Don't miss John torture-memo Yoo, now a 'tenured radical' at UC Berkeley, if you can believe it, defending torture on C-SPAN's Washington Journal, topping off a week of shame for the United States of America.

Statement from the Center for Constitutional Rights:

GRAHAM AMENDMENT PASSES: HABEAS CORPUS SUSPENDED
Bush’s New Assault on Democracy: Habeas Corpus Stabbed in the Back

Synopsis

The Bush Administration, through an amendment introduced by South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, has just successfully stripped federal courts of jurisdiction to hear applications for habeas corpus brought by those unilaterally declared enemy combatants without any process and held by the U.S. indefinitely throughout the world and even in the United States. This was accomplished by means of a last minute amendment to the Military Authorization Bill, brought up on the floor of the Senate without committee deliberations and virtually no advance warning to the American people that it was happening.

It was not only human rights groups like the Center for Constitutional Rights, but many in the military or retired from the military who opposed the Graham amendment: Judge John Gibbons, who argued the landmark CCR case Rasul v. Bush before the Supreme Court, John Hutson, Dean of Franklin Pierce Law Center and former Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Navy, and the National Institute for Military Justice, among others, wrote open letters to the Senate to oppose the dismantling of habeas corpus.

The Graham amendment will create a thousand points of darkness across the globe where the United States will be free to hold people indefinitely without a hearing and beyond the reach of U.S. law and the checks and balances of the courts enshrined in our Constitution. The last time this country suspended habeas corpus was for the internment of tens of thousands of Japanese Americans during World War II, a travesty that is now universally recognized as a blot on our nation’s history. The purpose of the writ of habeas corpus has always been to relieve those wrongfully held from the oppression of unchecked executive power. The most reliable way to determine whether someone is properly held or a victim of injustice is to have a right to judicial review of the detention. This has been understood at least since the proclamation of the Magna Carta in 1215.

While the Administration and its supporters have tried to characterize the men being held at Guantánamo as the worst of the worst against all evidence, the fact is that even the military has admitted that they often apprehended the wrong people. Most have no ties to Al Qaida, many were turned over to the U.S. for bounty, and many more were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. If they have no way to appeal their innocence or their status, they will be left to rot in detention indefinitely.

Senator Graham's jurisdiction-stripping efforts come as allegations of secret CIA detention facilities around the world dominate headlines; the Bush Administration has consistently sought to put itself above the law and evade oversight and accountability for torture and other abuse. It is no secret that arbitrary indefinite detention and widespread prisoner mistreatment have taken and continue to take place at Guantánamo and other U.S.-run facilities. The Graham Amendment will only serve to reinforce the growing perception in the world that the United States has become an enemy of human rights.

As has been the practice of this Administration, this latest scheme was accomplished stealthily and in secret. The Center for Constitutional Rights vows to continue to fight for the rule of law. We will not allow American democracy to be eroded a little at a time, until, finally looking around, we can longer recognize what has become of this democratic nation.

Let Senator Graham know what you think about his actions:

Senator Lindsay Graham
Washington Office
290 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
phone (202) 224-5972

Now that the Patriot Act has deprived us of our fundamental freedoms, American citizens can look forward to losing the rights of habeas corpus. I'm so sick and tired of feeling my heart sink or my adrenalin rushing in outrage by these people trying to destroy our country. Will America's nightmare ever end before there's nothing left to fight for --- because I really can't take it any more? ... It's all too hopeless.

steve,

not to nit-pick, but according to graham's floor speech/tantrum during debate, he repeatedly said that the habeus stripping aspect of his ammendment was for non-citizens, i.e. non-uniformed combatents. you said 'citizens' in your post; this is an important difference. (note: i don't support this ammendment; just setting the record straight.)

suspending habeus is a serious move, and makes us look awful, especially coming when it does, the same week when powerful documentary evidence of our indiscriminant use of white phosphorous in falluja comes out, and so close on the heels of the goulag revelations.

it's almost like the gop is consciously auditioning for entry in the axis of evil. if you can't beat'em, join'em, eh gop?

i don't understand the rush to do this. it seems that this whole sitaution is probably unprecendented and requires some study. what to do with this class of combatant, captured during a non-war, uniformed, not acting on behalf of a nation state?

complicated issues need thoughtful responses, not knee-jerk reactionary crap like this ammendment. i'm curious about the history on this one...what has historically been done with people in this gray area - captured foreign agents, sabatuers, guerilla fighters, etc? does it matter that we don't have a declared war? perhaps more important, what are the internationally recognized standards for legal rights and protections?

i'm with the senators who recommended moving this issue to the judiciary committee for study; we need to think this through.

dang -- Graham's amendment is a specific rebuke to the June 28, 2004 Supreme Court ruling on Rasul v. Bush that upholds the right of detainees -- both US citizens and non-citizens -- to challenge their detention in a US court. Both foreign nationals and US citizens have been declared 'enemy combatants' by the Bush administration.

btree -

thanks. i stand (well, sit) corrected on that and, honestly, am dumbfounded. i can see an argument for (though not entirely agree with) not having habeus protection for non-citizen combatants. i just can't imagine suspending habeus for citizens.

graham was a jag, yes? does he not understand what he's done? how can he go from being a gop point man on opposing torture to this? how can he expect oversight of the facilities if prisoners have no access to courts? was it all posing and posturing?

i was beginning to believe he was a mildly sane and reasonable man for a conservative. wow. guess not.

what's the process now? are there similar efforts afoot in the house? if signed, can this be struck down? oh wait, didn't roberts already grant bush wide latitude on similar matters? is it naive of me to hope for negative press coverage?

ok, now i'm rambling...sorry.

I've been thinking (and that's a dangerous thing for me):

Could the "leak" of "secret prisons" be Trent Lott himself?

Just a thought.

“… suspending habeus is a serious move, and makes us look awful, especially coming when it does, the same week when powerful documentary evidence of our indiscriminant use of white phosphorous in falluja comes out, and so close on the heels of the goulag revelations.”

Dang,

Apt phrase: “coming when it does.” I wonder if the U.S. death toll in Iraq, the deficit, gas prices, move to cut back on food stamps, etc., are enough to sensitize Congress about the usefulness of treating Muslims as humans. The media have yet to get it. They’ve almost blacked out the “use of white phosphorous in Falluja,” and of course the horror this illegal war is visiting on millions of Iraqis. Unfortunately, many Americans’ conscience is activated in proportion to America’s adversity. Protests against Vietnam – another horrible and illegal war -- didn’t hit the streets until the sights of body bags pouring into Dover became unbearable. I bet America owes much of its growing sensitivity about this war (and the “rights” of Muslim prisoners) to the Iraqi insurgents. I hope things don’t have to get much worse before Congress and media (both served as cheerleaders to the warmongers until Iraq began to explode) realize that America can’t afford to operate like an outlaw state in the 21st century.

Mustafa

I guess we all know what the layers of a onion look like. Ya keep peeling them away and eventually ya got nothing! And believe it or not, we can thank those democrats who, for whatever reason they may pose, just simply don't get it.
If anyone tries to explain why any democratic senator voted with the gop on this they to( the explainers)just don't get it.
And that is why there is not a single chance that this country can survive as we have come to love it. This country has become a totalitarian state. The citizenry will march blindly into oblivion while the world laughs. Just watch the world press. Watch the response to our calls for understanding regarding our behavior world wide.
What a bloody shame. I guess one can say that the great experiment ha failed.
billjpa

There are 3 good paragraphs to the Graham bill, and one bad one, and even before the vote, Bingaman had said he would offer a second order amendment to the Graham that would strip the bad one paragraph out. Anyone who wants to change their vote has good cover to do so, and should be encouraged -- strongly but politely -- to reconsider.

One cannot -- as Graham does -- say that all the people in Gtmo are terrorists without first giving them trials. One cannot -- as Graham does -- say that the cases are being filed everywhere, without acknowledging that even if so, they all get transferred to DC. One cannot -- as Graham does -- say that the 'our soldiers are being sued' when the defendants in these suits are Bush and Rumsfeld. And Gen. Hood in his capacity as jailer. One cannot -- as Graham does -- say that these cases are clogging courts, without acknowledging that the judges have appointed a magistrate to coordinate lesser issues, while issuing a stay in every single case, pending resolution of a single case on appeal about prisoners' legal rights. One cannot -- as Graham does -- say that these guys were seized on the battlefield, when a great many of them were not (but were picked up far from any battle, unarmed, on the say-so of someone collecting a bounty). One cannot -- as Graham does -- say that in Quirin, the Supreme Court said that enemy combatants may not petition for habeas corpus, when it did exactly the opposite, reviewing the legality of the German prisoner's detention, trial, and execution. (The gov't won on the merits, not on the jurisdictional point).

The Graham Amendment is bad policy, sold on dishonest facts.

We are the enemy.
Why would Iraq want our Democracy? Its a lot like what they have had in the past.....
I am so saddened.

“I guess one can say that the great experiment has failed.”

Billjpa,

I don’t know if the democratic experiment has “failed” in America, but it obviously has been derailed. Yes, people around the world laughed when it produced W as our president, and were shocked when he was reelected. They shook their heads in disbelief when architects of this foolish and disastrous war, instead of being fired, got promotions as World Bank president, secretary of state, national security adviser, and so forth. It no longer has a mechanism for accountability. I only wish Bush knew what the Saudis think of democracy when he preaches it!

Mustafa

Thanks for this, Steve. Exactly my sentiments.

And a great first sentence:

"What is America if it doesn't believe that all citizens have the rights of habeus corpus?"

Months ago now, Lindsay Graham had been warbling his muted objections to the handling of GITMO detainees, saying that JAG lawyers were concerned about the law, about America, about the Constitution.

Now this.

Apparently, Graham thinks it's possible to intentionally illegalize the Contitution, the American character, and the Geneva Convention, among other long-held statutes and treaties.

So... he was a lying snake all along?

Or is this an attempt to cut off McCain -- and bury all debate, all knowledge, into a pit of darkness from which no light or information will ever emerge?

Everybody's off the hook (in a fig-leaf, legalistic, shroud-of-secrecy sense) -- but we must never speak of this again.

Graham only made his muted JAG-inspired rumblings of dissatisfaction with the detainee treatment and tribunal process -- because it became news.

I suspect that Graham was considered the right "one" to do this precisely because he was already on record opposing torture.

I am not too hopeful it will do much good but I am getting the word out here in SC to try to hit up all of his local offices with citizen complaints.

Image how we feel here. By comparison, Lindsey is our "good" Senator. Just wait until you start hearing from our new one!

Scold me if this is a really stupid question -- but how can a bill pass the Senate with 49 votes? One can see that more voted for than against, but not 50 or 51, so no majority. Is the voting not finished? Does it have something to do with abstentions? Are we waiting for Cheney to cast a deciding vote (which on this he surely would)?

What is all the fuss? It's just a little illegal detention. It's just a little torture. The detainees aren't even American so, who cares? You think that the American people care what happens to those in illegal detention? You think that the American people care about torture? Don't make me laugh. The American people don't care or this kind of madness wouldn't occur. The fops in the Congress have carte blanche to wage assault on the American Constitution and basic human rights and the American people remain silent. Get over it! Your democracy is lost.

I breaks my heart that many believe along with Senator Graham and supporters of his amendment that abandoning a such a fundamental principle of our jurisprudence is necessary to winning the GWOT.

The truth is precisely the opposite. Those who support such amendments and oppose those like Senator McCain's to utterly ban CID of prisoners and detainees, have already admitted defeat.

They are admitting that they are neither willing or strong enough to resist barbarism with the most powerful tools of freedom and democracy -- adherence to fundamental human rights and equal protections under the law.

We are being led by weak, bullying, cowards who, rather than commit themselves heart and soul to advancing the principles of self-governance they trumpet daily to justify acts of cruelty and corruption, push to abandon those very principles and the institutional supports on which they depend.

We truly are under siege from within. Our leaders care nothing for America's legacy as a city on hill casting a beam of light over a dark world. For generations they've done their work, lurking in the darkness. They cringe from that light . . .

"not to nit-pick, but according to graham's floor speech/tantrum during debate, he repeatedly said that the habeus stripping aspect of his ammendment was for non-citizens, i.e. non-uniformed combatents. you said 'citizens' in your post; this is an important difference. (note: i don't support this ammendment; just setting the record straight.)"

Posted by btree

Define "enemy combatant". You know, if you don't know WTF you are talking about, it might be wise for you to put a cork in it. As loosely defined as "enemy combatant" is by these fascists, you could easily find, in the not too distant future, YOURSELF being defined as one because you called the CIC a "monkey" during a time of "war".

What the hell is Ron Wyden doing with that group?

btree and bluinsc,

Just called and left messages at EACH regional office. When the low-level staffers have to confront the extra-Constitutional nature of this sort of thing, the ideology loses out to sinking morale throughout the office.

Today is November 11th, Veteran's Day Capitalize on that. When you call, point out that our soldiers died to ensure habeas corpus remains the law of the land --not to betray that principle. Further, America is the FIRST country that ought to live up to it in practice, since it asserts the princple by its very existence that ALL human beings have these Creator-endowed rights in the face of abuse of power. The point of habeas corpus is to limit government.

Otherwise, do we really have a country?

Senator Graham's contact info:

Washington Office
290 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
(202) 224-5972 phone

Upstate Regional Office
101 East Washington Street, Suite 220
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
(864) 250-1417

Midlands Regional Office
508 Hampton Street, Suite 202
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
(803) 933-0112 phone

Pee Dee Regional Office
McMillan Federal Building
401 West Evans Street, Suite 226B
Florence, South Carolina 29501
(843) 669-1505 phone

Lowcountry Regional Office
530 Johnnie Dodds Boulevard, Suite 202
Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina 29464
(843) 849-3887 phone

Piedmont Regional Office
140 East Main Street, Suite 110
Rock Hill, South Carolina 29730
(803) 366-2828 phone

Golden Corner Regional Office (part-time)
135 Eagles Nest Drive, Suite B
Seneca, South Carolina 29678
(864) 888-3330

hilzoy at Obsidian Wings seems to think these Senators are particularly worth contacting.

(Kent Conrad's office is the only one with staffers working the phones today; he was great.)

But the good news is: We can still do something about this. Sen. Bingaman has an amendment which will strike the jurisdiction-stripping provision of Graham's amendment. It should come up for a vote early next week. So please, please, call your Senators again, and ask them to support Bingaman's amendment to Graham's amendment to S. 1042.

Some particularly crucial Senators:

Collins (ME) T: (202) 224-2523 F: (202) 224-2693

Dewine (OH) T: (202) 224-2315 F: (202) 224-6519

Mccain (AZ) T: (202) 224-2235 F: (202) 228-2862

Snowe (ME) T: (202) 224-5344 F: (202) 224-1946

Warner (VA) T: (202) 224-2023 F: (202) 224-6295

Hagel (NE ) T: (202) 224-4224 F: (202) 224-5213

Conrad (D Nd)T: (202) 224-2043 F: (202) 224-7776

Landrieu (D LA) T: (202)224-5824 F:(202) 224-9735

Lieberman(D CT) T:(202) 224-4041 F:(202) 224-9750

Nelson (D NEB) T: (202) 224-6551 F:(202) 228-0012

Wyden (D OR) T: (202) 224-5244 F: (202) 228-2717

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2005/11/the_evil_amendm.html#comment-11104571

Just let Graham know what I thought of his habeas corpus. Also wrote my Rep. to strongly encourage him to right this wrong, and to talk to all moderate/warblers and tell him/her we are watching.

Please. It's a quick email to your rep.
http://www.house.gov/

Perhaps Senator Graham has had one
too many dreams about stripping
men in cages...so the closest he can come
is to strip them of their rights.

I am convinced history will look back
on this time in America
with shock and awe at the hysteria and
downright criminal behavior of our leaders
after 9-11.

This is my first visit to this blog, and i must say that I am finding myself very impressed. I heard you speak today, Mr. Clemons, and saw you on the ARD station talking about politics in America and America´s foreign policy direction.

It is very good to hear someone make some sense of these times. My student friends and I are very glad that we got to hear you speak, and though your comments started a great debate today in the German meetings, you were very clear, very fair, but very strong in your views without being pushed around but not either obstinate or difficult.

As I said before, my friends and I were so impressed we had to see your blog.

I hope that others who read this blog of Mr. Clemons on the Guantanamo prisoner´s rights or many other topics will recognize as Mr. Clemons says that to ask questions and to debate and to disagree are "vital acts of patriotism."

Thank you for reading my message.

Matthias

an especially large number of Republicans were Not voting. This is above the vote pairing. Does this indicate GOP qualms about this issue?

Steve,
the principles of good and evil and right and wrong are not specific to any one nationality. America believes that all men are created equal. That all citizens regardless of their nationality, immigration status, religious preference, skin color, or geographical location are respected free and equal. We believe that all men are entitled by God equality, and by the United States Constitution a fair, impartial and public trial.

One simple, but extremely relevent fact that has been ignored by the media is, if any of our congressmen, or women support any concept which is in conflict with what is outlined and protected under the United States Constitution they are admittedly in breach of their oath and affirmation. Their signature on any legislation would provide proof of such egregious violation.

The fact that Congress is even facilitating the idea of suspending anyone’s rights really highlights their callas disregard for American tradition, the U.S. Constitution and rule of law. Their challenging mindset and legislative manipulations best demonstrates precisely why the deeds of this elitist, multiparty, corporate sucking congress can not be ignored in the next election.

Similar to the anti-American agenda of international terrorists this multiparty congress has placed themselves in opposition of our carefully devised and Constitutionally protected system of law and government.

If left in office they will destroy the fundamental bases of liberty, freedom and equality in both America and around the world. It’s time for some real change in congress.

FYI, the text of Graham's amendment specifically limited itself to aliens at Guantanamo. Here's a diary at dKos where I posted the text.

It's still horrible, and shameful. WTF is up with Ron Wyden voting for this? The other Dems/DINO's were no surprise.

"I am convinced history will look back
on this time in America
with shock and awe at the hysteria and
downright criminal behavior of our leaders"
after 9-11.

Posted by Anna

In case you haven't noticed, these people are rewriting history in unison to making it. There is a long list of events and statements that, although a part of actual history, are now being denied by this Adminisrtration. Did you know that a couple of years ago we flew yellow cake out of Iraq, from Tuwaitha, into the United States for "safe storage" without the permission or the oversight of the IAEA??? (Comforting that they were flying radioactive materials over our heads as we slept unaware, eh?) It was reported by a number of news entities. Now, try to find ANY REFERENCE to that event in print or on the internet. It has been SCRUBBED, as have many other references to Tuwaitha that once existed on the internet. This is but one example among many that could be offered. Even "google news" has cleansed itself of many news reports that used to exist on the net. The Fox News statements regarding the five Israelis that were seen celebrating the fall of the WTC were SCRUBBED, from all their archives. The list goes on and on. Fascists make their own accounts of history, and when you have a media that is beholding to the fascists, history becomes lost in the fiction of false rationales and misleading justifications. Just look at Bush's desertion from his Texas Air National Guard commitments, versus the media accounts, if you doubt my assertion. The recording of TRUE history is discouraged today, and if you are an HONEST journalist, you become a TARGET of this administration.

No Habeas for Them, No Habeas for Us:

Tinkering with habeas corpus is a dangerous thing. Today, Sen. Lindsay Graham and his fellow Senators told you they are only restricting habeas rights of enemy combatants, i.e., foreigners. [ed. that's a false statement: the Bush administration has declared US citizens enemy or unlawful combatants as well (for example José Padilla). Moreover, the term itself is not defined in international law] But on November 16, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a second hearing on S. 1088 (pdf), a bill that would gut habeas corpus rights for Americans.

The legislation, known as the Streamlined Procedures Act, would effectively kill the writ of habeas corpus by stripping federal courts of jurisdiction to consider cases in which a prisoner's constitutional rights may have been violated. The legislation would apply to all criminal cases, including capital cases. The legislation is sponsored by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) in the Senate and Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) in the House.

My apologies to Steve for posting this here. But in so many ways I find today's controversies sacharin and overstated when one considers the scale of the deception that this Administration has foisted on our great nation.

Science, as many of you know, is held in very low esteem by this Administration. Science studys and pursues facts, and for this Administration, a harvester of facts, a scientist, is the enemy. This Administration is far better served when politicians present "evidence" to us than when science does.

On this veterans day, I invite you to read the following. Ask yourself what a scientist, a physicist, has to gain by advancing hypothesis that will serve to complicate, rather than enhance, his scientific standing. Then, ask yourself if his hypothesis has been disputed by science.....or by politics.

Only by recognizing the lengths this administration has already gone to in its pursuit of its nefarious and clandistine goals can we recognize the true danger of the kinds of policies such as Steve describes above. We are witnessing a regime that operates under the full knowledge that they will eventually face the wrath and anger of they very people they profess to serve, and they are at this time laying the groundwork for the suppression of that dissent.

Wake up. Our Democracy is in grave danger.
servehttp://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Note, the adresss in my above post is invalid. Please use this one......

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

In your update you raise a valid point. And one big concern is, just like with torture of military prisoners, what sort of treatment do we expect for our citizens from other countries? This opens the door for other countries to say that as Americans are not their citizens they can hold us indefinitely, secretly, etc.

pathetic that Lindsey Graham - the only gay man in the United States Senate - is once again leading the way for repression. absolutely pathetic hypocrisy.

I am disappointed in Lindsey about his proposal, but I am even more disappointed in President Bush after listening to his speech, today. To think that the Commander-in-Chief used a day such as Veterans' Day to attempt to salvage his polls is a bit unsettling. First of all, Veterans' Day is not just about today's veterans but about yesterday's as well. What about WWII, the Korean War, Vietnam, and the first Persian Gulf War? No, today I wanted to hear an apolitical speech addressed to all veteran's. Today, I wanted to hear a speech that wasn't about President Bush. I was dismally disappointed, but I should have known. He has never been in touch with the troops on the ground. If he had, he wouldn't have used a day as solemn as today to attempt to lift himself out of the hole he has dug. No, he would have left the politics out. I am very disappointed...

Patrick H. Bellringer - "Riots in France, The Queen, Blair, Bush and Sharon & Patrick Fitzgerald"

I don't know the specifics but I understand that the Geneva Conventions specify that those captured in battle have a right to a "competent tribunal" determining what their status is, and what legal rights they are entitled to.

Graham's amendment seems to fly in face of our obligations as signatory to Geneva.

It appears applying the label "enemy combatant" to Padilla, according to Luttig, stripped him on his rights as an American citizen.

The Los Angeles Times just fired Robert Scheer. Like Steve, Scheer was a crusader for the truth, and sought to unmask the monsters currently residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. I hope many of you will join me in cancelling any subscriptions we may hold with the LA Times, and in e-mailing them to inform them of our disagreement with their actions. Here is a link to statements made by their new Op-Ed Editor,Jonah Goldberg. It is eye opening indeed. At a time when our fourth estate should be zealously vigilant, we are seeing instead the rapid dissapearance of that vigilance, replaced with partisan idealism, corporate ad men, and paid propagandists.

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/11/latimes-jonah/

Yo dawgs!

With all them dudes we swept up sitting in GITMO wees gotsta not let them have no trial cause wees ain't got no case on most which will makes us look worser than we do now if all the facts get aired in a propa court of law. Wees jus asking for more grief. And whattaya do? Send 'em back all pissed off? Hold'em in judicial limbo land? Or let them nasty shiftless trial lawyers mockingly show the government that they ain't got no case and never had? Or, do a jury rigged military tribunal in secret where the fix is in and the most of the prisoners are sentenced? A big mess was made; still gettin' bigger cause Bush is a pig-headed ass puttin' us in ever bigger fixes. Peace out, dawgs.

FYI...Stephen Hadley, Col (Ret) Larry Wilkerson, and Chalabi on Wolf Blitzer's Late Edition on Sunday...

"Ashley, darling ...."

I just thought this needed to be repeated...again and again and again

America should not be in the business of indefinite detentions for ANYONE. It is vital to our democracy that all enemies, evil-doers, terrorists and all those suspected of such sorts of crimes be tried in a court of law in a SYSTEM of LAW and JUSTICE. All of those held for crimes need to be able to challenge those who are making charges. Otherwise, impunity occurs. Mistakes happen. And we should not allow a system of no recourse in a world where mistakes happen -- particularly in the case of non-Americans.

Thank you Steve

Matthias -
Welcome to you and your friends. It is great to have different voices, and especially international voices. Hope you all will join in more on this topic as well as others.

On habeus corpus, Graham's actions are indefensible and beyond me to understand. The only logical answer I have is that he is doing the White House's bidding for some reason. As a JAG I don't know how he can do this. I hope he is deluged by people who opposed to this venture.

Ken, "Don't y'mean, 'Scarlet, I don't give a..."

Karen Greenberg has argued that the JAG's opposition to torture wasn't based around questions of morality but rather founded on strategic concerns.

Graham now says that he wants to avoid 'a deluge' of the court system -- a procedural consideration and thus a strategic concern in a broader sense.

Similar in that it again carefully avoids, or tiptoes around, the morality issue.

I do not know what kind of awards exist for bloggers. I have heard of the Webbys but they require the blogger to may money to enter the contest. I think Steven Clemons's blog is a cut above that.

Anyone reading this blog has to be continually impressed by its excellence.

And to change the subject for the moment, Steven Clemons was the mastermind behind the Lawrence Wilkerson meeting and all of this press Wilkerson is getting. Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson was Colin Powell's Chief of Staff at the State Department for four years and has told the world of the Cheney-Rumsfeld Cabal that ran Bush's national security.

I am not so informed on those types of issues, but I do not how much press Wilkerson is getting, and I have also heard commentator after commentator on NPR mention Steven Clemons name as the one pulling all the strings.

Most bloggers stay at home in their pajamas. Our blogger here at TWN is making things happen and is not only giving us his views on events, he is making history happen.

I thought that we should give TWN and Steven Clemons a real pat on the back and if anyone knows how to nominate him for a Pulitzer Prize, you should do that.

A Mom

Ask the dead on Sept 11, 2001 if they care about Habeas Corpus at Gitmo. Oh, sorry, they're still dead, and can't get back to us on that. By the by, I live in New Mexico. Braindead Bingaman has been less than worthless. Never sponsored ANY legislation. His only job is to continually vote the opposite of the real senator, Domenici.

The NYT editorial page has this to say:

Mr. Graham is a careful and principled senator who argues eloquently for his measure. The Senate should adopt his proposal for a federal court review of detentions, preferably by a huge margin, and the House should follow suit. We'd love to see Congress then defy the inevitable veto threats from the White House, driven by Vice President Dick Cheney, who is still skulking around Capitol Hill trying to legalize torture at the C.I.A.'s secret prison camps around the world. But we cannot support Mr. Graham in trying to rewrite the habeas corpus law.

Fewer than 200 of the approximately 500 prisoners at Guantánamo Bay have filed petitions for habeas corpus hearings. They are not seeking trials, merely asking why they are being held. And according to government and military officials, an overwhelming majority should not have been taken prisoner in the first place. These men have been in isolation for nearly four years, subject to months of interrogation. Do they really have anything left to say?

The habeas petitions are not an undue burden. And in any case, they are a responsibility that this nation has always assumed to ensure that no one is held prisoner unjustly.

Senator Graham argues that the 9/11 attacks were an act of war, not a crime for American courts to judge, and he is trying to put antiterrorist operations back under the Geneva Conventions. Mr. McCain's amendment banning torture, abuse and cruelty has the same goal, and we share it. But the administration shredded the Geneva Conventions after 9/11 and cannot be trusted to follow them now.

There will be amendments and counteramendments in the Senate next week. In the end, the right coalition of senators may actually pass valuable new rules for "unlawful combatants." But they are sure to draw the fierce opposition of the White House, which is hardly likely to agree to an automatic federal court review of its detention policies.

The danger is that the House may do the administration's bidding and produce a bill that strips away the good parts of the Graham amendment, leaving the dangerous parts, and that such a version may be approved behind closed doors during a House-Senate conference.

The problem in creating one exemption to habeas corpus, no matter how narrow, is that it invites the creation of more exemptions. History shows that in the wrong hands, the power to jail people without showing cause is a tool of despotism. Just consider Natan Sharansky or Nelson Mandela. The administration hates that sort of comparison, so we wonder why it keeps inviting it. Just the other day, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said with a sneer that the Guantánamo prisoners on hunger strikes had gone "on a diet where they don't eat" for publicity.

We'd rather see the Senate delete the suspension of habeas corpus from Mr. Graham's measure now. Some constitutional principles are too important to play around with.

"Ask the dead on Sept 11, 2001 if they care about Habeas Corpus at Gitmo."

9/11 was not the result of an excess of constitutional rights.

It was the result of gross negligence on the part of the Bush Administration to heed warnings in 52 memos, including one warning that "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US."

Obsidian Wings is running a series of posts addressing specific arguments that Senator Lindsey Graham made in the floor speech in support of his amendment ending habeas for Guantanamo detainees.

They have also posted a transcript of Graham's speech (word doc format).

Let Senators know why the habeas section should be stripped from the Graham amendment. Consider targeting those who explicitly defended their yes vote on Friday:

Hagel (NE ) T: (202) 224-4224 F: (202) 224-5213

Conrad (D Nd)T: (202) 224-2043 F: (202) 224-7776

Landrieu (D LA) T: (202)224-5824 F:(202) 224-9735

Lieberman(D CT) T:(202) 224-4041 F:(202) 224-9750

Nelson (D NEB) T: (202) 224-6551 F:(202) 228-0012

Wyden (D OR) T: (202) 224-5244 F: (202) 228-2717

Collins (ME) T: (202) 224-2523 F: (202) 224-2693

Snowe (ME) T: (202) 224-5344 F: (202) 224-1946

Wilkerson's comments about "Declaration of Independence territory" come to mind. This is Magna Carta territory.

American Bar Association panel with Nuremberg War Crimes Trials Prosecutors. I wish someone would (figuratively) shackle John Bolton to the floor and get him to watch this.

Steve,
You might want to check the comments at the bottom of the long Nov 9 Chalabi article, there is an inappropriate addition.

There have been and probably always will be those not so brilliant minds who believe they have brainstormed a better alternative to American Constitutional policy. The Communists party tried for decades to push such ideas. Similar to the anti-American agenda of international terrorists the current multiparty congress has placed themselves in opposition of our carefully developed and Constitutionally protected system of law and government. If left in office they will further destroy the fundamental bases of liberty, freedom and equality in America. It’s time to stop the dead end dialog and start voting these career conmen out of Congress.

If you can't beat them, join them.

Why resist Cheney? Let's take his lead and apply it.

simple idea

Excellent editorial by Leonard Pitts on Torture(from dKos):

A betrayal of our most precious values

"We do not torture," President Bush said on Monday. Never mind all those torture pictures from Abu Ghraib. Never mind all those torture stories from Guantanamo Bay. Never mind the 2002 Justice Department memo that sought to justify torture. Never mind reports of U.S. officials sending detainees to other countries for torture. Never mind Dick Cheney lobbying to exempt the CIA from rules prohibiting torture.

Can Congress pass laws that violate both domestic and international law without getting into big trouble? If new legislation violates Constitutional law can they be fired or impeached because they have taken an oath to uphold the US Constitution?

Steve, you need to step up to this. I don't usually tell people what to do, but this is an "all hands on deck" moment. Sen Bingaman needs all the help he can get, and if we're not going to provide any place where a prisoner can either (a) demonstrate that he's not, in fact, a combatant or (b) show that he's been tortured, then we're going to keep getting innocent people being beaten.

This will be a PR disaster of epic proportions: the US Supreme Court decides to take the case about whether we have to follow the Geneva Conventions, and the very next day legislation is introduced to prevent the Court from considering the case.

Write me offline if you need more details.

Steve: I agree with CharleyCarp, who knows whereof he speaks. (Not that I ordinarily tell people what to do either.) If you need convincing, I posted details on one case that would Lindsay Graham referred to, and that would never have been heard of had habeas petitions not been allowed, here (w/ links to all relevant documents, etc.)

Short version: Graham cited 'two medical malpractice claims.' This is one, by a detainee who had already been found not to be an enemy combatant, but had not been released. He had been beaten so badly that two vertebrae were broken, and claimed he was being denied an operation he needed to prevent permanent paralysis.

Other allegations from his brief here; analysis of the amendment here.

Short version: According to the Graham amendment, all the court gets to consider is whether or not the Combatant Status Review Tribunal Hearing for the detainee in question met the relevant standards. It does not get to consider such issues as: whether those standards are themselves legal or constitutional; nor does it allow a detainee who has been determined to be innocent, but who has not been released, to ask the Court to be released.