Posted on 09/28/2006 10:32:54 AM PDT by SmithL
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 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.
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 48-51 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 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Sphincter happens
Why the hell Bush ever supported this Jackass is totally beyond my comprehension.
I wonder who these [3 Republicans who voted with Specter] were?
Mr. Specter simply does not understand that these people want to KILL US.
Are they going to allow US citizens the right to challenge their imprisonment in court? Of course not.
God, what a putz.
We should _never_ pass something so non-constitutional when it allows(relies) on men to determine who the law applies to. It seems to allow the President to say whoever he wants is a terrorist, coming under the law. Specifically, our forefathers, being unpopular in the current government could have and basically were denied basic due process because the King (a man) defined them as exempt.
Anyone who supports a law in which a person losses due process with a vague definition of the requirements to make them exempt from due process is not a friend of our forefathers, our form of government or our laws. By definition this is type of law is alien to our land.
If someone can point me to the exact phrase that clearly defines those persons who are targeted by this law, I'll withdraw my concerns.
"The other three were Chafee, Smith (OR), Sununu."
What a great country we could be if we got rid of both coasts! The looney Left would be wiped out in one fell swoop.
It is remarkable how many people here are deluded about the chances of a conservative in Pennsylvania. When even a well known telegenic one like Santorum is likely to go down in defeat you still push this nonsense.
Are we talking about citizens here, or captured foreign terrorists?
Citizens have a right to habeas corpus, clearly stated in the Constitution. I don't think foreign enemies enjoy the same rights as citizens.
The basic problem is that our courts and some of our legislatures have been extending the rights of citizens to illegals and others for whom they were never intended.
For instance, why should illegal aliens have a right to lower tuition rates at colleges than out-of-state citizens? This sort of thing violates the whole spirit of the constitution.
LOL!...I agree, maybe if we got rid of the two coasts I could finally convince the wife to get out of SW Washington.
Precisely. There are two separate issues here:
1. Determination that such-and-such a captive person is a terrorist (i.e. affiliated with, assisting, etc terrorist groups).
2. Determination of what is to be done once the previous determination has been made in the affirmative.
The latter question is a matter of military jurisdiction when dealing with persons captured in a war zone, for reasons that have been beaten to death on these threads.
The former question, however, requires the application of some outside controls sufficient to forestall (for example) the "President Hillary declares FReepers to be terrorists" scenario.
Remember it was Sununu's dad who recommended Souter to George Bush 1 and the reason we still don't have a Conservative court majority.
Yesterday the papers were saying it was doubtful the house and senate could "reconcile their differences" on this measure.
Looks like they were wrong.
I thought Specter was the master debater?
Tell me again why it's a good thing that Spectre is in the Senate?
I'm sorry. I don't like a lot of Specter's positions either, but I don't know why we have to call him names and attack him personally every time he votes against reason.
He's wrong, but he isn't doing this to stab anybody, he really, wrongly, believes he is correct on the issue.
We need to learn to have just a little respect for our adversaries if we are ever to get back to having a civil discourse in politics.
"Bush needs to untie the hands of the military and make a few quick and useful examples of our might. They only understand force and death."
Turn Al Anbar into a tragic memory that makes the most hardened terrorist shudder in revulsion and fear. That might do it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.