Update [2005-11-10 15:58:41 by susanhu]: 20-minute DEBATE NOW ON CSPAN2 — RIVETING!
Call <strike<or e-mail your senators. Thanks! Update [2005-11-10 15:5:57 by susanhu]: Lindsey Graham is talking now … “we’re at war,” blah, blah … so the hell with habeas corpus!
Graham amendment to S. 1042 – eliminate habeas for Guantananmo.” The votes are stacking up for passage so your immediate calls are critical. Update [2005-11-10 14:16:37 by susanhu]: List of key senators and phone numbers just below the fold.
Via The Daou Report, posted at Martini Republic:
Make sure Gitmo stays a gulag
Senator Lindsey Graham has Cheney’s back. Graham is considering attaching a stipulation to a defense bill – one which may get a vote as early as today – which would effectively end all current and future litigation brought by detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Jeralyn of TalkLeft reports that Graham’s bill would prevent detainees from challenging any of the following in U.S. courts: * The legality of their detentions * The propriety of returning detainees to their home countries * Adequacy of medical care at Guantanamo * Quality of the food * Speed of mail delivery * Allotment of exercise time and other conditions of confinement. …
Via CCR’s ACTION Page:
… the Center for Constitutional Rights has received word that Senator Graham of South Carolina is planning to introduce an amendment to the defense appropriations bill that would strip the federal courts of jurisdiction and prohibit them from even hearing arguments against indefinite detention not only from Guantánamo detainees, but from anyone who has the misfortune of finding themselves at any U.S.-run facility anywhere. Even within the United States Do not let this happen! STOP THIS ASSAULT ON THE CONSTITUTION: WRITE YOUR SENATORS NOW.
PLEASE ALSO CALL YOUR SENATORS RIGHT NOW and urge them to vote against the Graham amendment. And please circulate this message widely.
Lincoln Chaffee (R-RI) (202) 224-2921
Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) (202) 224-5344
Susan Collins (R-Maine) (202) 224-2523
Pete Domenici (R-NM) (202) 224-6621
Bill Nelson (D-Fl) (202) 224-5274
Arlen Specter (R-Pa) (202) 224-4254
Mike Dewine (R-Oh) (202) 224-2315
Brownback (R- KS) (202) 224-6521
From Crooks & Liars:
Talk LeftSenator Lindsay Graham is introducing an Amendment to the defense appropriations bill pending in the Senate (S. 1042) that would strip those designated by the Administration as enemy combatants of the ability to seek habeas review in federal courts….read on
Obsidian Wings: This is seriously bad news. As best I can tell, it strips the courts of all power to hear any habeas motion from a detainee, or any other challenge to a detainee’s detention, and that this applies to any cases that have already been brought and are now pending…read on
Body and Soul: If you’ve been under the impression that Lindsey Graham is one of the rare Republicans good guys on the torture issue, be prepared to lose your innocence…read on
Update [2005-11-10 14:10:4 by susanhu]:
From the Los Angeles Times:
Don’t cross the habeas corpus line
By David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey, DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. and LEE A. CASEY are partners in a Washington law firm and served in the JusticeDepartment under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
LIKE ALL WARS, the “war on terror” has resulted in expanded use of the government’s power, and this is especially true with respect to the treatment of captured enemy combatants. The Bush administration has correctly held such individuals under the laws of war, without criminal trial, and has denied them the privileges of honorable “prisoners of war” under the Geneva Convention.
However, there are certain lines that have not been, and should not be, crossed — at least not unless things get much worse. Unfortunately, the Senate is poised to consider just such a move in the form of legislation that would strip the federal courts of jurisdiction to consider habeas corpus petitions from noncitizen detainees.
This measure is being advanced as an amendment to the Department of Defense authorization bill. It would eliminate federal court jurisdiction, including the Supreme Court’s, over habeas corpus applications (or any other form of action challenging such detention) filed by noncitizens held as enemy combatants.
The writ of habeas corpus is rightly considered the glory of Anglo-American common law. For centuries, it has served as a central check on governmental power, permitting those held in custody to challenge the legality of their detention.
Under the Constitution, the right to habeas corpus review can be suspended “when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” In the past, habeas corpus has been suspended only in the direst of circumstances, as at the beginning of the Civil War, when the federal government was reeling and Washington was vulnerable to attack and capture.
THIS IS NOT to say that the dangers presented by the war on terror are not real and immediate; they most certainly are. However, so far, judicial review of the government’s detention policies has not compromised its ability to defend American interests. No alleged terrorist has been released against the government’s will, and the Supreme Court has upheld most of the administration’s core legal claims. In this regard, a majority of the justices has accepted that the United States is at war, that captured enemy combatants (including American citizens) can be held without criminal charge or trial while the conflict continues, and that the Geneva Convention does not automatically apply. Lower federal courts have approved the establishment of military commissions to try captives for war crimes.
As a result, –> even assuming that the relevant constitutional standard for a suspension of habeas corpus has been met, proposals to eliminate habeas review of enemy combatant classifications are premature. In fact, it is not even clear that the courts would seek to extend such review to non-U.S. citizens held overseas <–. The Supreme Court ruled that the writ was available to detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, largely because that territory is so completely controlled by the United States. Moreover, to the extent that the Defense Department authorization amendment would effectively overrule that decision and eliminate habeas corpus review for individuals held at Guantanamo, it is unwise — legally and politically. ….
Read all at the Los Angeles Times