Feeling the heat, Lindsey Graham amended his ridiculous amendment (PDF) so that judges can now review their own inability to hear cases of habeas corpus. Meanwhile, in an effort to garner votes Jeff Binghaman has watered down his amendment so that habeas cases still go through but inmates can’t sue over conditions of confinement (PDF).
It baffles me that we’re even trying to meet in the middle on this issue. As far as fundamental American values go this shouldn’t be an issue at all. There’s still time to call your Senator and let his or her interns know that this shouldn’t even be up for debate.
As always the folks at Obsidian Wings have more. Scroll up and down to get the full scoop.
***Update***
Incisive commentary on the psychological underpinnings of the Graham amendment by The Editors.
***Update 2***
Kidding about the incisive part. But funny.
Stormy70
PS – O’Reilly and Franken suck across the board. Smug bastards.
Stormy70
Crap – wrong thread. I need more sleep and now I have to leave for work. Dang it all, work is starting to interfere with my internets fun.
Lines
Don’t forget the drinking, thats probably the main problem.
Steve S
There is a middle ground on abandoning the Constitution?
Lines
Steve, I’m not sure the Constitution has much to offer on this. These are foreign born/foreign citizens that we captured on or near a battlefield.
Its more that we’re compromising our morality, our sense that we lead by example more often than by force.
Its just more steps down the path to the destruction of American ideals.
CaseyL
I keep hearing this, that Constitutional rights only apply to American citizens. It makes me angry, esp. when well-meaning people like Lines repeat it.
Nowhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights does it say “reserved for American citizens only.” The Constitution and the Bill of Rights talk about “people” or “men,” meaning everyone – everyone at least on American soil, regardless of their nationality.
Secondly, even if one accepts for arguments sake the premise that US laws, constitutional laws, and the Bill of Rights only apply to American citizens – then why don’t they apply to Jose Padilla?
Lines
Hmmm, I had a feeling my post was going to garner a misunderstanding.
The Constitution, as is currently being implemented, only applies to citizens of the United States. The Bill of Rights was used to wipe Karl Rove’s ass years ago.
It is basic American principles that are being trampled. Our ideals of a fair America and a fair world are being trampled in the name of nationalism and isolationism by angry white bigotted men. I agree, the Constitution should apply to everyone we deal with, the Bill of Rights should be repeated every morning by school children, not some lame ass pledge to nationalism.
Steve S
I don’t believe that’s correct. I believe this amendment is talking about that Padilla guy caught in Chicago.
I do happen to agree that constitutional protections are not guaranteed to foreign citizens in a foreign country.
I do not happen to agree it is in our best interest to take advantage of that. Rather it is in our best interests to live up to our own standards of behavior.
aop
Correct. Our constitution does not guarantee habeas corpus to foreign citizens. Since the rest of the civilized world extends it to our citizens, however, it behooves us to do so. Just try to imagine the political shitstorm that would blow in (particularly from the right) if France suddenly declared that they wouldn’t guarantee habeas corpus to any American arrested on their soil.
RepubAnon
Habeas corpus dates all the way back to the Magna Carta and possibly before. It is outrageous to deny this bedrock of both English common law and the relatively current US Constitution to people captured and held indefinitely merely because they aren’t US citizens.
We already know the Bush Administration continues holding detainees even after a one-sided military tribunal found them innocent. This is precisely the type of abuse habeas corpus has prevented since its first recorded use in 1305 A.D. – seven hundred years ago. It is a sad day for these United States when our Congress rolls back legal protections for anyone under the control of our government to the days of England’s King John. The Statue of Liberty is probably wearing a bag over her head in shame.
a guy called larry
But of course. One branch may decide to relenquish powers clearly enumerated to them, and turn them over to another branch, without any mention in the Constitution of their right to do so.
BIRDZILLA
The biggist problem is politicians and buricrats trying to interfer in our lives and that gose for the health freaks of such busybody pests like CSPI and PCRM
valc
“I do happen to agree that constitutional protections are not guaranteed to foreign citizens in a foreign country.”
Soldiers and officials of the U.S. government are bound by the constitution regardless of where they operate. Anyone in U.S. custody has constitutional rights.
“One branch may decide to relenquish powers clearly enumerated to them, and turn them over to another branch, without any mention in the Constitution of their right to do so.”
No, no branch may relinquish powers enumerated to them. They are obligations, not perks. The separation of powers was put in place specifically to prevent any one branch from a reckless abuse of power. Congress was obligated to decide whether or not to go to war and they had no right to hand that power over to the president. If they felt Saddam was a threat they should have declared war themselves and faced the consequences of their actions.
Steve S
This is what the Constitution says:
Since we have not been Invaded, and we are not suffering from a Rebellion… this act is clearly unconstitutional.
The Civil War counts as a Rebellion.
Steve S
valc, I think you are trying to argue a point which merely distracts from the real point. I don’t see the purpose in it.
valc
Steve S., How does it distract from the real point? Congress has repeatedly taken the easy way out on issues of Constitutional importance. The suspension of habeas corpus is only latest example.