Hydrablog

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/washington/29detaincnd.html
September 28, 2006
Bush Travels to Hill to Push Detainee Bill
By CARL HULSE and KATE ZERNIKE [bush] [white house] [visited the other end of Pennsylvania avenue to push the detainee “compromise”] [detainee/pow potential for abuse] [********]
WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 — President Bush traveled to Capitol Hill this morning to urge the Senate to pass a bill establishing a new system for interrogating and trying terror suspects, a day after the House approved the legislation. [***********]
The argument in the Senate today seems likely to focus on potential changes to the bill, rather than on its overall fate, since the Democrats reached an agreement on Wednesday with Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, to forego any filibuster in return for consideration of amendments.
After a closed-door session with Senate Republicans, Mr. Bush sought to cast the debate over the bill as a matter of crucial importance in the safety of the country.
“The American people need to know that we’re working together to win this war on terror,” he said. “Our most important responsibility is to protect the American people from further attack. And we cannot be able to tell the American people we’re doing our full job unless we have the tools to do so.”
Democrats have criticized President Bush and the Republican leadership, saying they are trying to ram momentous legal changes through in a rush so they can use the votes in this fall’s Congressional campaign.
Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the minority leader, issued a statement after Mr. Bush’s visit noting that “for five years, Democrats stood ready to work with the President and the Republican Congress to establish sound procedures for the trials of these terrorists.”
“Unfortunately, President Bush ignored the advice of our uniformed military and set up a flawed system that failed to prosecute a single terrorist and was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court,” Mr. Reid said.
The legislation is a response to a Supreme Court ruling in June that threw out the system of military tribunals set up by the Bush administration.
The House, in a politically charged decision, voted 253 to 168 in favor of the bill, which contains extensive new rules governing the questioning of terror suspects and bringing them before military tribunals. If the Senate follows suit on Thursday, as is expected, it would deliver Republicans a major national security victory before the elections.In the House, 219 Republicans and 34 Democrats, many in more competitive districts, supported the bill; 160 Democrats and 7 Republicans opposed it; the opponents included the Democratic leadership and major party voices on the military and intelligence issues. [*************]
Republicans immediately sought to portray the vote as a defining one between the two parties. “It is outrageous that House Democrats, at the urging of their leaders, continue to oppose giving President Bush the tools he needs to protect our country,” said Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the majority leader.
But Democrats said the legislation would reverse fundamental American values by allowing seizure of evidence in this country without a search warrant, allowing evidence obtained through cruel and inhuman treatment, and denying relief or appeal to people like Maher Arar, whom the United States sent to Syria for interrogation that included torture even after the Canadian government told American officials he was not a terrorist.
“This is un-American, this is unconstitutional, this is contrary to American interests, this is not what a great and good and powerful nation should be doing,” said Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont.
Backers of the measure said the legislation would guarantee terror suspects adequate rights while not hindering interrogations.
“We are dealing with the enemy in war, not defendants in our criminal justice system,” said Representative Duncan Hunter, Republican of California and chairman of the Armed Services Committee. “In time of war it is not practical to apply the same rules of evidence that we apply in civil trials or courts martial for our troops.” [***************]
Leading Democrats said the approach would result in government-sanctioned mistreatment of detainees. They predicted it would be again thrown out by the Supreme Court, leaving the United States remaining without a system to try terrorists after a wait that has already extended five years beyond Sept. 11, 2001.
“If you want to be tough on terrorists, let’s not pass something that rushes to judgment and has legal loopholes that will reverse a conviction,” said Representative Ike Skelton of Missouri, senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee.
Fellow Democrats said the measure could be interpreted by other nations as reducing America’s commitment to the rights of prisoners of war.
“When our moral standing is eroded, our international credibility is diminished as well,” said Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 Democrat in the House.
Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, characterized the bill as the product of an administration that “has been relentless in its determination to legitimize the abuse of detainees.”
But Republicans argued repeatedly that the nation is facing a faceless and brutal enemy that lurks in the shadows, requiring a new way of thinking on the part of the United States and giving new importance to the ability to freely interrogate them.
“Information is the key weapon we have to prevent them from killing us and prevent them from attacking others in the future,” said Representative Mac Thornberry, Republican of Texas, who said he worried the measure might go too far in tying the hands of American operatives.
The House debate was interrupted repeatedly by protesters in the gallery, who were removed by security workers. [***********]
The bill was a compromise worked out between the White House and three Senate Republicans who for weeks had resisted the administration’s approach. They contended the White House’s initial bill would violate the Constitution and redefine the nation’s obligations under the Geneva Conventions, signaling to other nations that they too could rewrite the rules on dealing with combatants seized in wartime. [****************]
The intraparty rift had threatened to derail Republican hopes to champion theirs as the party of national security, but before the debate began, Mr. Frist smilingly declared, “Republicans united.” Mr. Bush accepted Mr. Frist’s invitation to meet with Republican senators on Thursday morning as they prepared to vote to rally their support and build their spirits before Republicans hit the campaign trail. [*************]
Democrats had stayed mainly on the sidelines during the fight among Republicans, but the pending votes in the House and Senate have forced them to take firm positions on the bill. Senate Democrats did allow a vote to go forward, escaping criticism that they were obstructing the measure, and thus denying Republicans a potential political hammer.
House Democrats were prevented from offering any amendments. Under the Senate agreement, Democrats were allowed four proposed amendments. One, by Mr. Levin, would have adopted the approach endorsed by the Armed Services Committee and the three Republicans who resisted the Bush administration: Senators John Warner of Virginia, John McCain of Arizona, and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. It failed on a 54-to-43 vote, with two Democrats, Senators Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana and Ben Nelson of Nebraska, crossing party lines.
Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, pressed an amendment that would strike a provision from the bill that prohibits terror suspects from challenging their detention in the courts. “What the bill seeks to do is set back basic rights by some 900 years,” said Mr. Specter, who traced the ability to challenge one’s detention to the Magna Carta.
Concerned the legislation was being rushed through before an election without most senators understanding what was in the final version, Democratic Senators Robert C. Byrd of Virginia and Barack Obama of Illinois planned to offer a sunset provision that would require Congress to review the military commissions, as the trials are known, in five years.
Republicans said they were confident they could hold off any changes when the remaining amendments come up for a vote on Thursday.
While Republicans were nearing success on a key element of their agenda with the terrorism bill, disputes among top Republicans in the House and Senate were threatening other measures they hoped to pass, particularly a domestic security spending bill and a Pentagon policy bill. Lawmakers were scrambling to resolve the differences to avoid leaving the bills on the shelf. They have already abandoned efforts to strike a final agreement on a measure governing a National Security Agency surveillance program, though the House is scheduled to consider the bill on Thursday.
John O’Neil contributed reporting from New York.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company