Arlen Specter: “I am concerned, Mr. President, about a couple of provisions. I think the bill is too restrictive in limiting the ability…”

“I am concerned, Mr. President, about a couple of provisions. I think the bill is too restrictive in limiting the ability to present a claim of innocence, requiring that it be proved by clear and convincing evidence. I joined Senator Levin in seeking to change that standard. But the reality is that the standard of proof is a very variable thing. I think if it is established innocence, it may not make a whole lot of practical difference, but I think clear and convincing evidence is too high a standard from a theoretical point of view. Similarly, I do not favor the deference which is allowed to the State court decision, requiring that it has to be unreasonable in order for the Federal court to overturn it. But I think in a Federal habeas corpus proceeding, if the court thinks it is unreasonable, it will be able to overturn the decision, notwithstanding a standard that is really not as precise as it ought to be. I think the exhaustion requirement is misplaced here. We would be better off without it. But the net effect, Mr. President, is that this legislation is very good legislation taken as a whole. It will help out on terrorism with the additional resources.”