Jump to content

Republican Senator Graham Disses Habeas Corpus


Manscape
 Share

Recommended Posts

Did you have any problem with the US Supreme Court decision propelling MONKEY BOY to his year 2000 minority-vote presidential election victory, Sen. Graham? Or the US Supreme Court decision to uphold eminent domain in New London, CT. allowing government to SEIZE private homes NOT for civil infrastructure but for land developers, Grahamsy? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooooooo.............. :angry:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/060...if_necessa.html

June 12, 2008

Categories: Iraq

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.”

Speaking to reporters in Italy, President Bush also said he disagreed with the court’s ruling, but said he would respect it.

“We'll abide by the Court's decision,” said Bush. “That doesn't mean I have to agree with it. It's a deeply divided Court, and I strongly agree with those who dissented, and their dissent was based upon their serious concerns about U.S. national security.”

Bush said he would study the opinion and “determine whether or not additional legislation might be appropriate” in order to protect the American people.

Other prominent Republicans weighed in as well, with nearly all criticizing the decision.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) accused the court of "moving the goal posts on what the constitution requires" by changing the existing law regarding the rights of detainees.

"It is up to us now to try and come back and address the court's concerns," said Cornyn, who said the decision should prompt Congress to review the Military Commission Act and possibly the Detainee Treatment Act.

That might be a tall order for Senate Republicans, as Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) said earlier in the day he sees no need to revisit the two laws in light of the court's decision.

Other Republicans focused on what the decision might mean for troops on the battlefield.

“This decision will come at a cost,” said Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee.

“The Supreme Court just moved us closer to the day when U.S. Marine rifle teams will have to have lawyers read Miranda rights to terrorists captured on the battlefield.”

By Daniel W. Reilly 03:37 PM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“We'll abide by the Court's decision,” said Bush. “That doesn't mean I have to agree with it. It's a deeply divided Court, and I strongly agree with those who dissented, and their dissent was based upon their serious concerns about U.S. national security.”

Bush has decried "legislating from the bench", but here he encourages and lauds exactly that. The Supreme Court's job is not to make decisions "based upon their serious concerns about U.S. national security", or about anything else. Their job is to put their concerns and biases aside and interpret the Constitution as faithfully as they can. If that leads to a decision that has undesirable consequences, then it's the legislative branch's job to fix the law, not the court's job to twist it to their liking.

Prominent republicans often claim to want "strict constitutionalists" on the SC. They lie. What they clearly want is judges who will toe the right wing line in preference to what the Constitution says.

John McCain is a decent enough fellow. But he's made clear his intent to appoint right-leaning judges should the opportunity arise, and it likely will. That's a very good reason to vote for Barack Obama as the next President of the United States. Republicans will continue tossing the phrase "strict constitutionalist" around, but you're not going to get a genuine one appointed by John McCain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>>“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.<<<

You're a Bush DEADENDER Grahamsy. Decent Americans with a BRAIN know that the USA is a FRAUD unless EVERY human being on the planet has the same constitutional rights as an American citizen!!! :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Patriot
>>>“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.<<<

You're a Bush DEADENDER Grahamsy. Decent Americans with a BRAIN know that the USA is a FRAUD unless EVERY human being on the planet has the same constitutional rights as an American citizen!!! :angry:

This is your brain on drugs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Patriot
>>>“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.<<<

You're a Bush DEADENDER Grahamsy. Decent Americans with a BRAIN know that the USA is a FRAUD unless EVERY human being on the planet has the same constitutional rights as an American citizen!!! :angry:

Graham is right on. Terrorists have no rights, other than to die. Leftist fags like Manscum can hide under their beds while they cry about the

awful treatment of terrorists (the same people that blow up women and children) , while true heros like Bush and Graham are protecting America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Graham is right on. Terrorists have no rights, other than to die.

Then prove they're terrorists by charging them with something, and then having the ability to find them guilty in court. If you can't, you shouldn't have the right to detain someone indefinitely, period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TheoryCat
Graham is right on. Terrorists have no rights, other than to die. Leftist fags like Manscum can hide under their beds while they cry about the

awful treatment of terrorists (the same people that blow up women and children) , while true heros like Bush and Graham are protecting America.

We aren't talking about terrorists, scumbag. We're talking about terror suspects. I have to say, what is the point of moderating posts if "leftist fags" gets through? Is KOTW saying that "fag" is alright but "right-wing shithead" is not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Graham is right on. Terrorists have no rights, other than to die.

What terrorists, stupid? Those people being detained indefinitely haven't been CHARGED with anything!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
We aren't talking about terrorists, scumbag. We're talking about terror suspects. I have to say, what is the point of moderating posts if "leftist fags" gets through? Is KOTW saying that "fag" is alright but "right-wing shithead" is not?

LMAO. You loony left fools give me a laugh. You cry that "fag" isn't "moderated" as you use the word "scumbag". That's Kool-Aid thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TheoryCat
LMAO. You loony left fools give me a laugh. You cry that "fag" isn't "moderated" as you use the word "scumbag". That's Kool-Aid thinking.

"Scumbag" doesn't reek of bigotry. Not knowing the prejudice inherent in the word "fag" is Kool-Aid thinking. I notice that you can't actually form a coherent argument against what I said-who's the loony fool?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
"Scumbag" doesn't reek of bigotry. Not knowing the prejudice inherent in the word "fag" is Kool-Aid thinking. I notice that you can't actually form a coherent argument against what I said-who's the loony fool?

Right. "Scumbag" is merely a term of endearment .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Right. "Scumbag" is merely a term of endearment .

It's not a slur. Comparing "fag" to "scumbag" is like comparing "idiot" to "nigger". I'm amazed by how idiotic you can be, acting like the two are the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Graham is right on. Terrorists have no rights, other than to die. Leftist fags like Manscum can hide under their beds while they cry about the

awful treatment of terrorists (the same people that blow up women and children) , while true heros like Bush and Graham are protecting America.

Then it's a good thing that we know that everyone in Guantanamo is a confirmed terrorist and that the U.S. government never makes any mistakes when it decides who is and isn't a terrorist.

Well, except for Sami al-Haj, an Al-Jazeera cameraman who was detained at the Afghanistan-Pakistan border while crossing with a fellow Al Jazeera journalist. He was kept in an Afghan prison for six months, and then sent to Guantanamo, where he has spent the last six years. He has never been interrogated about terrorists or Al Quaeda, simply about the operations of Al Jazeera. He has never been charged with any crime.

Oh, and then there is Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri. He was legally in the U.S. on a student visa when he was arrested in Peoria, Illinois for credit card fraud. President Bush canceled his trial, declared him an enemy combatant, and sent him to Guantanamo. He has been there for four years, has been tortured, and never charged with any crime.

And how about Maher Ahar? He's a Canadian citizen who was detained at JFK airport while in transit between the U.S. and Canada. He was then shipped to Syria, where he was tortured for ten months. Turns out, he wasn't the right guy. Ooops!

Let's not forget Khaled el-Masri. He's a German citizen, arrested while on vacation in Macedonia, bounced around prisons around the world, and tortured by the CIA. Another case of mistaken identity. What are the odds?

And the plaintiff in the Supreme Court case, Lakhdar Boumediene, was a Bosnian citizen living in Bosnia who was arrested at the request of the U.S. government on suspicion of plotting to bomb the U.S. Embassy in Sarajevo. The Bosnian Supreme Court found him innocent and ordered his release. He was promptly picked up by U.S. forces in Bosnia and sent to Guantanamo. He has not been charged with a crime.

I think the point is made - mistakes happen. This is why the burden is always on the government to justify detaining someone, not the detained's burden to show why they should be let go. That's what habeas corpus is about, and is all that the Supreme Court's decision allows. What the Bush administration is claiming is the right to detain anyone, anywhere, for any length of time, without charging them, and without the accused having the right to challenge his or her detention. That is profoundly un-American, and to claim otherwise is unpatriotic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
It's not a slur. Comparing "fag" to "scumbag" is like comparing "idiot" to "nigger". I'm amazed by how idiotic you can be, acting like the two are the same.

Oh, I get it. It's like comparing "fag" to "Manscum". Thanks for helping me understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then prove they're terrorists by charging them with something, and then having the ability to find them guilty in court. If you can't, you shouldn't have the right to detain someone indefinitely, period.

Patriot's brain atrophied to the size of a peanut years ago. You can't reason with something like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Patriot
Then prove they're terrorists by charging them with something, and then having the ability to find them guilty in court. If you can't, you shouldn't have the right to detain someone indefinitely, period.

We're not detaining "someone", moron. We detaining terrorist suspects picked up on the battlefield. They're lucky they weren't shot instead

of captured. You leftist creampuffs should just stay under your beds until the patriots clean up the bad guys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
We're not detaining "someone", moron. We detaining terrorist suspects picked up on the battlefield.

In your dream world, moron. Do you consider someone's home a battlefield?

"GARDEZ, Afghanistan — The militants crept up behind Mohammed Akhtiar as he squatted at the spigot to wash his hands before evening prayers at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.

They shouted "Allahu Akbar" — God is great — as one of them hefted a metal mop squeezer into the air, slammed it into Akhtiar's head and sent thick streams of blood running down his face.

Akhtiar was among the more than 770 terrorism suspects imprisoned at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. They are the men the Bush administration described as "the worst of the worst."

But Akhtiar was no terrorist. American troops had dragged him out of his Afghanistan home in 2003 and held him in Guantanamo for three years in the belief that he was an insurgent involved in rocket attacks on U.S. forces. The Islamic radicals in Guantanamo's Camp Four who hissed "infidel" and spat at Akhtiar, however, knew something his captors didn't: The U.S. government had the wrong guy.

"He was not an enemy of the government, he was a friend of the government," a senior Afghan intelligence officer told McClatchy. Akhtiar was imprisoned at Guantanamo on the basis of false information that local anti-government insurgents fed to U.S. troops, he said." --http://www.mcclatchydc.com/259/story/38773.html

They're lucky they weren't shot instead

of captured. You leftist creampuffs should just stay under your beds until the patriots clean up the bad guys.

If they're all such "bad guys", why does Bush haphazardly release them by the hundreds at random? And why can't you find a crime to charge them with? What an idiot you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
We're not detaining "someone", moron. We detaining terrorist suspects picked up on the battlefield. They're lucky they weren't shot instead

of captured. You leftist creampuffs should just stay under your beds until the patriots clean up the bad guys.

Too "patriotic" for facts, huh Patrat?

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=24851&view=findpost&p=87626

If they're "bad guys", you can prove they are. If you can't, you can't detain them indefinitely. Period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TheoryCat
We're not detaining "someone", moron. We detaining terrorist suspects picked up on the battlefield. They're lucky they weren't shot instead

of captured. You leftist creampuffs should just stay under your beds until the patriots clean up the bad guys.

Real patriots realize that this country is great because of the ideas upon which it was founded, so to trample those ideas is to diminish our nation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Patriot
Real patriots realize that this country is great because of the ideas upon which it was founded, so to trample those ideas is to diminish our nation.

You're right. Some of those ideas were self-reliance, hard work and responsible behavior, not the Loony Left agenda of a socialist nanny state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
You're right. Some of those ideas were self-reliance, hard work and responsible behavior,

Like being responsible enough to give good reason for detaining people indefinitely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
You're right. Some of those ideas were self-reliance, hard work and responsible behavior, not the Loony Left agenda of a socialist nanny state.

Apparently you haven't noticed the self-indulgence and irresponsibility of radical right wing mis-leadership.

1. Lying the country into an unjustified war with unattainable goals and no exit strategy - the worst foreign policy disaster in our history.

2. Ignoring the real terrorist threat to pursue an untenable political strategy for access to oil in Iraq.

3. Relying on other nations' oil for our energy needs.

4. Making billions of dollars not by working hard but by making speculative market gambles, thereby destabilizing our entire economy.

5. Expecting to be bailed out of financial trouble when speculative capital ventures don't work out.

6. Ignoring the national security implications of our dependence on fossil fuels for thirty-five years since the first Arab oil embargo.

Socialism is dead. Great idea, wrong species.

Unregulated capitalism is also dead. How many times must we see its abuses before we understand why it will always happen the same way? How many times are we going to turn control of our government over to people whose main interest is immense personal gain, not the country's welfare?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
We're not detaining "someone", moron. We detaining terrorist suspects picked up on the battlefield. They're lucky they weren't shot instead

of captured. You leftist creampuffs should just stay under your beds until the patriots clean up the bad guys.

False. If they were picked up on the battlefield, they would be called prisoners of war.

Does the word "suspect" mean anything to you?

If we knew they were terrorists, we'd call them that. The point of the criminal justice system, whether it's applied to our own citizens or anyone else, is that accusations must be proved. If we have the proof, then let's show the world who these people are. If we don't, let's stop diminishing our standing in the world by acting like a dictatorship. Even the United States will lose political power if it pursues a strategy like that. The world will not stand for it for very long, and that is contrary to our national security interests.

Your problem, Mr. so-called Patriot, is that you think power is puffing up your chest and looking really, really tough. It works for chickens, but most people are smarter than chickens. Once people figure out what you're doing, it doesn't work any more, and the world figured out what we're doing years ago.

But then, a person with the intelligence of a chicken wouldn't understand that. Which explains why you keep making the same idiotic remarks over and over again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...