Senate Votes No Terror Suspects in Courts

[SteveG]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051111/ap_on_go_co/congress_defense;_ylt=Au3jAKXEPcRaHkx3JM.b2nus0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-

WASHINGTON - The Senate voted Thursday to bar foreign terror suspects at the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, from challenging their detentions in American courts, despite a Supreme Court ruling last year that granted access.

In a 49-42 vote, senators added the provision by Sen. Lindsey Graham (news, bio, voting record), R-S.C., to a sweeping defense policy bill.

"For 200 years, ladies and gentlemen, in the law of armed conflict, no nation has given an enemy combatant, a terrorist, an al-Qaida member the ability to go into every federal court in this United States and sue the people that are fighting the war for us," Graham told his colleagues.

Sen. Jeff Bingaman (news, bio, voting record), D-N.M., called the provision a major mistake and said it deserved closer scrutiny by lawmakers. "It's contrary to the way the court decisions have come down already. It is an extraordinary step for this Congress to be taking," he said.

Nevertheless, three Democrats sided with 46 Republicans to insert the provision in the overall defense bill. Four Republicans voted against the amendment.

[babylonsister]

1. They can overturn the Supreme Court?

:wow: :wow:

[texpatriot2004]

32. If they can do that let's reverse their 2000 decision. nm

[MisterP]

2. so the swing votes were OURS?!

but we have to be lockstep-loyal, so this can happen again and again!

[Mass]

3. Not 3, 5

Landrieu, Lieberman, Nelson, Wyden, and Conrad.

[...of J.Temperance]

5. 9 Senator's seemed NOT to even bother to vote either n/t

[Seabiscuit]

17. I just KNEW Loserman had to be on that shortlist!

Friggin' treasonous Rupuke buttkisser.

[The Stranger]

18. Is Neocon Leiberman any surprise here in this vote?

[...of J.Temperance]

4. Yes and I'm FURIOUS with Senator Landrieu

Jaysus, I usually defend her, in fact I've spent a lot of time defending Senator Landrieu and I do my best to give her the benefit of the doubt, considering the complex situation she's in.

However, she's GOING to be hearing from me over her DISGRACEFUL vote.

[Mass]

6. The rollcall says they voted yes

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00319

Anyway, there were only 44 repubs voting yes + 4 voting NO + 7 not voting.

Sad that Chafee, Specter, Sununu, and Smith knew enough to vote NO, but not those five.

[...of J.Temperance]

8. Damnit

I only thought it was 3, which is why I edited my post saying Landrieu, Nelson, Wyden and Lieberman, because that was 4 and I thought I was wrong.

Then it turns out I wasn't wrong and even worse it was 5. So IF those 5 had of voted No then the thing would have been defeated.

They're PATHETIC and they ALL need a swift kick in the rear.

[Mass]

9. Anybody from Oregon to explain why Smith voted NO and Wyden YES?

[Pastiche423]

13. That's definitely a WTF?

I have noticed recently that Smith has been voting more moderately. He's usually a straight repug voter.

And Wyden? Lordy, that man drives me crazy! Since the 2003 Medicare vote, his voting record has been bizarre.

[...of J.Temperance]

16. Personally I think they all must be on mind-altering drugs n/t

[OR Ruminator]

29. Catch and Release

Thom Hartmann says that the strategy the GOP has been using is called "catch and release." GOP Senators who are in vulnerable states are allowed to vote against the GOP in the early stages of a bill or measure, so long as they vote to support the final product, which might roll three or four different issues into one bill. Hence Smith says he voted against ANWR until it got rolled into the Budget Bill, then he voted for the whole budget bill, saying that there were more important issues in the overall bill.

[OR Ruminator]

30. Call Wyden's Office

His vote seems to make no sense.

He needs to explain his vote to us.

[FloridaPat]

7. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? And the talk about

bringing all these terrorists to justice, but none in US prisons has been on trial expect the 19th supposidly hijacker - Moussoui. And the German cases were thrown out because the US wouldn't allow any evidence they had in the court. For some reason, our government doesn't want any of these "terrorists" in court. No point in hearing the other side of the story.

[superconnected]

12. Yep, this is scary as hell.

[The Stranger]

19. What is left?

[Inland]

10. The SC said they could challenge whether they ARE combatants

while Graham simply assumes that they are and then says that no combatants can sue.

[Inland]

11. You know what the effect will be? Gitmo cases go direct to USSC!

the Gitmo people do DIRECTLY to the Supreme Court!

Yes, it's true. The Congress can eliminate the jurisidiction of the lower courts, but not the USSC. The USSC says detainees can challenge their status. The only court available is USSC.

Ergo, the detainees will be petitioning the USSC directly. Given the delays in all this shit, and the forum shopping the USG will do, it's just as well. Fuck you, Lindsey.

[Charlie Brown]

14. I guess Graham supports Civil War Prison camps

I wonder what the Southrons who vote for him would think of that.

[Mojorabbit]

15. I think this is worthy

of a DU activist corp action. this goes against everything this country stands for.

[The Stranger]

20. Why wasn't this recommended?

[maddezmom]

21. Newsday: Senate strips Guantanamo detainees of right to sue

~snip~
The unusual provision, passed by a 49-42 vote, would reverse a Supreme Court ruling last year that permitted inmates to file habeas corpus petitions, triggering hundreds of lawsuits from prisoners who said they were being held with no basis.

"There has never been a time in our military history where an enemy combatant or prisoner of war has been allowed access to federal court to bring lawsuits against the people they are fighting," said Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.), who sponsored the provision.

But rights groups quickly protested, arguing that eliminating court oversight of the detentions would leave prisoners with no hope of fair hearings and further mar the U.S. image overseas, already battered by prisoner abuse scandals.

"This is one of the worst things the Senate has ever done," said Gita Gutierrez, a lawyer with New York's Center for Constitutional Rights, who has been coordinating prisoner lawsuits. "On the back of a cocktail napkin they have tossed aside protections of individual liberty that have been in existence for centuries."

more;http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-wohabe114507579nov11,0,6972229.story?coll=ny-worldnews-headlines

[wellst0nev0ter]

22. That Fascist Graham Justified Her Vote

by saying war prisoners weren't given access to American courts. So does that make the Guantanamo prisoners POWs subject to international law, making their extended detention and abuse very illegal?

[Charlie Brown]

31. Lindsey Graham is actually a dude

though you're right about the "fascist" part.

[Sgent]

23. RTFA

Reed is bringing an ammendment up next week, which will strip this of most of its teeth. Concentrate on changing votes between now and then.

[goforit]

24. Senate Approves Limiting Rights of U.S. Detainees - NYT

<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/11/politics/11detain.html?th&emc=th>

"Senate Approves Limiting Rights of U.S. Detainees "
By ERIC SCHMITT
Published: November 11, 2005


WASHINGTON, Nov. 10 - The Senate voted Thursday to strip captured "enemy combatants" at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, of the principal legal tool given to them last year by the Supreme Court when it allowed them to challenge their detentions in United States courts.

The vote, 49 to 42, on an amendment to a military budget bill by Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, comes at a time of intense debate over the government's treatment of prisoners in American custody worldwide, and just days after the Senate passed a measure by Senator John McCain banning abusive treatment of them.

<Snip>

The vote also came in the same week that the Supreme Court announced that it would consider the constitutionality of war crimes trials before President Bush's military commissions for certain detainees at Guantánamo Bay, a case that legal experts said might never be decided by the court if the Graham amendment became law.

Five Democrats joined 44 Republicans in backing the amendment, but the vote on Thursday may only be a temporary triumph for Mr. Graham. Senate Democrats led by Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico said they would seek another vote, as early as Monday, to gut the part of Mr. Graham's measure that bans Guantánamo prisoners from challenging their incarceration by petitioning in civilian court for a writ of habeas corpus.

Con't..........

*****************************************
This is outrageous!!!
With the plummeting GOP. They continue to destroy this country.
They just don't get the message.

[Supersedeas]

25. Five democrats join 44 Repubs in tossing the Geneva Conventions

[halobeam]

26. Yes, it is outrageous.

Some political "battles" may be lost right now, but the "war" so to speak, will be won. For instance, this past Tuesday, and also the elections of 2006 and 2008. Let them stay the WRONG course. (Not that we have a choice at this exact moment in time), and we will get our country back, and fix whatever we can. (I know somethings will take way longer than 4 or 8 years), but what else can we do? If winning a house back, and the presidency means they have to dig themselves deeper first, then that's what it will take. Not everyone "knew" they would do this. We did, here at DU, but many moderate republican citizens, apparently didn't. Now they're cluing in on the reality of the actions this administrations are taking vs. their words of what they will do. They don't match, and everyday, they are proving this the case.

[sinkingfeeling]

27. I am so stunned by this and all of the bull from Robetson, Falwell, &

the adminstration this week, I don't know how to express it.

[Wordie]

28. This is HUGE and deserved more discussion. Recommended. nt

[spindrifter]

33. This proves that the Repugs

have no concept whatsoever of justice. What would they do if their kids (and some of these detainees were young teenagers) were captured and held for years with no realistic plan for judicial review of their status? This basically devalues the lives of the individuals they are holding at Guantanamo. Little wonder those guys are on hunger strike.
This is not an acceptable American solution to a BushCo problem.