 WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate on Thursday endorsed President Bush's plans to prosecute and interrogate terror suspects, all but sealing congressional approval for legislation that Republicans intend to use on the campaign trail to assert their toughness on terrorism.
The 65-34 vote means the bill could reach the president's desk by week's end. The House passed nearly identical legislation on Wednesday and was expected to approve the Senate bill on Friday, sending it on to the White House.
| Funny, 33 Democrats voted against but didn't have anything to say. |
The bill would create military commissions to prosecute terrorism suspects. It also would prohibit some of the worst abuses of detainees like mutilation and rape, but grant the president leeway to decide which other interrogation techniques are permissible. The White House and its supporters have called the measure crucial in the anti-terror fight, but some Democrats said it left the door open to abuse, violating the U.S. Constitution in the name of protecting Americans.
| Specter made noise about this but voted 'yes' in the end. So did Lieberman which will keep the DU crowd seething. |
Twelve Democrats sided with 53 Republicans in voting for the bill. Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I., in a tough re-election fight, joined 32 Democrats and the chamber's lone independent in opposing the bill. Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, was absent.
| Remind me, what did we get in return for helping Chafee win his primary election? |
By mostly party-line votes, the Senate rejected Democratic efforts to limit the bill to five years, to require frequent reports from the administration on the CIA's interrogations and to add a list of forbidden interrogation techniques.
The overall bill would prohibit war crimes and define such atrocities as rape and torture, but otherwise would allow the president to interpret the Geneva Conventions, the treaty that sets standards for the treatment of war prisoners.
| Somebody has to do the interpreting since the GC is rather vague. Having a president responsible for issuing the rules and regs means we'll know who to hold accountable. |
Under the bill, a terrorist being held at Guantanamo could be tried by military commission so long as he was afforded certain rights, such as the ability to confront evidence given to the jury and having access to defense counsel.
Those subject to 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.
| Which is as it should be: if you're a citizen you have rights under the Constitution. That's why it was proper -- and necessary -- to try Johnny Jihad in an American court. But foreigners fighting American soldiers in hostile actions aren't entitled to the protection of American courts, and this bill explicitly says so. |
The bill would eliminate some rights common in military and civilian courts. For example, the commission would be allowed to consider hearsay evidence so long as a judge determined it was reliable. Hearsay is barred from civilian courts.
| There were other standards attached as well concerning how the evidence was obtained, and how judges determine reliability. This is more narrow than it sounds. |
|