The Bush administration has won concessions from key Senate Republicans in proposed legislation on standards for detainee treatment and the rules for military trials of terrorism suspects, although some disagreements persist between the lawmakers and the White House, Senate sources said yesterday.
The disagreements that remain involve whether suspects can be convicted with evidence they are never allowed to see, an approach favored by the administration but opposed by the Republican senators. The two sides also still differ over the terms of a related amendment to the U.S. War Crimes Act that would limit the exposure of CIA officials and other civilian personnel to prosecution for abusive treatment of detainees, the sources said.
In a sign that Congress is nonetheless preparing to act quickly to establish "military commissions," as the trials are known, and provide other legal relief sought by the administration, the Senate trio at odds with the White House circulated a revised bill yesterday containing their concessions.
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John W. Warner (R-Va.), Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) last week had circulated a draft that diverged more sharply from the White House's version. But President Bush's speech on the plan Wednesday, when he announced his intention to put 14 key terrorism suspects on trial, has made Senate Republicans more wary of bucking the White House.
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), meanwhile, announced yesterday that he has drafted a competing bill that closely tracks the administration's preferences. He said it would be marked up by his committee on Wednesday.
Lawmakers thus will be considering three bills -- the Senate and House bills plus the administration's own bill -- that contain many provisions the administration has sought. This prospect has raised concerns among human rights groups and defense attorneys who say the plans offer inadequate protections for defendants and would set a precedent for the use of similarly worrisome rules at foreign trials of captured U.S. personnel.
| Can anyone name a country that, since the end of WWII, had held US military personnel prisoner in a war situation and respected their rights? Anyone? Bueller? |
|