Stop Graham's evil Gitmo amendment

Hilzoy of Obsidian Wings is rightfully outraged to read that Gitmo detainees may be stripped of habeas rights today:

Sen. Lindsey Graham, (R-S.C.) wants to bar detainees at Guantanamo from challenging their detentions in the American courts. Graham may attach this stipulation to a defense bill that the Senate is debating this week, meaning that the Senate could vote on the issue as early as today.

Jeralyn of TalkLeft reports that Graham's bill would prevent detainees from challenging any of the following in U.S. courts:

• The legality of their detentions
• The propriety of returning detainees to their home countries
  
• Adequacy of medical care at Guantanamo
• Quality of the food
• Speed of mail delivery
  
• Allotment of exercise time and other conditions of confinement

Jeralyn writes, "[This amendment] would effectively end all litigation brought on behalf of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, as well as any future litigation on behalf of those imprisoned at the CIA secret detention camps."

Call your Senator today and tell them to stop Graham's gulag amendment.

Comments

[Judy Kratochvil]

The amendment would place these issues squarely in the military system where they belong. The federal civil court is not a place to determine the status, incarceration, and punishment of captures on land and sea. This is the job of the Article I courts or military tribunals, of which verdicts can be appealed and are manditorily reviewed by the appeals court.

[JR]

Judy Kratochvil sounds reasonable, but she's wrong. The administration claims the right to hold detainees indefinitely WITHOUT proceedings before military tribunals. The habeas proceedings that Graham doesn't like resulted in rulings that detainees DO have the right to military tribunal proceedings with certain (minimal) due process guarantees. What is at issue here is whether the government can make legally make people "disappear" forever with no recourse to any court or tribunal.

[The Phantom]

My understanding is that these terrorists do not have habeus corpus rights in US courts.

Did each and every Nazi soldier captured in WWII have the right to " his day in court "?

The terrorist sympathizers are attempting to tie down the US by letting these unlawful combatants have full access to an erratic legal system. Which even legal combatants in WWII, WWI, and other wars have not had access to.

Good luck Senator Graham. Most of NYC and America wishes you well.

[The Phantom]

Sorry to send two in a row like this, but may I suggest that this beautiful image should perhaps be posted on your website!

[bellatrys]

For some reason the wingnuts are out trying to destroy Habeas Corpus openly now, and trolling all the posts on this subject, in their quest to roll us back to a pre-1679 British state of human rights...

War Is Peace!
Slavery Is Freedom!
Ignorance Is Strength!

[The Phantom]

The US in WWII was a bunch of wingnuts, trying to destroy people's rights? Because that is all the US is doing now in Camp Gitmo, giving this pack of Nazis the same rights that the last pack of Nazis had in the 1940s

[1984 Was Not a Shopping List]

But Phantom, what if someone decides that you're a Nazi? Say, because they find your views on the Geneva Convention and jurisprudence to be in agreement with the Nazis? Will you submit to the same treatment, or will you cry foul?

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

Phantom, do you know the difference between prisoners of war and unlawful combatants?

Under the Geneva Convention, a POW has the right to appeal his or her status before an independent judge--the country detaining the prisoner doesn't have the final say about POW status. So, yes, an alleged Nazi detainee probably would have been entitled to his day in court. Certainly, an American detainee in Vietnam would have been entitled to his day in court under the Geneva Convention.

Of course, the Gitmo detainees are designated "unlawful combatants"--so they don't get the same protections as POWs. Graham wants to make is so if the United States military says you're an unlawful combatant, you have no way to appeal that decision in US courts. That's unacceptable. Basically, that allows the military to sentence people to indefinite detention (and maybe worse) without giving them anything close to a fair trial.

[The Phantom]

Am not a lawyer, thanks be to God, but my understanding is that the Geneva Convention protections apply to those fighting in the military force of a country and in uniform ( neither applies here )

And my understanding is that those Germans and Japanese, say, held in military camps outside the US during WWII, were not subject to review by US federal courts. Which is exactly why thse bums were brought to Gitmo.

If in your personal opinion its not ok, then that is your personal opionion.

Military review is acceptable to me. I know that the US has released a decent number of detainees,there is a process.

The rest can all be released the day after the terrorists stop their attacks.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

Phantom, weren't you just arguing that the US gives the same rights to unlawful combatants as it did to POWs under the Geneva Convention:

The US in WWII was a bunch of wingnuts, trying to destroy people's rights? Because that is all the US is doing now in Camp Gitmo, giving this pack of Nazis the same rights that the last pack of Nazis had in the 1940s

Now you're agreeing that the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to unlawful combatants.

The Geneva Convention entitled Germans captured by Americans overseas to an independent judicial review of their POW status. That's an even stronger protection than the right to a judicial review in the American courts.

[The Phantom]

--The Geneva Convention entitled Germans captured by Americans overseas to an independent judicial review of their POW status. That's an even stronger protection than the right to a judicial review in the American courts--

I was unaware of this, and will investigate.

[1984 Was Not a Shopping List]

>Military review is acceptable to me.

It is not acceptable to me. America does not agree with you.

You're arguing that the law should be whatever the people with the guns say it should be, and the guilty are whoever they say the guilty should be.

America will not be the superior force forever. Any nation's superiority is ephemeral. If you support Gitmo's indefinite detention without trial, without appeal, and without review, simply because of the defendant's proximity to a crime, then you're arguing for a contemptuous dismissal of the presumption of innocence. When we lose the next conflict we blunder into, you will be judged in the same way, with even firmer grounds.

[The Phantom]

--America does not agree with you--

Just because you and your friends take a position on something does not mean that you are " America ". That's a pretty arrogant attitude, the attitude you would probably ascribe to those terrible right-wingers down in parts of America that you don't understand.

A lot of intelligent people with at least as much good faith as you happen to hold a different opinion as you. They are " America " too.

Argue the point all you want, just get off your phony high horse.

[1984 Was Not a Shopping List]

Hey, you were the one that said:

Most of NYC and America wishes you well.

A lot of intelligent people with at least as much good faith as you happen to hold a different opinion as you. They are " NYC and America " too.

Argue the point all you want, just get off your phony high horse.

[Chris]

Lindsay, why aren't you blocking Phantom? You really think you're going to get somewhere?

[ghostcatbce]

When 15 year old boys who might have committed a war crime, can be held indefinitely, that is itself a crime; against humanity. One that weakens America, not strengthens it. There is currently a young Canadian man being held at Gitmo for supposedly throwing a grenade that killed an American soldier. He was 15 at his time of "arrest", and has just been charged with murder. Does American law make no distinction between adult criminals and juvenile criminals? If not, why not? If it does, why does that law not apply here?

[The Phantom]

Chris

Ah yes, block those with whom you disagree. A typical Park Slope / Greenwich Village mind sealed shut.

--Most of NYC and America wishes you well--

Ask the Mayor ( just elected with a 20% margin ) Ask the former Mayor. Ask the blacks and ask the whites and not just your closed loop of friends in Park Slope, Williamsburg and the Village.

Ask open-ended questions about how the war on terror should be fought, and how these guys should be treated without couching it in phrases such as " gulags " and " ignorance is strength " and all the other stuff that any of us could have come up with in Junior High.

And remember my lads and lassies, Viva Gitmo!!!

Love,

Phantom

[1984 Was Not a Shopping List]

No, please don't block Phantom. In fact, let's look even more clearly at what he's saying: he's saying that anyone wearing our uniform should be able to arrest anyone in a war zone, as long as the arresting officer's fellows say it's okay. Even if falsely arrested, the detainees should have no appeal, no trial, and no voice whatsoever, and no avenue to redress false arrest, torture, or assault by their jailers.

The most obvious problems are these:

1) People of badwill, like Lynndie England and Charles Graner, sometimes find their way into our uniforms. Some such people will not stick at falsely arresting someone for bad reasons, and may be unable to judge someone's guilt in the first place. "He looks guilty."

2) Even the best people in the world can misjudge a situation. Therefore, again, an impartial judge, at least (not a co-worker, who's unlikely to hold his fellow soldiers' feet to the fire on questions of false arrest) must have oversight.

3) Even presuming that we can have complete trust in the current crop of uniformed arresting officers, those particular officers will eventually be gone, while the principle Phantom desires (that is, that guilt shall be decided only by the arresting officers and their fellows) will remain. Therefore, if our good soldiers are rotated out, and replaced by less savoury characters, or if our soldiers fall into the hands of enemy soldiers, policies that encourage mistreatment of prisoners will encourage mistreatment of our own.

The last point is the reason why John McCain, who was tortured himself, advises against the mistreatment of prisoners. I respect John McCain's word on this. McCain also said that torture of these prisoners will increase anti-American feeling worldwide. There are almost a billion Muslims in the world, and a tiny, tiny fraction of them are in sympathy with Al-Qaeda. Blundering our way into Iraq (who had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda), and setting up torture chambers right where Saddam had his, did nothing but still the Arab and Muslim voices that would have defended us.

Phantom, you say that instead of calling torture wrong, I should get off my high horse. Buddy, if there's a lower horse in the world, and an easier one to mount, than saying torture is wrong, then every American should be ashamed to ride it. If we torture people, but not quite as badly as Saddam Hussein did; if we decide that any soldier in the battlefield can be judge, jury and jailer, but don't summarily execute prisoners like the Nazis did; then we are not covering ourselves in any kind of glory. You say that's America? My America believes in being fair to a guilty man, before depriving an innocent man of liberty. My America is ashamed of torture. My America believes in Common Sense.

[John]

Not to be sarcastic at all, but do you believe in good and evil, Lindsay? You have a master's in philosophy, so I was just curious about your take on this. I bring this up because you titled this post "Stop Graham's evil Gitmo amendment". I believe it's evil too, as are many things in this world. But good and evil are almost never cut-and-dried. Please share your opinion; it's why I come here.

[Kristjan Wager]

In regards to the status of the prisoners from Gitmo, and what their rights are in regards to the Geneva Conventions, there are very good arguments that while they are not military prisoners, some of them might be civilians. It is clearly stated in the Geneva Conventions that prisoners have a right to have their status tried at a court.

[Judy Kratochvil]

Graham has been for the establishment of tribunals since the beginning. He thinks they are entitled to a review of their status under fair procedural conditions that includes not holding someone interminably without charge or reason. That's all.

We have never given foriegn prisoners habeas rights, so why start now?

Graham has been active on defining terms like enemy combatant and against torture. He also does want due process for these detainees. This is the constituional duty of Congress and not the president. They are trying to get these procedural things passed. First you must establish the basic rules which this amendment does. Next we lay out due process rights, which have been layed out before and supported by Sen. Grahamm however, not enough of his colleagues saw fit to do so. THen we carefully watch what happens and make sure that congress watches carefully over the process.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

John, good question.

I don't believe that evil as a thing, a force, or a "(un)natural kind."

I use the word "evil" as an adjective to describe behavior that is horrifying and wrong on a grand scale.

[The Phantom]

Congratulations to the US Senate for voting yesterday to strip enemy combatants of their " right " to challenge their detention in US courts. It is not a done deal yet, and the House must still approve, but the elected representatives clearly have an understanding of what is needed in this aspect of the war on terror, and what the people of this country want.

[Judy]

POWs have sertain status under the Geneva convention. Unclassified detainees must have status hearings. They are getting these hearings.

When have we ever given federal habeas rights to non citizen combatants? They have a right to a trial, but not the capturing country's federal courts.

[1984 Was Not a Shopping List]

Sorry guys, but no amount of lipstick will make this pig worth kissing.

>due process rights,

Glad you mentioned those. Gitmo has held most of its prisoners for almost four years now, without trial. Some of those were innocent people. Anyone claiming to be a true American should feel revulsion at depriving any person of their liberty, and only does so as an emergency measure. 9/11 was certainly an emergency, but four years with no trial means that we don't have anything solid on them. That's no victory for American gumption, that's some Americans obviously having no clue what they're doing, or why exactly they arrested these people in the first place, except that they were in a country that was at war, and were fighting-age males. All that does is make us look inept to our enemies, and to our friends as well.

Gitmo is a huge blunder, does absolutely nothing to keep us safe, but rather demonstrates how clueless the jailers are at intelligence-gathering. For a true American, Liberty is not just an empty election slogan. We would prefer that we have better methods for identifying the guilty, and that we'd imprison them, instead of just randomly rounding up hundreds of people with no grounds and papering it over by muzzling the prisoners with amendments like this one.