of extraordinary limits on defendants' traditional rights in the courtroom. They include restrictions on a suspect's ability to challenge his detention, examine all evidence against him, and bar testimony allegedly acquired through coercion of witnesses.

The Senate's 65 to 34 vote marked a victory for Bush and fellow Republicans a month before the Nov. 7 elections as their party tries to make anti-terrorism a signature campaign issue. Underscoring that strategy, the House last night voted 232 to 191 to authorize Bush's warrantless wiretapping program, with GOP leaders hoping to add it to their list of accomplishments even though it has no chance of Senate passage before this weekend's scheduled adjournment. On the final wiretapping vote, 18 Democrats joined 214 Republicans to win passage. Thirteen Republicans, 177 Democrats and one independent voted nay.

Democrats resisted both measures and nearly amended the detainee bill to allow foreigners designated as enemy combatants to challenge their captivity by filing habeas corpus appeals with the federal courts. But Republicans held fast, gambling that Democrats will fail in their bid to convince voters that the GOP is sacrificing the nation's traditions of justice and fairness in the name of battling terrorists and winning elections.

"As our troops risk their lives to fight terrorism, this bill will ensure they are prepared to defeat today's enemies and address tomorrow's threats," Bush said after the vote.

With control of both houses possibly at stake this fall, yesterday's debates were often impassioned and deeply partisan. House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) called Democrats "dangerous." Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the nation is losing its "moral compass."

The Senate approved the detainee legislation after Bush's allies narrowly fended off five amendments. The vote on final passage drew support from 53 Republicans and 12 Democrats, while 32 Democrats, one independent and one Republican -- Lincoln D. Chafee (R.I.) -- voted nay.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) voted for the bill after telling reporters earlier that he would oppose it because it

is "patently unconstitutional on its face." He cited its denial of the habeas corpus right to military detainees. In an interview last night, Specter said he decided to back the bill because it has several good items, "and the court will clean it up" by striking the habeas corpus provisions.

The Supreme Court triggered the congressional action by striking down in late June Bush's earlier system for trying suspects in military commissions.

The new bill is designed to legalize military commissions and to clarify interrogation techniques that CIA officers may use on terrorism suspects considered "unlawful enemy combatants," who are granted fewer protections than are prisoners of war. Hundreds of such detainees have been held for several years without trial at the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, while others were held at secret prisons overseas.

The new measure, which the House approved 253 to 168 on Wednesday, rejects Bush's earlier bid to narrow U.S. obligations under the Geneva Conventions in the treatment of such detainees. But it grants the executive branch substantial leeway in deciding how to comply with treaty obligations regulating actions that fall short of "grave breaches" of the conventions.

It would bar military commissions from considering testimony obtained through interrogation techniques that involve "cruel, unusual or inhumane treatment or punishment," which the Constitution's Fifth, Eighth and 14th amendments prohibit. The bar would be retroactive only to Dec. 30, 2005 -- when Congress adopted the Detainee Treatment Act -- to protect CIA operatives from possible prosecution over interrogation tactics used before that date.

Yesterday's main drama involved Specter's bid to amend the bill to grant the habeas corpus right to foreign detainees. Habeas corpus appeals -- a legal cornerstone -- allow prisoners to ask a judge to rule on the legality of their detention.

Specter and his allies said the habeas corpus right must apply to all persons -- including noncitizens -- held in U.S. custody. Most other Republicans said foreigners designated by the military as "unlawful enemy combatants" do not deserve habeas corpus protections.

Specter's amendment failed, 51 to 48. Senate Republicans voting for the habeas corpus amendment were Specter, Chafee, Gordon Smith (Ore.) and John E. Sununu (N.H.). Ben Nelson (Neb.) was the only Democrat who opposed the amendment. Four amendments drafted by Democrats also failed, mostly along party lines.

Republicans, especially in the House, plan to use the military commission and wiretapping legislation as a one-two punch against Democrats this fall. The legislative action prompted extraordinarily blunt language from House GOP leaders, foreshadowing a major theme for the campaign. Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) issued a written statement on Wednesday declaring: "Democrat Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and 159 of her Democrat colleagues voted today in favor of MORE rights for terrorists."

GOP leaders continued such attacks after the wiretapping vote. "For the second time in just two days, House Democrats have voted to protect the rights of terrorists," Hastert said last night, while Boehner lashed out at what he called "the Democrats' irrational opposition to strong national security policies."

Democrats tried to deflect such attacks by focusing on the newly released National Intelligence Estimate, partially leaked on Saturday, which concludes that the Iraq war has become a "cause celebre" for terrorists. But Republicans maneuvered their attacks toward that issue as well.

"The Democrats' jubilance with the national intelligence leak over the weekend underscores just how dangerous I think my friends on the other side of the aisle are when it comes to national security," Boehner said yesterday.

Democrats said they will take the high road. "There will be 30-second attack ads and negative mail pieces, and we will be called everything from cut-and-run quitters to Defeatocrats, to people who care more about the rights of terrorists than the protection of Americans," predicted Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.). "While I know all of this, I'm still disappointed, and I'm still ashamed, because what we're doing here today -- a debate over the fundamental human rights of the accused -- should be bigger than politics."

Democratic leaders stressed that the attacks will not work. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, cited polling that he said suggested that matters such as warrantless wiretapping and military commissions are "secondary issues," lagging well behind Iraq in the public's mind. Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) said it is "beyond [his] ability to comprehend" how a member of Congress could be accused of supporting terrorism.

But Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, a prominent Democratic polling firm, tried to raise alarms yesterday with the release of focus group findings that suggest that the attacks would work if not countered forcefully. "Attacks on Democrats for opposing any effort to stop terrorists . . . were highly effective," the pollsters' memo stated.

Under the House surveillance bill, the National Security Agency could conduct electronic surveillance of international communications for up to 45 days without a warrant, but the administration would then have to obtain permission from the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and, in most cases, would have to notify lawmakers.

But the congressional intelligence committees could recertify any warrantless wiretapping repeatedly, in 45-day increments, without referral to the court. And restraints on the program could be suspended in the aftermath of a terrorist attack or when the president determines that the country is under "imminent threat." The "imminent threat" provision was added at the insistence of the Bush administration.

A brief history of habeas corpus

Habeas corpus is under attack, say critics of the government's anti-terror bill. But what is it and why is it so cherished?

Habeas corpus (ad subjiciendum) is Latin for "you may have the body" (subject to examination). It is a writ which requires a person detained by the authorities be brought before a court of law so that the legality of the detention may be examined.

The name is taken from the opening words of the writ in medieval times.

Although rarely used nowadays, it can theoretically be demanded by anyone who believes they are unlawfully detained and it is issued by a judge.

It does not determine guilt or innocence, merely whether the person is legally imprisoned. It may also be writ against a private individual detaining another.

If the charge is considered to be valid, the person must submit to trial but if not, the person goes free.

The Habeas Corpus Act passed by Parliament in 1679 guaranteed this right in law, although its origins go back much further, probably to Anglo-Saxon times.

Habeas corpus has a mythical status in the country's psyche

Michael Zander QC

Sir William Blackstone, who wrote his famous Commentaries on the Laws of England in the 18th Century, recorded the first use of habeas corpus in 1305. But other writs with the same effect were used in the 12th Century, so it appears to have preceded Magna Carta in 1215.

Its original use was more straightforward - a writ to bring a prisoner into court to testify in a pending trial. But what began as a weapon for the king and the courts became - as the political climate changed - protection for the individual against arbitrary detention by the state.

It is thought to have been common law by the time of Magna Carta, which says in Article 39: "No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor will we send upon him except upon the lawful judgement of his peers or the law of the land."

Over the next few hundred years, concern grew that kings would whimsically intervene on matters of detention, so it was enshrined in law in 1679.

Night calls

In 1772, there was a landmark case in which it was invoked. James Somersett, a black slave brought back to the UK from Jamaica, was freed after a debate sparked by his demand for habeas corpus. Lord Mansfield successfully argued for his release.

These days it is rarely used, although it has greater effect in the US, where its most common use is by prisoners after conviction.

Michael Zander QC, Emeritus Professor of Law at the London School of Economics, says: "Habeas corpus has a mythical status in the country's psyche.

King John's clash with the barons strengthened the rights of habeas corpus

"In reality it is no longer of great practical significance as there are today very few habeas corpus applications, but it still represents the fundamental principle that unlawful detention can be challenged by immediate access to a judge - even by telephone in the middle of the night."

It no longer plays a role in regard to detention by the police as it has been superseded by the much more detailed and workable provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which lays down precise rules about the length of pre-charge detention, he adds.

But there have been occasions when the British Parliament has suspended it, usually in times of social unrest.

William Pitt, startled by the success of the French revolution, did so after France declared war on Britain in 1793, to arrest parliamentary reformers. This was repeated by Lord Liverpool's government against the same movement in 1817.

War was a particularly fraught time for individual liberty. The Defence of the Realm Act 1914 meant the home secretary could intern residents and it was used against people of German descent, and Irish suspected of involvement in the Easter Uprising.

These powers were reinstated in World War II to detain those of German background, including Jewish refugees, as well as those with known fascist sympathies, such as Oswald Mosley. At the same time, the US authorities interned more than 110,000 Japanese-Americans.

Everyone has a right to habeas corpus and that will remain the case

Home Office spokesman

But the most recent example happened in 1971, when the British Government introduced the internment of hundreds of republican suspects in an attempt to shut down the IRA. The tactic was abandoned four years later and is thought to have increased support for the IRA.

Whether the anti-terror bill is the latest chapter in the history of habeas corpus is a matter of debate. Boris Johnson MP said earlier in the week that Tony Blair is the first peacetime prime minister to curtail the right to habeas corpus.

Since then, the Lords appears to have won a concession that all the control orders issued against terror suspects be made by judges, not by ministers. And Home Secretary Charles Clarke insists there is no plan to detain anyone under the new laws.

Mr Zander says: "The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 passed in the aftermath of 9/11 set aside habeas corpus in regard to terrorism suspects who cannot be prosecuted. The Prevention of Terrorism Bill now before Parliament would broaden the ways in which terrorism suspects can be dealt with without being charged or prosecuted."

But the Home Office denies its plans amount to habeas corpus suspension. A spokesman said: "We are not removing habeas corpus rights. Everyone has a right to habeas corpus and that will remain the case."