Senate Republicans agreed on the measure with the exception of whether to allow terrorists the right to protest their detentions in court. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, contends the ability to file a "habeas corpus" petition is considered a fundamental legal right and necessary to uncover abuse.the "unlimited appeal" argument makes no sense. the spector amendment would mean that appeals have a shorter road to the supreme court, where appeals become final, than the existing measure that passed the house (the house version creates a whole new court system, filled with new tricks to make sure that detainees are found guilty as much as possible, before they can get access to federal review. the specter amendment would plug the appeals directly into the existing military court system). in other words, the bill without the spector amendment would result in more appeals not fewer. plus, the more restrictive bill would have the cloud of questionable constitutionality hanging over it, virtually guaranteeing yet another track of appeals.
Other Republicans contend that providing terror suspects the right to unlimited appeals would weigh down the federal court system.
Four Democrats and Specter were being given opportunities to offer amendments Thursday, but all were expected to be rejected along party lines.
a sure sign that proponents don't have a good reason behind their vote is when their arguments are so blatantly contradicted by what the various bills actually say.
as the CNN report predicts, i expect the specter amendment will fail and the senate will okay the house version of the bill within the next few hours. i also predict that specter will give a good speech in support of his amendment, using lofty language to explain why his amendment is so critical to the detainee bill on both moral and legal grounds. then, when the amendment fails, specter will nevertheless vote with his party on the unamended bill. that's pretty much specter's M.O.: he makes good speeches, but when push comes to shove, he votes like the president wants. apparently "moderate republican" these days means talking independently and then voting on a party line. i hope specter, allegedly my representative in this debate, surprises me this time around.
