Both chambers this week approved legislation that sets up "military commissions" to prosecute terrorists. It also would prohibit the severe abuse of detainees, like mutilation and rape, but grant the president leeway to decide which other interrogation techniques are permissible.

The Senate's 65-34 vote on Thursday followed a House vote of 253-168 on a nearly identical measure a day earlier. To avoid having to reconcile differences between the two bills, which were described as minor, the House planned to vote Friday on the Senate bill and send that version to the president to sign.

"The Senate sent a strong signal to the terrorists that we will continue using every element of national power to pursue our enemies and to prevent attacks on America," Bush said in a statement Thursday night.

The White House failed to help bridge differences between the Senate and the House on the eavesdropping program. The House, on a 232-191 vote Thursday, approved a bill to grant legal status to the warrantless wiretapping program with new restrictions. The Senate bill was different enough that efforts to reach a compromise on the two measures was unlikely before the elections.

Most Democrats opposed the detainee bill, contending that Republicans were pushing through a sloppy measure to sell voters, but not because it made sense. GOP policies on national security "may have been tough, but they certainly weren't smart," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid.

"I'm convinced that future generations will view passage of this bill as a grave error," added Reid, D-Nev.

Added Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., "We are being asked to consider legislation that will determine how our troops and personnel, foreign troops and personnel, as well as innocent bystanders will be treated when captured during conflict."

But Republicans said passage of the bill would withstand court scrutiny and the test of time.

"In this new era of threats, where the stark and sober reality is that America must confront international terrorists committed to the destruction of our way of life, this bill is absolutely necessary," said Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.

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.

Under the bill, a terrorist held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, could be tried by a 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.

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.

The legislation also says the president can "interpret the meaning and application" of international standards for prisoner treatment, a provision intended to allow him to authorize aggressive interrogation methods that might otherwise be seen as illegal by international courts.

"The Democrats' irrational opposition to strong national security policies that help keep our nation secure should be of great concern to the American people," Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said in a statement after the bill passed 232-191.

"To always have reasons why you just can't vote 'yes,' I think speaks volumes when it comes to which party is better able and more willing to take on the terrorists and defeat them," Boehner said.

Democrats shot back that the war on terrorism shouldn't be fought at the expense of civil and human rights. The bill approved by the House, they argued, gives the president too much power and leaves the law vulnerable to being overturned by a court.

"It is ceding the president's argument that Congress doesn't matter in this area," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., gives legal status under certain conditions to Bush's warrantless wiretapping of calls and e-mails between people on U.S. soil making calls or sending e-mails and those in other countries.

Under the measure, the president would be authorized to conduct such wiretaps if he:

- Notifies the House and Senate intelligence committees and congressional leaders.

- Believes an attack is imminent and later explains the reason and names the individuals and groups involved.

- Renews his certification every 90 days.

The Senate also could vote on a similar bill before Congress recesses at the end of the week. Leaders concede that differences between the versions are so significant they cannot reconcile them into a final bill that can be delivered to Bush before the Nov. 7 congressional elections.

For its part, the White House announced it strongly supported passage of the House version but wasn't satisfied with it, adding that the administration "looks forward to working with Congress to strengthen the bill as it moves through the legislative process."

But with Congress giving Bush the other half of his September anti-terrorism agenda - a bill setting conditions on how terrorism suspects are to be detained, interrogated and tried - Republicans shifted from lawmaking to campaign mode.

After the House voted 253-168 to set rules on tough interrogations and military tribunal proceedings, Speaker
Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., was even more critical than Boehner.

"Democrat Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and 159 of her Democrat colleagues voted today in favor of more rights for terrorists," Hastert said in a statement. "So the same terrorists who plan to harm innocent Americans and their freedom worldwide would be coddled, if we followed the Democrat plan. "

Retorted Pelosi: "I think the speaker is a desperate man for him to say that. Would you think that anyone in our country wants to coddle terrorists?"

She and other Democratic critics of the GOP's September anti-terrorism agenda contend the Republican-written bills make Bush's programs vulnerable to being overturned in court. More broadly, they argue the legislation reflects the White House's willingness to fight the war on terrorism at the expense of civil and human rights.

A Democratic majority in either House would set the balance right, Democrats say. "In 40 days, we can put an end to this nonsense," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass, referring to the election.

A federal judge in Detroit who struck down the warrantless surveillance program turned aside a government request for an indefinite stay Thursday. U.S. Judge Anna Diggs Taylor said the government could have a week to appeal.

The former president said the Bush administration made a "terrible mistake" by invading Iraq and diverting troops from Afghanistan.

Jack Carter criticized his opponent, Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., for supporting the Iraq war. Both Carters also said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld should go.

"I think he's one of the worst secretaries of defense we've ever had," the former president said of Rumsfeld. "Almost every decision he has made has aggravated his military subordinates and has also proved to be a mistake."

This is being voted on in the House of Representatives today and will likely be voted on in the Senate on Thursday. Senators Specter and Levin will be introducing a bipartisan amendment to remove a provision that denies these immigrants access to courts. It is essential that you call your Senators and Representatives and urge them to vote for the Specter Amendment to remove the jurisdiction-stripping provision from the military commissions bill. Particular Senators that we are targeting are Senators Hagel, Lugar, Sununu, Chaffee, Lieberman, DeWine, Collins, Snowe, and Menendez.

The White House made drastic changes to the military commissions bill over the weekend. The new version of the bill includes an expansive definition of an unlawful enemy combatant to include anyone determined by a tribunal under the authority of the President or the Defense Secretary to be an unlawful enemy combatant. The bill would deny anyone determined to be an enemy combatant - or anyone "awaiting such determination" - the right to challenge their detention, treatment, or conditions of confinement in court.

Recent mass detentions of non-citizens in this country give us reason to fear that this unchecked authority will lead to rampant racial and religious profiling, prolonged detention without reason, physical and psychological abuse. The Government's own investigations have produced evidence that:

# Shortly after September 11, 2001, hundreds of non-citizens were swept up in the United States and detained in connection to the terrorism investigation without any evidence to connect them to terrorism or crime.
# These men were arrested and detained based on their Muslim faith, their Arab or South Asian descent, and their immigration status, rather than any evidence to connect them to terrorism.
# The "9-11 detainees" were imprisoned in the United States until they were cleared of any connection to terrorism by the FBI. This clearance usually took months, and some detainees were held for over a year.
# During the detention period, many men were held in the most restrictive confinement that exists in the federal system. They were locked down 23 to 24 hours a day, hand-cuffed and shackled, deprived of sleep, beaten and verbally harassed, and denied the opportunity to practice their religion.
# Since the men were released, at least two federal court judges have ruled that the treatment of the detainees would constitute violations of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

There are over 35 million non-citizens currently living in the United States. This provision would allow any one of them to be imprisoned indefinitely without their day in court. There is reason to fear that they could be investigated, detained, interrogated, and tortured without judicial remedy. While U.S. law prohibits torture, this bill would deny access to the courts to bring a torture claim.

Recent history shows that this power will not be exercised with restraint, but will substitute racial and religious profiling for true suspicion and evidence of wrongdoing. Please act now to ensure that out Constitution continues to protect all who reside in this Country. Call your members of Congress immediately, especially those listed with contact information below.

Chafee, Lincoln- (R - RI)
Class I
141A RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2921
Web Form: chafee.senate.gov/webform.htm
Fax: (202) 228-2853
Chief of Staff: David Griswold
Legis. Dir.: Deb Brayton
Military LA: William Ralph

Collins, Susan M.- (R - ME)
Class II
461 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2693
Web Form: collins.senate.gov/public/continue.cfm?FuseAction=Contact...
Phone: (202) 224-2523
Chief of Staff: Steve Abbott
Legis. Dir.: Jane Alonso
Military LA: MacKenzie Eaglen

DeWine, Mike- (R - OH)
Class I
140 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2315
Web Form: dewine.senate.gov
Fax: (202) 224-6519
Chief of Staff: Laurel Pressler
Legis. Dir.: Paul Palagyi
Military LA: Stacie Oliver

Hagel, Chuck- (R - NE)
Class II
248 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4224
Web Form: hagel.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Home
Fax: (202) 224-5213
Chief of Staff: Lou Ann Linehan
Legis. Dir.: Jill Konz
Military LA: Fran DuFrayne

Lieberman, Joseph I.- (D - CT)
lass I
706 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4041
Web Form: lieberman.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm?regarding=issue
fax: 202-224-9750
Chief of Staff: Clarine Nardi Riddle; phone:
(202) 224-4041
Legislative Director: Joe Goffman
Military Legislative Assistant: Fred Downey

Lugar, Richard G.- (R - IN)
Class I
306 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4814
E-mail: senator_lugar@lugar.senate.gov
Fax: (202) 228-0360
Chief of Staff: Marty Morris
Legis. Dir.: Chris Geeslin
Military LA: Keri Maloney

Menendez, Robert- (D - NJ)
502 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4744
Web Form: menendez.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm
Fax: (202) 228-2197
Chief of Staff: Ivan Zapien
Legis. Dir.: Chris Schloesser
Military LA: Jessica Lewis

Sununu, John E.- (R - NH)
Class II
111 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2841
Web Form: www.sununu.senate.gov/webform.html
Fax: (202) 228-4131
Chief of Staff: Paul J. Collins, Jr
Legis. Dir.: Jamie Burnett
Military LA: Dave Cuzzi

The new strategy seeks to absorb the rising powers like China, India, Brazil and others into a law-based global economic and diplomatic structure that avoids open conflict by making them stakeholders within the system, and thus encouraged in their own interests to play by the rules.

Known as the Princeton Project, the venture lasted over two years and brought in over 400 participants, and was chaired jointly by the Reagan administration's former Secretary of State George Shultz and by former President Bill Clinton's national security adviser, Tony Lake.

The strategy they have devised, titled 'Liberty Under Law," seeks to chart of long-term course in the way that George F. Kennan in 1946 drafted the concept of "containment" that broadly defined U.S. policy in the Cold War for the next 45 years.

"The difference is that we soon came to realize that there is now no single threat as there was in 1946, so there can be no single theme like "containment," Anne-Marie Slaughter, dean of Princeton's Woodrow Wilson school of public and international affairs and one of the directors of the project, and a former president of the American Society for International Law.

"There are now a series of threats, including global terrorism, nuclear proliferation, pandemics, the rise of Asia, the energy crisis and threats emanating from the Middle East becoming too numerous to count," Slaughter added.

The Princeton Project sees many of these threats as distinct and with separate causes and actors, while being inter-connected as part of the constellation of threats that will shape the future U.S. security agenda. For example, it places the energy threat within a wider regional and environmental context.

"When the U.S. purchases large amounts of petroleum from the Middle East, two things happen," the report says. "First, an enormous amount of wealth is transferred from Americans to autocratic regimes, stifling reform in those countries and possibly strengthening the military capabilities of some of our potential adversaries. Second, the oil we consumer -- at over $150 per barrel, when U.S. defense spending dedicated to keep oil flowing is factored into the price -- contributes to climate change and the degradation of our environment. Breaking up this axis of vice must be a key priority for America."

The Project begins from the perception that the network of international institutions that was established after 1945 is broken, and in consequence the global political and economic system they helped produce needs to be rethought. Institutions like the U.N., the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, NATO need fundamental reform, and should bring in important new players like India, Brazil, South Africa and Egypt and possibly Iran into leadership roles.

"The goal is a community of democracies living in liberty and under the law," Slaughter said. "But we are not simplistic about democracy. We recognize, for example, that you need a basic income level for a democracy to be stable. We do not see elections as necessarily the best or only definition of democracy. Indeed, in some countries simple good governance and accountability and the encouragement of civil society might precede elections. The priority should be what the U.S. founding fathers called 'the blessings of ordered liberty.'"

The Princeton Project advocates a fundamental re-ordering of the U.N. Security Council to include riding new powers, and to modify the veto. Currently, any one of the five permanent members (the U.S., Russia, China, France and Britain) may cast a veto on any resolution. The Project suggests that vetoes should be abolished on matters of instant action, like sending peace-keepers to Sudan or Kosovo. But the veto should be retained on declaratory resolutions, like those resolutions condemning Israel that the U.S. routinely vetoes.

Slaughter and her co-director, Princeton professor John Ikenberry, recognize that this kind of reform will not be easy, and that great powers will jealously seek to guard their right of veto, and that Russia and China are unlikely to forego their current power to block any U.N. action. But if the U.N. thus becomes increasingly irrelevant, the Princeton project suggests that the U.N. could be replaced by a new Concert of Democracies as a source of legitimacy for international action.

Any nation could join the Concert, if it agrees to abide by the rules of the founding Treaty. These rule out the use of military force against another member of the Concert, require regular free and fair multi-party elections, with civil and human rights enforced by an independent judiciary. The Concert declares that states have a responsibility to protect their citizens from avoidable catastrophe, including genocide, ethnic cleansing and deliberate starvation, and when states fail to do so the international community has a duty to intervene.

"The Concert of Democracies could be a pressure group to reform the U.N., or if that fails, possibly to replace it," Slaughter suggested.

"It is clear that in an age nuclear proliferation and of failed or failing states and global terror networks one cannot rule out the preventive use of force. But if used unilaterally, this is very dangerous," she added. "One needs some form of international mandate, and if the U.N. is structurally incapable of proving one, then we have to think of other ways to establish a multi-lateral legitimacy."

The participants in the national security project included former cabinet officials and senior White House staff, academics, diplomats, economists, retired military staff and Pentagon officials, international lawyers and a small group of journalists, including this UPI columnist.

Although the Princeton Project does not spell out any specific goal to maintain U.S. primacy (unlike the Bush administration's two most recent National Security papers) in a U.S.-led and U.S.-devised global system, it has been drafted with U.S. vulnerabilities foremost in mind. And it stresses that "the basic U.S. strategy must be to protect the American people and the American way of life."

"The U.S. must build a stronger protective infrastructure -- throughout or society, our government, and the wider world -- that helps prevent threats and limits them once they materialize," it says. "We must work through networks of security officials to contain immediate threats before they reach our shores and should consider defining our border protections beyond our actual physical borders.