Senate Sides With Bush On Detainees

Rejects Move To Let Terror Suspects Challenge Imprisonment In Court

(CBS/AP)  The Senate, siding with President Bush shortly after he personally lobbied lawmakers at the Capitol, rejected a move Thursday by a leading Republican to allow terrorism suspects to challenge their imprisonment in court.

The vote paved the way for final passage of Mr. Bush's plan to establish "military commissions" to prosecute terrorism suspects in legislation that also spells out violations of the Geneva Conventions, a treaty that sets international standards for the treatment of war prisoners.

Republicans say the bill is necessary to ensure that terrorists can be brought to justice and that CIA personnel will not be charged with war crimes when interrogating these suspects.

Barring any last-minute hiccups, the bill could reach the president's desk as early as Friday.

Mr. Bush had gone to Capitol Hill earlier Thursday, urging senators to follow the House lead and approve the plan. "The American people need to know we're working together to win the war on terror," he told reporters as he left.

The Senate voted 51-48 against an amendment by Sen. Arlen Specter that would have allowed terror suspects to file "habeas corpus" petitions in court. Specter contends the ability to file such pleas is considered a fundamental legal right and is necessary to uncover abuse.

"This is a constitutional requirement and it is fundamental that Congress not legislate contradiction to a constitutional interpretation of the Supreme Court," said Specter, R-Pa., chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Three Republicans voted with Specter but others in the GOP caucus contended that providing terror suspects the right to unlimited appeals weighs down the federal court system.

"It impedes the war effort, and it is irresponsible," said Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

Democrats sided with Specter.

"The habeas corpus language in this bill is as legally abusive of rights guaranteed in the Constitution as the actions at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and secret prisons that were physically abusive of detainees," said Sen. Carl Levin, the top Democrat on the Armed Services panel.

CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen points out that the reach of the bill has been expanded to include non-citizens who are legal residents of the U.S.

"It's hard to overemphasize the significance of this, coming especially as it does at the 11th hour without very much public debate about its consequences," Cohen said. "This provision alone gives the executive branch a tremendous amount of unfettered power to detain people who otherwise are here in the United States lawfully and broadens the scope of the detainee bill in a major way."

The House on Wednesday passed a nearly identical measure on a 253-168, following bitter partisan debate in which Republicans and Democrats traded barbs on which political party would better protect Americans. After the Senate passes its bill, the House will vote again Friday to approve the Senate measure and send it to the president to sign, according to House and Senate leadership aides.

Three Democrats also were being given opportunities to offer amendments Thursday, but all were expected to be rejected along party lines. Democrats have said the legislation would give the president too much latitude when deciding whether aggressive interrogations cross the line and violate international standards of prisoner treatment.

The legislation would establish a military court system to prosecute terror suspects, a response to the Supreme Court ruling in June that Congress' blessing was necessary. Under the bill, a terrorist being held at Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba can be tried by "military commission" so long as he is afforded certain rights, such as the ability to confront evidence given to the jury and access to defense counsel.

Those subject to the commission trials would be any person "who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents." Proponents say this definition would not apply to U.S. citizens but would allow the detention and prosecution of individuals financing terrorist networks.

While the bill would spell out legal rights for the terror suspects to ensure a fair trial, it would eliminate other rights common in military and civilian courts. For example, the commission would be allowed to consider hearsay as evidence so long as a judge determines it is reliable. Hearsay is frequently allowed in international military tribunals, but is barred from being considered in civilian courts.

The court would bar the military commission from considering evidence obtained by interrogation techniques since December 2005 that involve "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" as defined by the 5th, 8th and 14th amendments. Coerced statements taken before the 2005 ban was put into effect would not be subjected to the same standard — language Democrats charge creates a loophole for abuse.

The measure also provides extensive definitions of war crimes such as torture, rape and biological experiments, but gives the president broad authority to decide which other techniques U.S. interrogators may use legally. The provisions are intended to protect CIA interrogators from being prosecuted for war crimes.

For nearly two weeks the White House and rebellious Republican senators have fought publicly over whether Mr. Bush's plan would give a president too much authority. But they struck a compromise last Thursday.

"This bill is everything we don't believe in," said Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio.

[davelyoung1]

Republican Redefinition of Torture

Do they realize that by defining torture to a lower level, that all our military will be under its legal definition. No criminal court can convict someone overseas, for what we practice by legal definition. So by example, other countries armies can then waterboard our American soldiers, with whatever the CIA sets as an example. What Congress allows will then be practiced with equality around the whole. So by having a higher standard for human rights and the Geneva Convention, our prisoners will be treated accordingly better or face the world courts, and public opinion. If we allow this abuse inside the White House, how soon will it filter down to our police departments, as social accepted behavior. Bush standards, can we afford them on human rights, were civilians are treated to Republican definitions.

Maybe we should appeal this law to the World Court for redefinition using our Constitutional values of Freedom and Democracy.

[drgoodwin12]

The war in Iraq is going so well that you should read this link http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2497076 the figures reinforce Woodwards/NIE statements. So neocons wake up and realize that stay the course is as bad as cut and run.Take the time to read this and quit the childish behavior of name calling. We I assume are all Americans and have the right to disagree however insults do not honor our troops.Nor do they bring this war closer to an end.We cannot abandon the Iraqi people after the mess we have help create. So let us get smarter and find ways to deter the resentment of the Iraqi people and deter people from becoming terrorist. Yes the elections are drawing near and it looks like by all polls the Democratic party will win back control of congress. Guess what I am a democrat and they better deliver on their promises or else in the next election I will join like minded individuals and run a new party into office.Not republican,nor democrat but one that represents Americans.Sort of a bridge party of the two main parties old ideaologies.

[libsarenuts]

These douch bags don't deserve constitutional protection. Many of us are getting very tired of the left always undermining this war effort.
Thank God some kind of decent bill was passed.

[mfennelly2]

I am a soldier who has fought in Iraq and served my country in the reserves for several years. This new detainee bill is not what I fought for. I fought for freedom and to uphold the constitution of the United States of which I took an oath to protect when I was swarn in. If I was given an order to take part in something that forces me to betray that oath, how am going to look at me children when they as me why I was a part of deny people their rights? If we let this government take away detainee's rights, what is to stop them from taking away the rights of citizens? It is a slippery slope.

[jetauma]

We are fighting the the very foundation of our country and its constitution. It is no wonder that conservatives only want to teach the three R's. Beyond that comes critical thinking...something they fear.
How is it even possible for this President (and his handlers) to argue against Americans' basic rights at every turn while betraying their oath to defend and protect the constitution and still have any following at all? This bill also protects the President from being charged, in the future, of human rights violations. Does it not? If so, put this on the front page!