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 last
To: veracious
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.

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.

81 posted on 09/28/2006 2:35:34 PM PDT by dirtboy (This tagline has been photoshopped)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
"...who is not part of a uniformed Army has little, if no, right to anything more than a summary trial and a bullet."

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.

82 posted on 09/28/2006 2:41:00 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: SmithL; holdonnow
"This is a constitutional requirement and it is fundamental that Congress not legislate contradiction to a constitutional interpretation of the Supreme Court..."

Actually, I believe the constitution gives the congress the power to limit the court's jurisdiction.

83 posted on 09/28/2006 2:43:53 PM PDT by Petronski (Living His life abundantly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker

All Specter thinks he knows is "Scottish Law!"


84 posted on 09/28/2006 8:43:57 PM PDT by SierraWasp (To be fair, Bill Clinton did more than any other President to protect us from the Branch Davidians!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: mathluv

Let's see, Warner, McCain and the other guy whose name I cannot remember who voted with them earlier this week.


85 posted on 09/28/2006 9:10:43 PM PDT by Marysecretary (Thank you, Lord, for FOUR MORE YEARS!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

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?


86 posted on 09/28/2006 9:16:40 PM PDT by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

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.


87 posted on 09/28/2006 9:17:52 PM PDT by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NathanDahlin; All; SouthCarolinaKit; stand watie; Robe; new yorker 77; hinckley buzzard; ...
>> Chafee (RI), Smith (OR), and Sununu (NH). <<

::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.

88 posted on 09/29/2006 12:19:30 AM PDT by BillyBoy (ILLINOIS ELECTION "CHOICES:" Rod Bag-o-$hit or Judas Barf Too-Pinka)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy
Are you calling me a scumbag? I hope not...

Lindsey was censured by the JAG this week. Did you know that? Did you know that he was censured for "Conflict of Interest" by affecting JAG law and it implementation, while serving as a Civilian U.S. Senator. I guess we should just give old Lindsey another pass... just like klintoon.

I am not always mad at Lindsey, and I agree he comes down on the right side of much legislation... but when he is wrong, he is wrong about things that either will destroy this country... allow our enemies to do so... or increase the likelihood that Americans will be killed.

He also has his nose so far up mclame's arse (in an effort to become his VP pick should he make it past the first round of the primary), that if John stops suddenly... Lindsey will become known as "Old Brown Nose".

LLS
89 posted on 09/29/2006 4:30:53 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer (Preserve America... kill terrorists... destroy dims!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Marysecretary

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.


90 posted on 09/29/2006 4:44:03 AM PDT by txrangerette ("We are fighting al-Qaeda, NOT Aunt Sadie"...Dick Cheney commenting on the wiretaps!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

"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.


91 posted on 09/29/2006 8:09:15 AM PDT by 4integrity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Exactly dirtboy, I'm just concerned that the definition of who comes under the law may be weak enough to use it against real Americans. This kind of law needs to carefully define the persons that it provides special treatment for.

The Jihadists should get nothing special, just terminal rest.

92 posted on 09/29/2006 8:17:59 AM PDT by veracious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette

I was only guessing those names. Thanks for the info though. I was having a brain cramp. Love, Mxxx


93 posted on 09/29/2006 10:47:21 AM PDT by Marysecretary (Thank you, Lord, for FOUR MORE YEARS!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Marysecretary

They weren't bad guesses, given their track records on some issues. But they did part company with Specter on this one.


94 posted on 09/29/2006 11:56:27 AM PDT by txrangerette ("We are fighting al-Qaeda, NOT Aunt Sadie"...Dick Cheney commenting on the wiretaps!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette

There's hope then.


95 posted on 09/29/2006 2:57:38 PM PDT by Marysecretary (Thank you, Lord, for FOUR MORE YEARS!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]


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