US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

Senators reach Gitmo detainees compromise

LIZ SIDOTI

Associated Press


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 cases.

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 "enemy combatants."

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 detentions - 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. He said courts also will determine the constitutionality of the Bush administration's processes for prosecuting terror suspects and determining whether they should continue to be detained.

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 response to last year's Supreme Court decision granting detainees such rights.

Human-rights groups, many Democrats and four Republicans opposed the original provision, saying it was flawed because it only allowed one very narrow appeal of a detainee's status as an "enemy combatant" to a federal court.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., called the compromise "a significant improvement" because it provides a much-needed automatic review by a federal court in death penalty cases. Also, Levin said, "We have said that the standards in the amendment will be applied in pending cases, but the amendment will not strip courts of jurisdiction over those cases."

Since that vote, Graham has worked with Levin and others to reach a compromise that would alleviate the concerns of senators of both parties and avert a showdown over the original provision.

The Senate is to vote Tuesday on a proposal by Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., that would allow detainees to file habeas corpus petitions, but only in the D.C. appeals court. However, the proposal would prohibit detainees from filing petitions based on claims objecting to living conditions.

"It is reasonable to insist that when the government deprives a person of his or her liberty - and in this case for an indefinite period of time - that the individual have a meaningful opportunity to challenge the legality of their detention and challenge whether they are being wrongfully detained," Bingaman said.

Levin said he would vote for Bingaman's proposal but, should that fail, would support the compromise provision.

Graham said he opposed Bingaman's proposal because it did not correct "lawsuit abuse" by prisoners at Guantanamo, and, he said, it would continue to treat terrorism suspects as criminals by affording them the right to file habeas corpus petitions to fight their detentions in a U.S. court.

The Supreme Court gave that right to the 500 or so prisoners held at Guantanamo in 2004. Many of the prisoners were captured in Afghanistan and have been held at Guantanamo for several years without being charged.

Since that ruling, prisoner habeas corpus claims against the government have piled up.

I don't have a link Walter. I've been teaching this stuff for 20 years or so though. Brittanica doesn't have it? That's hard to imagine given a very lengthy history of it recorded other places.

Senate Republicans Pushing for a Plan on Ending the War in Iraq
By CARL HULSE

WASHINGTON, Nov. 14 - In a sign of increasing unease among Congressional Republicans over the war in Iraq, the Senate is to consider on Tuesday a Republican proposal that calls for Iraqi forces to take the lead next year in securing the nation and for the Bush administration to lay out its strategy for ending the war.

The Senate is also scheduled to vote Tuesday on a compromise, announced Monday night, that would allow terror detainees some access to federal courts. The Senate had voted last week to prohibit those being held from challenging their detentions in federal court, despite a Supreme Court ruling to the contrary.

Senator Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican who is the author of the initial plan, said Monday that he had negotiated a compromise that would allow detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to challenge their designation as enemy combatants in federal courts and also allow automatic appeals of any convictions handed down by the military where detainees receive prison terms of 10 years or more or a death sentence.

The proposal on the Iraq war, from Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, and Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, would require the administration to provide extensive new quarterly reports to Congress on subjects like progress in bringing in other countries to help stabilize Iraq. The other appeals related to Iraq are nonbinding and express the position of the Senate.

The plan stops short of a competing Democratic proposal that moves toward establishing dates for a phased withdrawal of troops from Iraq. But it is built upon the Democratic approach and makes it clear that senators of both parties are increasingly eager for Iraqis to take control of their country in coming months and open the door to removing American troops.

I know it's inconvenient for the propagandistic and hateful theses which underpin the loony worldview of Bobble Study groups and reactionary hegemons, but do stop filling our thread with such egregious horsie poop, 'K?

During history classes at schooll and at history courses in Ancient History I was taught the way, Set wrote about.

And I still think that is very well documented by historians and archaeologists since some dozen decades.

I will also withdraw from the thread until he is done with this particular tirade so the thread won't be totally hijacked.

Good . . . don't let the door hit ya in the . . .


Edit: "Civilized debate" in Fox's terms means that she is never to be contradicted, and her "contributions" are not to be criticized . . .

Walter, as one last comment, I never said they were the same.

The largest Arab group to conquer and hold Canaan and all of Palestine were the Babylonians centered in what is now modern day Iraq. Check your Brittanica on that.