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 ...
There are two issues here - American citizens in this country and non-uniformed combatants from other countries.
I agree entirely about limiting presidential power to detain American citizens without some kind of due process. That could clearly be abused for political purposes.
However, due process for enemy combatants should be much more limited. Anyone who has taken up arms against the United States and who is not part of a uniformed Army has little, if no, right to anything more than a summary trial and a bullet. Anything we provide them on top of such is our discretion. I could see provisions for a basic military tribunal to examine the evidence for detaining them as a combatant with one line of appeal - and that's it.
That was our first mistake. Within days of capture we should have followed the Geneva Convention for non-uniformed combatants who do not belong to the military of a recognizes state; stood them against a wall and shot them.
Actually, I believe the constitution gives the congress the power to limit the court's jurisdiction.
All Specter thinks he knows is "Scottish Law!"
Let's see, Warner, McCain and the other guy whose name I cannot remember who voted with them earlier this week.
Specter must be totally ignorant of the history of Islam. Does he not understand the nature of Jihad? Does he not understand the concept of Dhimmitude? Does he not understand how dhimmi this amendment was?
You can trace the start of Rick Santorum's troubles to when he joined with Bush to support Specter over Pat Toomey. He gave up a piece of his soul with that move.
::crickets chrip::
Gee whiz, more SILENCE from the "Lindsey Graham is a marxist scumbag crowd" on ANY thread when it turns out Lindsey voted the "right" way (according to the Amiercan Conservative Union, about 90% of the time)
Whenever something goes AGAINST their talking points about Lindsey being a "RINO", their responce is to cover their ears and sing lalalalala. These people are on a fishing expedition to find whenever Lindsey is wrong and immediately post 20 threads "provining" how had he is. They had the "Gang of 14" thing for a while and that died out so they spent monthes looking for a REASON to hate him and finally came up with the torture thing.
I could just as easily make another conservative like Larry Craig (R-ID) out to be a "RINO" if I used their methodology.
Meanwhile, guys like Specter and Chafee vote with the freakin' Democrats half the time, but we're SUPPOSED to support them because they can "win" (even though real conservaives have somehow "won" in those states without being Democrat lackeys)
Keep Specter and Chafee. Spend all our effort trying to "purge" Lindsey Graham when he agrees with you 90% of the time (oh, and for all their yapping about how McCain is evil incarinate, not a single AZ conservative put his money where his mouth is and filed AGAINST McCain in the 2004 primary)
With "conservative" friends like this, no wonder we can't get anything passed in the Senate.
I'm quoting at least two other posters, but they say it was Chafee of RI, Smith of OR, and Sununu of NH. Not the ones you mentioned. I think you meant Lindsey Graham as the one you couldn't recall. I heard a soundbite on the news where he opposed this measure, so at least he did SOMETHING right.
"Actually, I believe the constitution gives the power to limit the court's jurisdiction."
BINGO! It is amazing that the Legislature ...and the media ...imply that the Courts are in control of our great country. The Legislature can contain the Courts...but, they'd have to take some responsibility which may affect how many votes they get.....sarcasm/on.
The Jihadists should get nothing special, just terminal rest.
I was only guessing those names. Thanks for the info though. I was having a brain cramp. Love, Mxxx
They weren't bad guesses, given their track records on some issues. But they did part company with Specter on this one.
There's hope then.
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.