thursday, and Republicans are hoping approval will bolster their effort to cast themselves as strong on national security, a marquee issue this election year.
House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, all but dared Democrats to vote against the legislation.
"Will my Democrat friends work with Republicans to give the president the tools he needs to continue to stop terrorist attacks before they happen, or will they vote to force him to fight the terrorists with one arm tied behind his back?" he asked just before members cast their ballots.
Four Democrats and Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania are being given opportunities to offer amendments in the Senate, but all were expected to fall with lawmakers eager to adjourn this weekend to devote the next five weeks to campaigning for re-election.
While bowing to the inevitable, Democrats continued to criticize the bill. Michigan Sen. Carl Levin, the senior Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said defendants still won't be able to confront some classified evidence against them while allowing evidence obtained through torture.
Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri, top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, said Congress was acting in "an election-year frenzy" without addressing human rights and constitutional issues raised by the bill.
"I predict that the system created by this bill will be successfully challenged in the courts," Skelton said. "Our nation cannot afford to have any terrorist convictions overturned on judicial appeal."
The president wanted Congress to pass separate legislation that would have authorized warrantless surveillance of international communications of terror suspects, as well as the separate plan to establish a court system to prosecute terrorists.
But as lawmakers scurried to finish several items before leaving town this weekend and focus instead on midterm elections, Mr. Bush's terrorism surveillance bill fell to the wayside. Vast differences between House and Senate versions of the wiretapping bill cannot be bridged before week's end, Republican officials conceded.
That allowed Republicans to focus on passing a bill that would allow Mr. Bush to put the nation's most dangerous terror suspects on trial this fall ? just as voters head to the polls.
The bill will let the Pentagon move ahead with military trials of detainees at Guantanamo, providing authority the Supreme Court said President Bush didn't have by himself, reports CBS News correspondent Bob Fuss.
It leaves the Geneva Conventions alone but says the president can interpret them. It also protects CIA agents and others from war crimes charges for using methods some define as torture.
While the bill will grant defendants more legal rights than they had under the old system, it nevertheless would permit some trial evidence not usually allowed in regular U.S. courts.
Hearsay evidence, for example, would be permitted, as long as a judge finds it to be reliable. Coerced testimony would be allowed in narrow circumstances ? generally if a judge finds it reliable and the statement was taken before a 2005 ban on cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
?MMVI, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
The secrets of tennis legend 




I speak out against the oppression and evil overtaking our once great nation because my conscience will not let me rest. I could go along to get along, but I value my integrity and love my neighbors too much. I know that speaking out will put me at the top of the list for receiving the very treatment I abhor.
I only have spectator knowledge of the horrors perpetrated upon others, so in some ways it is easy to speak up because the pain I will suffer in the future is only an abstraction right now. But I have suffered some in my life, and I recognize that it will be a great burden. I hope my family and friends appreciate my sacrifices.
I wonder how the people who are naively supporting the ushering in of tyranny will feel under the jackboot heel of oppression they brought upon themselves? Will they weep bitterly at being such fools? No, they will goosestep on their merry way believing they are infallible.
After all, the government doesn't go after anyone unless they deserve it, right?
This scenario became possible under the language changes made over the weekend behind closed doors and submitted on Sept 25:
If the military mistakenly designates you, a US Citizen, as an "Alien Enemy Combatant" and decides *not* to put you on trail. Then you *never* get any judicial review or chance to be able to prove you are a US citizen. This has not been highlighted in the coverage and only mentioned in the house debate, there seemed to be confusion on the Republic side.
Can we agree to have more than 2 days debate about this bill that effects the fundamental rights of this Republic?
What I think is being overlooked here is that President Bush has been using the signing statement to interpret the law in advance of judicial review in hopes of defining any legislation to meet his needs.
He will do the same with any terrorist leagal rights legislations that will come from this congress.
President Bush has used this previously rare option to total excess. I think this shows that he believes he and his administration have and should exercise every power the percieve they have. He would be our only legislator if he had "line-item-veto" powers. Congress would send him legislation and he would customize to his needs. Congress should really think before they give up that power to the Executive Branch.
History will confirm that President Bush and the republican party have abused the trust given to them by the voters. If not for our vocal expressions of a desire for a change, I fear the Republican Party would be giving President Bush a blank check on this legislation in order to be perceived as tough on terror. At least now most Republicans that are up for election seem to be distancing themselves from President Bush.
My hope is that the current efforts by our lawmakers will guarantee basic access to due process and the law intended for non-citizens will never be used on a citizen.
Michael Edwards
Texas
- by shutupmurtha September 27, 2006 7:04 PM EDT
- Why dont we just put all the terrorists through a tree grinder and use them as compost to help grow food for the poor? Than their lives would have been good for something.
- Reply to this comment
See all 11 Comments