Specter Objects to Part of Detainee Bill

[Purveyor]

(09-24) 13:36 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said Sunday he has a problem with the Republican agreement on rules for the interrogation and trial of suspects in the war on terror.

President Bush is pushing Congress to put the agreement into law before adjourning for the midterm elections, but Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said Sunday he "vigorously" disagrees with the habeas corpus provision of the bill.

The provision would allow legal counsel and a day in court to only those detainees selected by the Pentagon for prosecution. Other terror suspects could be held indefinitely without a hearing.

"The courts have traditionally been open to make sure that individual rights are protected, and that is fundamental," Specter said on CNN's "Late Edition. "And the Constitution says when you can suspend the writ of habeas corpus, in time of rebellion or invasion. And we don't have either. So that has to be changed, in my opinion."

---snip---

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/0...

[Solly Mack]

1. and he has such a good record of objecting then folding

and making the bad worse in the process

I won't be holding my breath

and if that is the only objection he has to a bill that legitimizes torture...he's a war crime enabling piece of shit too.

[Purveyor]

4. The only positive is it gives this bill a bit more media coverage

instead of just a "rubber-stamped" passage.

I understand that there are some objections in the House also.

Perhaps it can't be reconciled by weeks end.

"Keep hope alive"...

[rodeodance]

7. I wonder if Tomorrow's hearing will be on cspan?:

Specter scheduled a hearing on the issue for Monday. Otherwise, he said, most of the legislation is a "big improvement" over what Bush originally proposed.

[rodeodance]

8. "Bush seeks immunity for violating War Crimes Act: read it here:

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=4273#more-4273

Bush seeks immunity for violating War Crimes Act
September 23, 2006

BY ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN

Thirty-two years ago, President Gerald Ford created a political firestorm by pardoning former President Richard Nixon of all crimes he may have committed in Watergate — and lost his election as a result. Now, President Bush, to avoid a similar public outcry, is quietly trying to pardon himself of any crimes connected with the torture and mistreatment of U.S. detainees.

The ‘’pardon'’ is buried in Bush’s proposed legislation to create a new kind of military tribunal for cases involving top al-Qaida operatives. The ‘’pardon'’ provision has nothing to do with the tribunals. Instead, it guts the War Crimes Act of 1996, a federal law that makes it a crime, in some cases punishable by death, to mistreat detainees in violation of the Geneva Conventions and makes the new, weaker terms of the War Crimes Act retroactive to 9/11.

Press accounts of the provision have described it as providing immunity for CIA interrogators. But its terms cover the president and other top officials because the act applies to any U.S. national.

Avoiding prosecution under the War Crimes Act has been an obsession of this administration since shortly after 9/11. In a January 2002 memorandum to the president, then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales pointed out the problem of prosecution for detainee mistreatment under the War Crimes Act. He notes that given the vague language of the statute, no one could predict what future ‘’prosecutors and independent counsels'’ might do if they decided to bring charges under the act. As an author of the 1978 special prosecutor statute, I know that independent counsels (who used to be called ‘’special prosecutors'’ prior to the statute’s reauthorization in 1994) aren’t for low-level government officials such as CIA interrogators, but for the president and his Cabinet. It is clear that Gonzales was concerned about top administration officials.......

[IndianaGreen]

14. Exactly, Specter is the perfect faux opposition

Huff and puff about something that Bush wants, and then warmly endorse it after some cosmetic changes.

[Solly Mack]

16. and then they have the nerve to call that "democracy in action"

token protest to make it look as if Congress is doing something...then rubber-stamping a tyrant

[hlthe2b]

2. SO all our hopes for sane policy may, once again be tied to

this flop about near-spineless weasel?

Of course the response from the "OPPOSITION LEFT" has been deafening...

[Kagemusha]

3. Huh, Specter doesn't buy that the US has been invaded by terrorists?

And therefore a state of invasion exists?

His not buying it is curious to me.

[rodeodance]

5. I object to retrospective IMMUNITY for the 'professionals" which include

mr. bush himself. there has been very little of this clause in the news.

[Judi Lynn]

6. Guardian: Bush Strikes a Deal That Lets Him Keep Fighting Dirty

Published on Sunday, September 24, 2006
by the Guardian / UK
Bush Strikes a Deal That Lets Him Keep Fighting Dirty
by David Rose

Last Thursday night, in a development barely reported in Britain, any hope of bringing detainees at Guantanamo and in the CIA's 'black' prisons into some kind of acceptable legal framework to protect their human rights suffered a grievous setback. After weeks of wrangling, Congressional opposition to Bush administration plans caved in, leaving the prisoners in a literally hopeless position.

At the heart of this story is a deal, hammered out in intensive talks between Vice-President Dick Cheney and his Republican critics, led by Senator John McCain, the former Vietcong prisoner and likely runner in the next presidential election. According to McCain, it 'gives the President the tools he needs'. At the same time: 'There is no doubt that the integrity and letter and spirit of the Geneva Conventions have been preserved.' The deal does nothing of the kind.

Bush seemed to be heading for disaster in November's Congressional elections, with detainee trials and torture an issue on which he looked vulnerable. Now, along with a broader apparent comeback, he has almost everything he wanted, with Congressional endorsement to boot. Beneath McCain's rhetoric, the legal black hole dug since 9/11 looks deeper and darker than ever. The chances of Guantanamo's 450-odd detainees ever getting justice have been substantially reduced.

The Cheny-McCain deal reverses two historic decisions by the Supreme Court: the 2004 ruling that gave detainees the right to bring suits in US federal courts, and last summer's declaration that Bush's military tribunals, with their classified evidence and testimony obtained through torture, were unlawful. Here, the court also said that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, which bans torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, applied even at Guantanamo and in the CIA gulag. As a result, the CIA's most 'rigorous' interrogation methods, such as 'light' physical contact and the notorious 'waterboarding', were prohibited. According to Bush before Thursday's deal, this was a dangerous impediment to national security.
(snip/...)

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0924-26.htm

[MannyGoldstein]

9. Have No Fear! The Brave Congressional Democrats Are Here!

They'll fight tooth and nail to ensure that our Government observes the Constitution!*

*Unless there's something good on TV, or Sir Rupert's throwing a huge shindig in their honor.

[sandnsea]

10. Bottle it up until Friday

If Specter has an ounce of integrity, he'll at least do that. Get a real debate after the election.

[chill_wind]

11. He doesn't. His activity on the NSA spy bill should tell you that beyond

all doubt. Who can forgive and forget? http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/07/specter-whit... )

[ShortnFiery]

12. Oh, forgive me but ...

I fear that if we have to depend of Specter, "We're F**ked!"

[Mr_Spock]

13. Did he actually say "Constitution"?

I did not know that Republicans were aware of this document.

[IndianaGreen]

15. Yes, but Specter hints at changing the Constitution

perhaps do away with the pretense of a republic.

[Mr_Spock]

17. You have to wonder if these people are in cahoots with OBL

In one post Bush is quoting him, in others they are ready to modify the Constitution in a way that would weaken our nation considerably.

Are Republicans really this insanely stupid?