Log In | Register
6 Votes
8 Comments
Lindsey Graham: Remove Habeas Corpus From the Constitution
News Type: Event — Seeded on Sat Jun 14, 2008 2:02 PM EDT
Article Source: Politicoadvertisement
June 12, 2008
GOP blast Gitmo decision, Graham says he is willing to push for a constitutional amendment if necessary
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) vowed Thursday to do everything in his power to overturn the Supreme Court's decision on Guantanamo Bay detainees, saying that, "if necessary," he would push for a constitutional amendment to modify the decision.
A former military prosecutor, Graham blasted the decision as "irresponsible and outrageous," echoing the sentiments of many congressional Republicans and President Bush.
Earlier in the day, the court ruled 5-4 that suspected terrorists held by the U.S. military at Guantanamo Bay have the right to challenge their detention in federal court.
When talking to reporters Thursday afternoon, Graham cautioned that it he was still digesting the decision but said he was "looking at every way I can to modify this position," including fighting to change the statute.
"The American people are going to wake up tomorrow and be shocked to hear that a member of Al Qaeda has the same constitutional rights as an American citizen," said Graham.
"[Even] the Nazis never had that right."
Published to:
- Infohack's Column, All of Newsvine
- Groups: DemocracyVine, The Truth Network
- Regions: none
 | Jonathan Martin's Blog: McCain doesn't pick up on Michelle Obama joke - Politico.com | Politico | Sat Jun 14 | 4 |
| I'm fighting to defend our basic freedoms, says David Davis | Telegraph | Fri Jun 13 | 0 |
| Kristol: McCain And Graham Plan To Introduce Legislation Undermining Supreme Court Decision On Guantanamo | Think Progress | Sun Jun 15 | 120 |
- Public Discussion (8)
- DemocracyVine
- The Truth Network
What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user
has on the current conversation.
The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd
row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera).
Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group
is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the
left, in their corresponding group.
Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the
number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative
one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their
relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
3.9
2.0
{"commentId":1967523,"authorDomain":"Infohack"}
Great idea, Lindsey, instead of going back and fixing a flawed military tribunal process which had no provisions for appeal and gave the benefit of the doubt on proof of guilt to the government, let's just eliminate habeas corpus entirely and throw out 200+ years of constitutional law for Americans as well as enemy combatants.
{"commentId":1967523,"threadId":"289193","contentId":"1575855","authorDomain":"Infohack"}
- 2 votes
#1 - Sat Jun 14, 2008 2:08 PM EDT{"commentId":1968127,"authorDomain":"objectivity"}
Ditto!
{"commentId":1968127,"threadId":"289193","contentId":"1575855","authorDomain":"objectivity"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1967827,"authorDomain":"dsanthony"}
The SC put America on a dangerous path. Civilian courts should not interfere with military actions during a time of war. Of course, libs won't admit that the US is at war and wants the prisoners treated as criminals rather than POWs. That worked pretty well during the Clinton years, didn't it? Let's see... the first World Trade Center attack, 2 embassies bomed, the USS Cole attacked, missed chances to take out Bin Laden, and years of preparation toward the September 11 attacks. Yes, let's follow the SC back to the Clinton (and Obama) policies of treating terrorists as criminals. It has such a proven track record.
{"commentId":1967827,"threadId":"289193","contentId":"1575855","authorDomain":"dsanthony"}
- 1 vote
#2 - Sat Jun 14, 2008 3:18 PM EDT{"commentId":1973309,"authorDomain":"cplmcl"}
Lindsey Graham wears more makeup than Tammy Faye Baker, and not just for special appearances. he walks around the Senate like that. I mean, if he sees a TV camera look out.
That's my contribution. I know I'll get a prize for it too.
{"commentId":1973309,"threadId":"289193","contentId":"1575855","authorDomain":"cplmcl"}
- 2 votes
#3 - Sun Jun 15, 2008 3:16 PM EDT{"commentId":1973495,"authorDomain":"Infohack"}
He does seem to be a bit of a mince.
{"commentId":1973495,"threadId":"289193","contentId":"1575855","authorDomain":"Infohack"}
{"commentId":1973705,"authorDomain":"survivor2005"}
ENEMY COMBATANTS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS! GET REAL!!
{"commentId":1973705,"threadId":"289193","contentId":"1575855","authorDomain":"survivor2005"}
#4 - Sun Jun 15, 2008 4:36 PM EDT{"commentId":1974289,"authorDomain":"Infohack"}
That's not what the article is about, it's about the proposed repeal of habeas corpus from the Constitution of the United States, which would affect all Americans. The kind of knee-jerk reaction we've come to expect from Republicans who seem to have no clue what the founding fathers intended -- to limit the power of government in order to secure individual rights.
GET REAL!!
Get a clue. And stop using all caps, it doesn't make your point any more valid.
{"commentId":1974289,"threadId":"289193","contentId":"1575855","authorDomain":"Infohack"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":2460762,"authorDomain":"survivor2005"}
Dear InfoHack. Thank you for your comment. However, you conveniently side-step the issue. Enemy combatant are not Citizens of the United States. Therefore, they have no access to the RIGHT of Habeas Corpus.
{"commentId":2460762,"threadId":"289193","contentId":"1575855","authorDomain":"survivor2005"}
#5 - Fri Aug 15, 2008 3:12 AM EDT{"canLink":false,"threadId":"289193","isPrivate":false}
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
Start Tracking
Stop TrackingCOMPANY STUFF:
LEGAL STUFF:
- © 2005-2009 Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine is a property of
