Will cross dressing be allowed?
Posted on 11/14/2005 6:09:49 PM PST by SmithL
WASHINGTON -- A bipartisan group of senators reached a compromise Monday that would allow detainees at Guantanamo Bay to appeal the rulings of military tribunals to the federal courts.
Under the agreement, detainees who receive a punishment of 10 years in prison to death would receive an automatic appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Lesser sentences would not receive automatic review, but detainees still could petition the court to hear their case.
In addition, the 500 or so detainees at the U.S. naval base in Cuba would be allowed to challenge in federal court the procedure under which they were labeled an "enemy combatant."
The compromise proposal allows the federal court reviews in place of the one tool the Supreme Court gave detainees in 2004 to fight the legality of their detention — the right to file habeas corpus petitions in federal courts.
"Instead of unlimited lawsuits, the courts now will be looking at whether you're properly determined to be an enemy combatant and, if you're tried, whether or not your conviction followed the military commission procedures in place," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said in an interview.
The Senate will vote on the compromise provision Tuesday. Approval would mean the Senate endorses the Bush administration's military tribunals for prosecuting suspected foreign terrorists at Guantanamo. The Supreme Court agreed last week to review a constitutional challenge to those tribunals.
Graham sponsored the original provision the Senate added Thursday to a defense bill on a 49-42 vote. It simply barred suspects from filing habeas corpus petitions used to fight unlawful detentions, a vote that came in spite of last year's Supreme Court decision granting detainees such rights.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
No more prisoners. Like Iraq house them.
Complete insanity.
Darn spell check...Let
My sentiments exactly.
We do not have lawmakers, we have traitors!
What wimps. It won't be long before illegal combatants have more rights in this country than resident citizen taxpayers do.
"...the 500 or so detainees at the U.S. naval base in Cuba would be allowed to challenge in federal court."
Does this mean that each of the 500 animals will receive their own counsel? Someone please tell me this isn't the case.
And still the GOP keep sending me requests for political donations. As if...
they get that now to help them mount the habeas challenges.
I am not sure how to read this yet - remember that the SCOTUS has already injected itself into this and given them rights.
this may actually be a good thing.
Will cross dressing be allowed?
"this may actually be a good thing."
Please follow-up.
to clarify, what I am saying is that in light of the fact that they were already granted habeas rights and the lawsuits are stacking up - wiping that clean and instead giving them a single appeal to the military judgement against them, is better then the status quo.
What a f'in joke. These people are the scum of the earth, not even willing to mark themselves as our enemies, hiding among civilians. And we extend to them the American legal system, though none of them are Americans, and every one of them would piss on our Constitution faster than you can say "Teddy is a murderer."
Dubya, give them all death sentences, sentences to be carried out immediately, and let the wuss Senate figure out how the D.C. Circuit can hear the dirtbags' appeals--assuming the @#$!@%$@# detainees can file their appeals in D.C. quicker than bullets can travel a foot.
We need to move all of the prisoners back to Iraq and get them off of U.S. soil. The coward Republicans are letting this country, especially us, down.
Veto.
it is a joke - but given that they had already been extended habeas, this deal might be better. at least the tribunals can take place under this system, verdicts and sentences reached, an appeal made, followed by carrying out of the sentence.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1513207/posts?page=533#533
Graham now introducing an "in between" process, S.AMND.2524, amending S.AMND.2515.This gives all Guantanamo detainees the right to challenge the determination of "enemy combatant" status, on a case by case basis (one time), in a Federal Court. That is, the Federal Court will check the military commission/military tribunal process, and render an opinion as to whether the process has been properly applied, and the status ("enemy combatant," "civilian," "irregular combatant") is correct.
The object is to make sure the detainees are foreign national enemy combatants, and to deny the writ of habeus corpus to people being found of that status by a military tribunal -- agreed by a Federal court.
Very interesting dividing line between military law and civilian law, and it is being defined from several angles at this time. SCOTUS opinion is the impetus for this Senate action, for example.
With the way things are going in Washington the only thing to look forward to are the holidays when congress is out of session. When they are out of session they aren't doing harm.
which court will hear these appeals? is it the circuit court in Florida?
Looks like they'll still have two appeals, one to the DC circuit and one to the SCOTUS. And while it'd be better than the silly rules in place that allow them habeas, the question is why the SCOTUS or the Senate is interjecting here at all. Isn't the President commander in chief? Doesn't he decide how we fight wars? Doesn't he interpret treaties where that is relevant to fighting wars?
Heck, now I think he should let them all go...that is, let them all go driving over a few IEDs in Iraq.
I can't imagine these courts hearing 500 individial appeals. I have to believe that once the first few appeals show that the tribunals are constructed fairly, that the rest of the verdicts and sentences will just "flow" based on those initial cases.
never mind, I see its teh DC circuit.
is Janice Rogers Brown on that court?
It's named in the amendment, IIRC, but I didn't pay that close of attention while Lindsey was talking.
One shot through the system - so I assume District Court with rights of appeal all the way to SCOTUS. Object of interaction with Article III system is to confirm status of detainee as "enemy combatant." Once through, those folks are cemented into the military tribunal system in place at Gitmo.
It makes me wonder if the Senate deal won't be SCOTUSized, too, just one more thing for these $#!#heels to appeal.
I also wonder what this means for Padilla - a US citizen. what I see in this law is what I would have given to Padilla, he can challenge his status as a combatant, but once its clear that a fair process has made that determination - he belongs to the military after that. However, if they are giving that to non US persons, I imagine Padilla will (sadly) get a biger bite of the apple.
These people are from Afghanistan, and the plan is to send them home. But the lawyers wand activists won't allow that either. Since when is everyone in America focused on prisoners? I thought people get raped and murdered all of the time in American prisons, and I don't see anyone worried about that. Must be McCain, POW posng as war hero and expert. A view of war from a prison. Did a POW ever win a war?
So, sentence them to 9 ten year consecutive sentences.
Agreement???????? sounds like aa give away.
Padilla is a different story. I think if you're arrested on American soil, and you're an American, you must be given all your Constitutional rights, even if you've been actively treasonous. But those SOBs in Guantanamo should have been summarily shot after interrogation. Or save the bullets and shove `em out the back of a C-47 afterward. Either way, it's as fair as they deserve for fighting a war by hiding among civilians.
ROFLMAO!
That is a great solution. That or don't sentence them to jail at all. Just put them on parole...in Guantanamo. Of course, we can't have them walking all over the base, so we'll have to put them in barracks there, but hey, they'll be just as free as their women if we let them go down the hall and pick their lunch off a cart every day. More free, unless we put their sorry asses in burkhas.
US Senate to US Military: Take no prisoners.
"... the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit."
GREAT! That's where all Clinton's appointments are.
What are the senators planning .. to set the killers free ..??
is Janice Rogers Brown on that court?
I have no idea.
Terrible precedent
"A bipartisan group of senators reached a compromise Monday that would allow detainees at Guantanamo Bay to appeal the rulings of military tribunals to the federal courts. "
====
THE REPUBLICANS CAVED.....AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Just recently an article said that the Senate agreed to NOT allow detainees to appeal to US courts, then of course the terrorist lovers and the idiots complained, so the Republican Senators fall all over themselves to cave.
It's sickening!
Don't forget the Senate recently passed 90-9 McCain's bill to prohibit not just torture, but "degrading treatment", as defined by anyone, of the terrorists and gave them the same rights as US citizens, quoting constitutional amendments, and made the UN law binding for the US, by putting into the US code.
Why don't we just surrender to the Iranian Mullahs and Bin Laden?!
I don't think the Dems control the DC circuit anymore, but I could be wrong.
Why don't they just proclaim it to be September 10th 2001 day. That sure as hell how they are governing.
KEEP IT UP US SENATE!!!!
THOUSANDS OF TERRORISTS ARE DEPENDING ON YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well .. if they don't .. that's great news!
What gives Senators the power to do this?
Not true. There's only 3 Clinton judges on that court. Reagan, Bush-I, and Bush-II each have 2 judges on the court, plus there's 2 vacancies. Also, of the 4 senior judges, 3 are Reaganites and the other is from either Johnson or Carter. Reagan's failed Supreme Court nominee, Douglas Ginsburg, is Chief Judge. It's a good court.
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit - the case goes directly from military tribunal to Court of Appeals, with no stop at the District Court Level.
SA 2524. Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. LEVIN, and Mr. KYL) proposed an amendment to amendment SA 2515 proposed by Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. KYL, Mr. CHAMBLISS, and Mr. CORNYN) to the bill S. 1042, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2006 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes; as follows: ...SEC. __. REVIEW OF STATUS OF DETAINEES.
(a) Submittal of Procedures for Status Review of Detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees, and to the Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and the House of Representatives, a report setting forth the procedures of the Combatant Status Review Tribunals and the noticed Administrative Review Boards in operation at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for determining the status of the detainees held at Guantanamo Bay.
(b) Procedures.--The procedures submitted to Congress pursuant to subsection (a) shall, with respect to proceedings beginning after the date of the submittal of such procedures under that subsection, ensure that--
(1) in making a determination of status of any detainee under such procedures, a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or Administrative Review Board may not consider statements derived from persons that, as determined by such Tribunal or Board, by the preponderance of the evidence, were obtained with undue coercion; and
(2) the Designated Civilian Official shall be an officer of the United States Government whose appointment to office was made by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. ...
(d) Judicial Review of Detention of Enemy Combatants.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(e) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien outside the United States (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(38) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(38)) who is detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.''.
(2) REVIEW OF DECISIONS OF COMBATANT STATUS REVIEW TRIBUNALS OF PROPRIETY OF DETENTION.--
(A) IN GENERAL.--Subject to subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of any decision of a Designated Civilian Official described in subsection (b)(2) that an alien is properly detained as an enemy combatant.
[lots more - worth reading]
Mash Here -> 109th Congress - Senate - November 14, 2005
Navigate to: 29 . TEXT OF AMENDMENTS
Court tackles new Gitmo detainee law
By PAMELA HESS AND SHAUN WATERMAN
UPI Security and TerrorismWASHINGTON, Jan. 11 (UPI) -- The U.S. Federal Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., is soliciting opinions on whether a new law denying the Guantanamo prisoners the right to challenge their detention in federal court applies retroactively to all those in custody.
If the court decides the law does apply across the board, many lawsuits filed by detainees against the Bush administration using the centuries-old common law principle of habeas corpus would come to an end. ...
The new law, dubbed the Detainee Treatment Act, was made part of the 2006 defense authorization act. It was also sponsored by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Az. It prohibits prisoners held at the jail on the U.S. enclave in Cuba from filing habeas corpus cases.
According to Graham's office, some 160 cases involving 300 Guantanamo prisoners had already been filed with the D.C. circuit when the act became law.
The administration is arguing that the law applies retroactively as well, and said last week it wants all federal courts to dismiss all the Guantanamo cases before them.
Congress, however, is less clear on the matter.
Graham, a former military lawyer, sides with the White House but left room for the courts to arrive at their own decision.
"Under no circumstance did I intend... that existing lawsuits filed by enemy combatants detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, would be statutorily preserved. Nor do I believe a reasonable reading of the statute would lead to that conclusion. The intent of the language ... is that courts will decide in accord with their own rules, procedures and precedents whether to proceed in pending cases," he stated last week.
http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060110-051639-8337r
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.