My Photo

« The Key to the Courthouse Door, Part II | Main | Habeas and Guantanamo: Breaking News »

November 14, 2005

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515c2369e200d8345b253969e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Closing Statement:

» Cornerstones and Milestones from democracycellproject
It's hard for me to believe that I have to sit down and write about why its important to preserve the writ of habeus corpus, not just constitutionally, but statutorily as well. As I was explaining to someone last night,... [Read More]

» Cornerstones and Milestones from democracycellproject
It's hard for me to believe that I have to sit down and write about why its important to preserve the writ of habeus corpus, not just constitutionally, but statutorily as well. As I was explaining to someone last night,... [Read More]

» Cornerstones and Milestones from democracycellproject
It's hard for me to believe that I have to sit down and write about why its important to preserve the writ of habeus corpus, not just constitutionally, but statutorily as well. As I was explaining to someone last night,... [Read More]

» Cornerstones and Milestones from democracycellproject
It's hard for me to believe that I have to sit down and write about why its important to preserve the writ of habeus corpus, not just constitutionally, but statutorily as well. As I was explaining to someone last night,... [Read More]

» Cornerstones and Milestones from democracycellproject
It's hard for me to believe that I have to sit down and write about why its important to preserve the writ of habeus corpus, not just constitutionally, but statutorily as well. As I was explaining to someone last night,... [Read More]

» Cornerstones and Milestones from democracycellproject
It's hard for me to believe that I have to sit down and write about why its important to preserve the writ of habeas corpus, not just constitutionally, but statutorily as well. As I was explaining to someone last night,... [Read More]

» Cornerstones and Milestones from democracycellproject
It's hard for me to believe that I have to sit down and write about why its important to preserve the writ of habeas corpus, not just constitutionally, but statutorily as well. As I was explaining to someone last night,... [Read More]

» Cornerstones and Milestones from democracycellproject
It's hard for me to believe that I have to sit down and write about why its important to preserve the writ of habeas corpus, not just constitutionally, but statutorily as well. As I was explaining to someone last night,... [Read More]

» Lindsey Graham from Simianbrain
I've said some nice things about Lindsey Graham here over the last two years, referring to him as "one of the more candid and integrity-laden members" of the US Senate (link) and giving him a mention on my GPU list... [Read More]

» Graham/Bingaman Amendment from Llama Fodder
Katherine and Hilzoy have gone to incredible lengths to illustrate hideous consequences of the Graham Amendment. The Graham amendment neuters the constitution, eliminating Habeus Corpus. All of the posts are solid and add to a creeping sense of horror.... [Read More]

» Habeas Rejection in Plain English from TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime
Via Digby: The Republican senate is using habeas corpus as a political football. South Carolinian Lindsay Graham, the sponsor, is undoubtedly feeling tremendous pressure because of his "soft" stance on torture (I still cant believe we are even tal... [Read More]

» Habeus Corpus and Torture from Common Sense
I really feel like I should only have to say this once, but I know it will take more than that for some of this to sink in. The senate vote to abolish the writ of habeus corpus being pushed [Read More]

» Habeas Corpus and Torture from Common Sense
I really feel like I should only have to say this once, but I know it will take more than that for some of this to sink in. The senate vote to abolish the writ of habeas corpus being pushed [Read More]

» Vote on habeus corpus amendment tomorrow from Seeing the Forest
Not a peep from the Democrats and it looks like there could be a vote as early as tomorrow attaching restrictions on habeus corpus for to an appropriations bill. Obsidian Wings has done the heavy lifting with 13 posts on... [Read More]

» Vote on habeus corpus amendment tomorrow? from Seeing the Forest
Not a peep from the Democrats and it looks like there could be a vote as early as tomorrow attaching restrictions on habeus corpus for to an appropriations bill. Obsidian Wings has done the heavy lifting with 13 posts on... [Read More]

» Graham Amendment: The Controversy -- And Concern -- Grows from The Moderate Voice
The controversy continues to simmer and fester over the Graham Amendment. Note The Hill: Several retired military leaders are ... [Read More]

» Please call your senators. We'll pay, just call. from Malice Aforethought
Attention conservation notice: if you already know that the Graham amendment is vile and just want to get to the part where we'll pay, go here. Further to this post, it appears that there's a compromise amendment on the table aimed at undercutting the ... [Read More]

» Cornerstones and Milestones from democracycellproject
UPDATE: Compromise reached. A bipartisan group of senators reached a compromise yesterday that would dramatically alter U.S. policy for treating captured terrorist suspects by granting them a final recourse to the federal courts but stripping them of s... [Read More]

» Fascism Watch: Stop The Graham/Bingaman Amendment from Seeing the Forest
MIchael Froomkin at Discourse.net has a terrific summary of the yeoman's work that hilzoy and Katherine have done at Obsidian Wings: (click through for links) Was Sen. Graham Intentionally Misleading or Was He Deceived?: About Them: Setting the scene, ... [Read More]

» Fascism Watch: Stop The Graham/Bingaman Amendment from Seeing the Forest
MIchael Froomkin at Discourse.net has a terrific summary of the yeoman's work that hilzoy and Katherine have done at Obsidian Wings: (click through for links) Was Sen. Graham Intentionally Misleading or Was He Deceived?: About Them: Setting the scene, ... [Read More]

» Fascism Watch: Stop The Graham/Bingaman Amendment from Seeing the Forest
MIchael Froomkin at Discourse.net has a terrific summary of the yeoman's work that hilzoy and Katherine have done at Obsidian Wings: (click through for links) Was Sen. Graham Intentionally Misleading or Was He Deceived?:... [Read More]

» Empire and Torture from Procrastination
Torture is bad, empire might even be worse, especially when all the people in the world could be its subjects. [Read More]

» Congress and the "disappeared" from chez Nadezhda
The Senate has apparently adopted the so-called Graham/Levin compromise on the habeus corpus issue discussed in Eric Martin's recent post. As Eric notes, Katherine and ... [Read More]

» Graham/Bingaman Amendment from Llama Fodder
Katherine and Hilzoy have gone to incredible lengths to illustrate hideous consequences of the Graham Amendment. The Graham amendment neuters the constitution, eliminating Habeus Corpus. All of the posts are solid and add to a creeping sense of horror.... [Read More]

» Cornerstones and Milestones from democracycellproject
UPDATE: Compromise reached. A bipartisan group of senators reached a compromise yesterday that would dramatically alter U.S. policy for treating captured terrorist suspects by granting them a final recourse to the federal courts but stripping them of s... [Read More]

Comments

Catherine,
Great research and argumentation! However, I fear that we would need one brief (!) collection of your arguments, rather than a collection of Graham's arguments with your objections. Thank you so much for your tremendous work! Andreas

sorry--I'm out of time & need to go to work.

BRAVA! Thanks for grabbing this issue and sounding the clarion. You have done great service.

i'd call my Senators... but since they're Dole and Burr - Bush sycophants.

cleek, do it anyway. My Senators are Isaakson and Chambliss. Totally lost causes, I'm sure. But it's still important to make our voices heard.

I called (PA Senators). It seems so little to do. Will ask friends to call as well. Thank you both, hilzoy and Katherine, for your unbelievable dedication to documenting and advocating on this issue.

Thank you for doing this! I faxed my senators, and I've been trying to call all morning but Allen shunts to a recorded message and Warner just gives a busy signal.

Thanks so much for doing this.

Like everyone else, thanks.

I, for one, would love to see Katherine get her posting privileges back. I know, I know, it's always easy to volunteer other peoples' time, so I'll understand if she declines.

I can't, off the top of my head, think of what venue would publish it (due mostly to the conventions about how long law review articles are), but I think this series of posts is of publishable quality.

I think both of Washington's Senators will vote for the Bingaman amendment.

Murray's office person said "Since she opposed the Graham Amendment, I imagine she'll support the Bingaman Amendment."

And Cantwell's office person wanted to know the number of the Amendment, which I thought was interesting. Are that many being proposed, back and forth, that it's hard to keep track of which is which? I don't mean this as a snarky question at all. If "Amendment Number 2517" is in any way ordinal, that's one hell of a lot of amendments; and no wonder Senators can't tell the players without a scorecard!

Kudos? Brava? Whatever the appropriate response, thank you for this series.

Ok, so the Bingaman amendment strikes everything after page 3, line 3 from the Graham amendment. Even looking at this .pdf, I can't figure out where page three line three is. I assume it's "(d)Judicial Review of Detention of Enemy Combatants.--", but what text did whomever figured this out use?

Thank you for your service to the country.

Washerdreyer, I don't have a link right now, but I did see the free-standing version of the Graham amendment and, as you surmised, page 3, line 3 is subsection (d), "Judicial Review of Enemy Combatants." That entire subsection is what's stricken by the Bingaman Amendment, at least as originally introduced.

Where does this stand in the Senate right now? I haven't had a chance to watch Cspan.

Thanks for any info.

Firedoglake says habeas c. has been chucked - took less than an hour. Nothing on google news.

The Senate's roll call page has no such info, and my occasional glances at CSPAN since returning from my inconveniently scheduled yet quite interesting conference have not shown this being so much as debated.

No, wait: they're starting now, and it looks as though Levin and Graham might have agreed to a new amendment, to be debated tomorrow morning, after the Bingaman amendment, which seems not to have come up yet.

Levin: Bingaman amendment to be voted on tomorrow.

Rilkefan, that's old news. Firedoglake is (rare for them) more than a day late reportage-wise.

The Graham amandment - the one that eliminates habeus corpus - actually passed last Friday. Yes,with less than an hours' debate, but still: last Friday.

The next steps we're waiting on are the votes on the Levin and Bingaman amendments.

Yeah, my bad, I should have waited for a clearer account.

I read the Slate article. "Got wrong" is very generous. The other Senators trusted Graham because of his history as a JAG lawyer. And he lied to their faces on the Senate floor about one of the foundations of Western Freedom, and about the case history and interpretation.

Even Salon has to use phrases like "...Graham was wrong when..." but then starts a paragraph "Lindsay Graham must have known all this." A ex-JAG, bringing an amendment about habeus, who doesn't have any understanding of the '42 Saboteur Case or more recent case law and cases pending? Not credible. He is a liar about the most important issues.

Two useful things, among others, have been learned:

1) We now know who Lindsay Graham is.
2) Republicans are not exactly rushing to the political center in preparation for the midterms. They don't look so scared to me.

The Washington Post just released an article about some sort of compromise bill that is supposed to "avert a showdown" over Graham's original bill (I'm guessing this means Bingaman's proposal).

Please comment on the alleged compromise. Does it really help?

Mike -- it's different. It still strips habeas rights, but allows courts to review not just whether tribunals follow their own procedures, but whether they are legal and constitutional. This is a huge improvement, but not (according to me) enough of one -- it still, for instance, leaves people who have been determined to be innocent, but who have not yet been released, with no way to challenge their detention.

Sorry not to post; 4 hours sleep last night, and probably more of same tomorrow, plus, somehow, I have to give a fancy talk. Ha ha ha.

Thank you (wasn't exactly sure the what provisions of the compromise proposal meant myself). I am worried that there will be pressure on some of the moderate Senators to vote for the compromise bill instead of Bingaman's proposal.

AP notes that the Levin-Graham proposal passed 84-16. I note that Bingaman voted NO. Anyone have any info on how debate went on the Bingaman version?

Another important negative to this compromise language is that it puts the Congress on record as supporting military tribunals. I don't believe they've ever gone on record before this. This is bad in terms of Supreme Court review since the Justice Dept. can argue before the Court that Congress endorses Bush's usurpation of constitutional law.

I've written a few posts on this myself. The last one is here.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Whatnot


  • visitors since 3/2/2004

April 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      
Blog powered by Typepad

QuantCast