Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Republicans Reject Amendment by Specter
AP ^ | 9/28/6 | ANNE PLUMMER FLAHERTY

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 ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: angusmacspecter; arlenspecter; specter
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-95 next last
To: SmithL

Sphincter happens


21 posted on 09/28/2006 10:43:53 AM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ......Help the "Pendleton 8' and families -- http://www.freerepublic.com/~normsrevenge/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mathluv
LOL! Two guesses come to mind, the two women RINOS from Maine & Goober Graham? Or the two Women RINOS from Maine & Lincoln Chaffey?
22 posted on 09/28/2006 10:45:52 AM PDT by alice_in_bubbaland (Islam is the Death Cult of Perpetual Outrage!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: river rat

Why the hell Bush ever supported this Jackass is totally beyond my comprehension.


23 posted on 09/28/2006 10:47:10 AM PDT by newcthem (Brought to you by the INFIDEL PARTY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mathluv
I wonder who these [3 Republicans who voted with Specter] were?


Chafee (RI), Smith (OR), and Sununu (NH). [Source]

Smith is my senator. He's usually a reliable Republican vote, but he periodically has these "Mr. Hyde" moments (e.g. when it comes to immigration or "domestic benefits"). I'm ashamed of him.
24 posted on 09/28/2006 10:47:33 AM PDT by NathanDahlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

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.


25 posted on 09/28/2006 10:47:48 AM PDT by RexBeach (Will Rogers Never Met Bill Clinton.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
Sununu is a good Senator. He is concerned about civil liberty. Specter had his day and lost. At least they did not filibuster.
26 posted on 09/28/2006 10:49:25 AM PDT by GeorgefromGeorgia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
I'm not with Specter but I'm not happy with the law as written. To my knowledge there's no _good_ definition of the terrorist who comes under this new law.

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.

27 posted on 09/28/2006 10:49:55 AM PDT by veracious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

"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.


28 posted on 09/28/2006 10:51:06 AM PDT by kittymyrib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
I see Specter knows about as much constitutional law now as when he couldn't figure out what Bork was telling him. He shouldn't have passed the class in law school.
29 posted on 09/28/2006 10:53:52 AM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: river rat

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.


30 posted on 09/28/2006 10:54:53 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (If you believe ANYTHING in the Treason Media you are a fool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TChris
It is insane. Habeas Corpus, does certainly apply to U.S. citizens (Jose Padilla, Johnny Taliban) wherever held by the U.S. government. I can accept that the courts have held that it applies to foreigners held on U. S. soil. I cannot accept the idea that everybody in the world has access to U.S. courts because the U.S. government (right or wrong) is holding them on non U.S. soil. That is a matter strictly for the Executive branch otherwise each U.S. District Court becomes de facto a maker of foreign or military policy.
31 posted on 09/28/2006 10:55:25 AM PDT by nomorelurker (wetraginhell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: veracious

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.


32 posted on 09/28/2006 10:55:30 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: kittymyrib
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.

LOL!...I agree, maybe if we got rid of the two coasts I could finally convince the wife to get out of SW Washington.

33 posted on 09/28/2006 10:56:03 AM PDT by jazusamo (DIANA IREY for Congress, PA 12th District: Retire murtha.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: veracious
It seems to allow the President to say whoever he wants is a terrorist

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.

34 posted on 09/28/2006 10:57:48 AM PDT by steve-b (The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: All

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.


35 posted on 09/28/2006 10:58:31 AM PDT by Jonah Johansen ("Coming soon to a neighborhood near you")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Yesterday the papers were saying it was doubtful the house and senate could "reconcile their differences" on this measure.

Looks like they were wrong.


36 posted on 09/28/2006 10:59:18 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maggief

I thought Specter was the master debater?


37 posted on 09/28/2006 11:00:08 AM PDT by pierrem15 (Charles Martel: past and future of France)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Tell me again why it's a good thing that Spectre is in the Senate?


38 posted on 09/28/2006 11:00:57 AM PDT by BLS (It's time to redefine your deiphobic mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: talleyman

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.


39 posted on 09/28/2006 11:01:14 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: boomop1

"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.



40 posted on 09/28/2006 11:03:24 AM PDT by BLS (It's time to redefine your deiphobic mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-95 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson