"The Graham Amendment is a last minute sneak attack"

[kpete]

Senator's amendment would bar detainees from challenging detention
Miriam Raftery

An amendment to the Defense bill proposed by Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) that would prohibit suspected terrorists held at the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay from challenging their detentions in U.S. courts is expected to come to a vote this evening.

The measure would strip courts of all power to hear any habeas motion from a detainee, or any other challenge to a detainee's detention. Constitional rights groups oppose the amendment.

"The Graham Amendment is a last minute sneak attack upon the integrity of our Constitution and Bill of Rights," the Center for Constitutional Rights said in a statement.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Senators_amendment_would_bar_detainees_from_1110.html

[DebJ]

1. passed 49-42 here are results:

Grouped By Vote Position YEAs ---49
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dole (R-NC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lott (R-MS)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-NE)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Stevens (R-AK)
Talent (R-MO)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---42
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Smith (R-OR)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Sununu (R-NH)

Not Voting - 9
Alexander (R-TN)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Domenici (R-NM)
Enzi (R-WY)
Hagel (R-NE)
Inouye (D-HI)
Lugar (R-IN)
Santorum (R-PA)
Thomas (R-WY)

[acmejack]

3. Usual Dem suspects

Liebermann, Landreiu, Conrad, Nelson, and Wyden.

[ReadTomPaine]

8. Damn, we have to tie these bastards to the Dem platform with a rope.

[IntravenousDemilo]

10. it would be much easier

just to expel them from the party. Purge time!

[ReadTomPaine]

11. No argument here.

Many of these names come up again and again. If they want to play conservative with their constituency during election time stumping that's fine, but in DC they should vote with the party or hit the highway.

[stop the bleeding]

5. they already voted? shit I was driving home and heard it on NPR

and they were talking like the vote was later tonight.

[hang a left]

2. Didn't the Supreme Court rule on this already? eom

[texpatriot2004]

6. What did they say HAL? nm

[hang a left]

7. Well I thought that they ruled the detainees must have access

to American courts. I will go look it up and come back.

[hang a left]

9. Here...

Q&A: US Supreme Court Guantanamo ruling
Prisoner at Guantanamo Bay under guard
Prisoners can now go to court

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay can take their case that they are unlawfully imprisoned to the American courts.

BBC News Online looks at the issues involved.

What did the Supreme Court say?

The overall ruling of the court was: "United States courts have jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay."

The court then described how this should happen. It accepted the argument from lawyers from the Center for Constitutional Rights that the Federal District Court in Washington DC (to which the case was first brought) does have jurisdiction to hear the prisoners' petition, under the "habeas corpus" law, that they are held "in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States."

What is habeas corpus?

Habeas corpus is a Latin phrase meaning: "You have the body." It is the name given to an ancient legal device under English common law (a mixture of judge-made laws, precedents and statutes). Habeas corpus was continued in American law after independence.

If a writ of habeas corpus is issued by a court, the person holding a prisoner (the "body") must bring the prisoner to the court and justify the detention. It has been a basic instrument under which courts in common law systems have protected citizens against wrongful imprisonment.

Why did the Supreme Court rule in the prisoners' favour?

snip>

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3867067.stm

[texpatriot2004]

12. So how can Graham pass this rubbish? nm

[kohodog]

4. And the new SCOTUS will undoubtedly uphold.

War monger Lieberman again on the wrong side.