The Senate did a bad thing yesterday, voting for the so-called Graham Amendment, 49-42 (with McCain voting for it), which would eliminate the statutory right of habeas corpus for alien detainees held by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo. The point of this amendment is to undermine the Supreme Court’s June 2004 decision in Rasul v. Bush.
For an explanation of the issues see Marty Lederman at SCOTUS Blog and then see Steve Vladeck for the advanced course in the horrible and complex federal courts and constitutional law implications.
Amazingly, the proposal has a (tentative) academic supporter, Julian Ku, at Opinio Juris.
It’s not finished yet. This following message comes from Muneer Ahmad at American University. If you’re in Maine, Ohio, Arizona, Virginia, Nebraska, North Dakota, Louisiana, Connecticut, or Oregon, do what he says. Please.
The Graham Amendment, which seeks to strip federal courts of habeas jurisdiction to review the legality of the detention of Guantanamo detainees, passed last night, BUT THERE IS STILL A CHANCE TO UNDO IT. Senator Bingaman (D-NM) has an amendment he plans to introduce that would delete the habeas-stripping provisions of the Graham Amendment.
Following is a list of Senators who are especially important on this vote. If you are one of their constituents, PLEASE CALL TODAY and urge them to SUPPORT THE BINGAMAN AMENDMENT on habeas review.
Please note that Sen. John Warner of Virginia is on this list, so Virginians, please, please call.
To those who made calls yesterday, thank you. Please make one more call if you can.
Collins (ME) (202) 224-2523
Dewine (OH) (202) 224-2315
Mccain (AZ) (202) 224-2235
Snowe (ME) (202) 224-5344
Warner (VA) (202) 224-2023
Hagel (NE) (202) 224-4224
Conrad (D Nd) (202) 224-2043
Landrieu (D LA) (202) 224-5824
Lieberman (D CT) (202) 224-4041
Ben Nelson (D NE) (202) 224-6551
Wyden (D OR) (202) 224-5244
Just a wild guess on Wyden’s (unexpected?) vote: was he voting in favor so that he would be eligible to move for reconsideration?
Ku’s CV says he was an Olin Fellow and Lecturer in Law at the University of Virginia.
I’m not surprised.
The comments on Ku’s post are spot on.
I’m also curious:
In Scalia, Scalito and Bainbridge I see conservative catholic ideologists of the right wing
countering/complementing the jewsih neocons. But in the first names the asian-american rightist intellectuals I hear something similar. Francis Fukuyama was the first that came to mind, years ago.
Intellectually lightweight from one end to the other and no more than a defense of an (always artificial) moral and doctrinal continuity.
All Pailine crap?
I meant of course to type ‘Pauline’ having to do with the originator of Catholic authoritarianism.