"The Supremes Have Made Their Decision, Now Let Them Enforce It," Says Senate

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Senate Votes No Terror Suspects in Courts
By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer
9 minutes ago

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

In other words, a majority of the United States Senators just voted to thumb their noses at the Constitution.

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.

Under the provision, Guantanamo Bay detainees would be allowed to appeal their status as an "enemy combatant" one time, to the Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. But they would not be able to file petitions known as writs of habeas corpus, which are used to fight unlawful detentions, in that or any other U.S. court.

"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., said the provision was a major mistake and deserved scrutiny. "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.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist could exhume Adolf Hitler and install him as the Senate's Parliamentarian and all but five of the Senate Democrats would call it "an extraordinary move."

Democrats indicated they may try to kill or change the provision before the Senate votes on the overall bill next week. Five Democrats sided with 44 Republicans in voting for the provision.

The other five would cheer.

In a separate war matter, the Senate voted 82-9 to require National Intelligence Director John Negroponte to provide the Senate and House intelligence committees with details of any clandestine facilities where the United States holds or has held terrorism suspects.

That was a reaction to a Washington Post story from Nov. 2 that said the CIA has had secret prisons for terror detainees in eight countries, including democracies in Eastern Europe. The Bush administration has refused to confirm whether the prisons exist.

The Senate hopes to complete work next week on the overall bill. It already includes provisions barring abusive treatment of foreign prisoners and standardizing interrogation techniques. Those provisions also are in the separate $445 billion military spending bill the Senate passed last month.

The White House has threatened to veto any bill with the restrictions on handling detainees, saying it would limit the president's ability to protect Americans and prevent a terrorist attack. Vice President Dick Cheney has vigorously lobbied Congress to drop or modify the detainee provisions sponsored by Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz.

That has set up a rare challenge of the president's wartime authority by members of his own party. The confrontation comes as Bush is under fire for detention policies at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and other facilities.

It also coincides with a turbulent period in Bush's second term. His public support has eroded to its lowest level yet in polls, dragged down by the war, high gas prices and the indictment of a top White House aide in the leak of a CIA agent's identity.

The McCain and Graham provisions are not in the House-passed defense bills.

The Senate's approval of Graham's amendment followed Monday's Supreme Court decision to review a constitutional challenge to the Bush administration's military trials for suspected foreign terrorists held at the U.S. naval base in Cuba.

In 2004, the Supreme Court said the 500 or so prisoners held there could file habeas corpus petitions in U.S. courts to fight their detentions. Many of the prisoners were captured in Afghanistan and have been held at Guantanamo for several years without being charged.

Since that ruling, prisoner lawsuits against the government have piled up.

Graham sought to curb what he called "lawsuit abuse," arguing that prisoners of war and enemy combatants have never before been given access to U.S. courts.

But Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich., said it was too broad and would effectively reverse the Supreme Court's previous decision on the issue of detainees rights. "It is inconsistent with what the Supreme Court did," he said.

Human-rights groups also cried foul.

"Depriving an entire branch of government of its ability to exercise meaningful oversight is a decidedly wrong course to take," said Elisa Massimino, the Washington director of Human Rights First.

On Iraq, Senate Democrats offered a proposal requiring the president to outline a timetable for a phased withdrawal of U.S. forces, and Republicans put forth their own Iraqi policy proposal. Votes on both are expected next week.

 

[Left]

...with liberty and justice for all.

Can they do that?

 

[Red Stranger]

Senate makes the laws, court should only interpret it. The court had no right to challenge the Senates decision last year. I don't see why you would want to give a person who blew your family up a trial. This decision is good for America, that why Senators from both parties voted for it.

 

[blackheart]

Senate makes the laws, court should only interpret it. The court had no right to challenge the Senates decision last year. I don't see why you would want to give a person who blew your family up a trial. This decision is good for America, that why Senators from both parties voted for it.

I don't see why I would want to give a person that differs from my view a trial . The Court rules on what's constitutional or not. EVERYONE deserves a fair trial, no matter how emotional youare about it.

 

[Irish Caesar]

Senate makes the laws, court should only interpret it. The court had no right to challenge the Senates decision last year.

If someone brought a case against it to the Court, the Court had every right to challenge the Senate's decision by hearing the case and ruling on it.

The Senate can do this; they know full well that the law won't hold up in Court, but I assume they're hoping it won't get that far.

 

[Drewcifer]

Senate makes the laws, court should only interpret it. The court had no right to challenge the Senates decision last year.

Are you familiar with Marbury vs Madison?

 

[Red Stranger]

I don't see why I would want to give a person that differs from my view a trial .

"I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" But I will not defend your right to blow me up.

 

[blackheart]

"I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" But I will not defend your right to blow me up.

And how does that have to do with SUSPECTED terrorists getting a fair trial? Innocent until PROVEN guilty?

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Silly rabbit, due process is for kidz!

 

[Nobody]

Whats wrong with this, the congress is elected by the people so they are above the appointed Court. If they dont like a legal ruling then the legilative goverment should change the law.

 

[Red Stranger]

Pontiuth Pilate is clearly comparing this situation to Andrew Jackson's decision that lead to the Trail of Tears. But the two is not comparable. It's evacuation Indians from their homeland vs. giving terrorists a chance to kill you again.

 

[blackheart]

Pontiuth Pilate is clearly comparing this situation to Andrew Jackson's decision that lead to the Trail of Tears. But the two is not comparable. It's evacuation Indians from their homeland vs. giving terrorists a chance to kill you again.

How is giving someone a fair trial enabling them to kill you again? Should we do away with trials for suspected murderers too, because we ALL know that every single person accused/convicted of murder is actually guilty!

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Whats wrong with this, the congress is elected by the people so they are above the appointed Court. If they dont like a legal ruling then the legilative goverment should change the law.

The Congress IS NOT above the Supreme Court.

They represent equal and separate branches of government. When the Supreme Court rules a law unConstitutional, and the Congress writes it into the law again, (or, as in the Jackson case, when the Supreme Court rules an action unConstitutional and the President goes ahead and does it anyway) it is an usurpation of power.

In both cases it is a branch of government carrying through a downright evil action or law after being warned by the Supreme Court, the last-resort guardian of our Constitution, that it is NOT Constitutional and OUTSIDE their power.

 

[Red Stranger]

How is giving someone a fair trial enabling them to kill you again? Should we do away with trials for suspected murderers too, because we ALL know that every single person accused/convicted of murder is actually guilty!

Of course not. But the people at Guantanamo are not your average Mohammud Q. Allah. They are there only after an extensive filtering process done by the government.

Edit: Why would the government use the place to lock up non-terrorists if there are real terrorists to lock up. It's expensive to upkeep Guantanamo. The government wouldn't just put anyone there unless they're really dangerous

 

[Irish Caesar]

Well, since you wouldn't give them fair trials, you don't really know that's true, do you?

 

[blackheart]

Of course not. But the people at Guantanamo are not your average Mohammud Q. Allah. They are there only after an extensive filtering process done by the government.

Edit: Why would the government use the place to lock up non-terrorists if there are real terrorists to lock up. It's expensive to upkeep Guantanamo. The government wouldn't just put anyone there unless they're really dangerous

OH YES, the government is ALWAYS right, aren't they? Please, if I had that much confidence in the government I wouldn't bother living in a democracy.

 

[Moss]

It's the Supreme Court's power to rule on whether laws passed are constitutional or not...that's in fact, their only purpose. To interpret the constituion. The only way to get a law that is currently unconstitutional to be constitutionalized is to change the constitution...which means ammending it...and we all know how often that happens. (and hasn't happened since 1990 I believe).

This is sort of off-topic, but i would say that the Supreme Court is the weakest of the three branches though. As Abraham Lincoln showed, it's the executive that has the power...Congress that has the money...the Supreme Court pretty much goes on respect...

 

[Irish Caesar]

The last amendment to the Constitution passed in 1992. It was written with the Bill of Rights.

And interpreting the Constitution is not the only purpose of the Supreme Court, but it's certainly an important one.

 

[Moss]

It was a college research paper that brought it back up if i remember right...or a college student at least...

 

[SeleucusNicator]

The Congress can make laws that change the jurisdiction of the courts. Its one of Congress's least controversial powers, meaning that it is right there in the Constitution, listed as a power the Congress has.