WASHINGTON — Military defense lawyers assailed compromise legislation for interrogating and prosecuting terrorism suspects, contending Friday that proposed rules would prevent them from learning whether evidence used against their clients was obtained through coercion or torture.
At the same time, rights groups that initially endorsed the compromise between the Bush administration and key Senate Republicans expressed reservations, saying it appeared on closer reading to be vague and could give President Bush and future presidents too much latitude.
"It is worse than the system that was in place before," said Marine Maj. Michael Mori, a military defense lawyer. "It is not going to ensure there is a fair trial."
Congressional Republican leaders, nonetheless, plan to move the compromise military tribunal bill to a vote next week. They may tie the bill, which has support among a number of Democrats, to a more controversial measure authorizing Bush's once-secret warrantless surveillance program.
Legislation introduced by the Senate GOP leadership Friday would make it clear that the president, in some cases, has the authority under the Constitution to unilaterally order surveillance without a judge's approval.
Both the tribunal and surveillance measures are centerpieces of the security-focused agenda the GOP wants to highlight before the November election, which is expected to determine control of Congress.
Republicans, who were engaged in an intraparty fight over the tribunal legislation until the agreement was reached, appeared to be closing ranks.
But the measure faces additional scrutiny. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) called a hearing for Monday on a provision in the bill that would deny detainees the right to challenge their detention in court, known as the right of habeas corpus.
"It may be the only way some people can have their situation resolved in court," said retired Rear Adm. John Hutson, a former top Navy judge advocate general and member of the board of Human Rights First.
Although the rights group supported the compromise, the group raised questions Friday.
Army Maj. Tom Fleener, an attorney who represents a Yemeni man imprisoned at Guantanamo, said that under the proposed rules, "there is no way for the defendant to determine how the evidence was obtained. There is no way to find out how the witness was interrogated because the techniques are going to be classified."
