Senate Republican Working on Proposal to Bar Terror Suspects From U.S.

[cal04]

Senate Republican Working on Proposal to Bar Terror Suspects From U.S. Courts
A Senate Republican wants to bar suspected foreign terrorists held at the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, from challenging their detentions in U.S. courts, a proposal that is drawing protest from human rights groups. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said he also faces some resistance from Senate colleagues and the White House as he considers whether to try attaching his proposal to a defense bill the Senate is debating this week. Senators could vote on the proposal as early as Thursday.

"What I object to is criminalizing the war. Enemy combatants, POWs have never had access to federal court before," said Graham, a 20-year Air Force lawyer. The White House, while not necessary opposed in principle to the proposal, has not yet signed off on it.

Graham's effort comes as the GOP-led Senate prepared to rebuff the White House a second time by approving another defense bill that would ban cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of foreign prisoners in U.S. custody. The measure also would require U.S. troops to follow interrogation procedures in the Army Field Manual. The administration has threatened to veto any bills containing the provisions. Top House Republicans have indicated their opposition, too.

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGB2VDACUFE.html

[Solon]

1. Disgusting...

The war is criminal you fucking asshole of a Senator. He should be tried at the Hague along with Bush and the rest of these fucking traitors to humanity.

[truthisfreedom]

2. what are rethugs afraid of, exactly? that there might actually be some

justice in the world? that these "detainees"... "enemy combatants"... "POWs"... might blow up the courtrooms somehow? or that something might be revealed? some unthinkable, unspeakable truth? some horrible unthinkable unspeakable revelation about horrors in the "camps"?

these code words "criminalize the war" can only mean one thing... "shed light on the truth."

[ErisFiveFingers]

3. Well, he's wrong, for one.

POWs *have* had access, it's just usually replaced by military tribunal.

Ex parte Quirin is a key read on this issue:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=317&invol=1

[Carolab]

4. Oh, no, we wouldn't want to air our dirty laundry in a court of law.

Would we?

[Sgent]

5. That's the whole d*mn problem

either they are POW's -- with all the rights and privlidges that come with that, or they are criminal detainees, with full access to US Courts.

Make up your mind which.

Edit: POW's have to be treated according to the Geneva Convention, unlike criminals.

[madmark]

6. If we declared war against Al Quada and treated Al Quada prisoners

in accord with the Geneva conventions I would have no problem prohibiting these people from asserting criminal rights; but that's not what has happened is it. Bush has not sought a dec of war from congress (he should) and does not want to treat Al Quada prisoners in accord with geneva conventions. When you do not do those things you raise the spectre of the applicability of criminal law rights.