Graham blasts Supreme Court decision
S.C. senator says al-Qaida members have more legal rights than Nazis did during World War II
James Rosen
WASHINGTON - A dejected Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., criticized the Supreme Court's ruling Thursday on Guantanamo Bay detainees, calling it 'dangerous and irresponsible.'
Graham, a military lawyer and a colonel in the Air Force Reserve, helped craft the 2006 Military Commissions Act and had predicted confidently that it would pass high court muster
. The Supreme Court repudiated Graham in a 5-4 decision Thursday, ruling that the roughly 270 terrorism suspects who are being held at the U.S. military prison in Cuba have a constitutional right to challenge their detentions in federal courts.
'The court's ruling makes clear the legal rights given to al-Qaida members today should exceed those provided to the Nazis during World War II,' Graham said. 'Our nation is at war. It's truly unfortunate the Supreme Court did not recognize and appreciate that fact.'
Graham said he'd explore the possibility of drafting a constitutional amendment 'to blunt the effect of this decision.'
A constitutional amendment would be unlikely to move in Congress during the waning months of a lame-duck presidency, however, and at the height of a campaign for the White House.
Graham's talk of a constitutional amendment indicated how little room the Supreme Court has left Graham, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and President Bush in their long-standing effort to create a special trial system outside federal courts for alleged terrorists.
Democrats are expected to expand their congressional majorities in November. Most of the party's lawmakers - and several Republicans - opposed denying the Guantanamo detainees habeas corpus rights in the original debate over the Military Commissions Act.
The ruling is also a major political blow for Graham, who is running for re-election this year, eviscerating a law that he'd recently cited as one of his three proudest achievements in his first Sen
ate term.
E-mail this story
Printer-friendly versionComments
ForPnC (anonymous) says...
Nicely put, Thomas.
June 13, 2008 at 3:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
WSM (anonymous) says...
Gotta' question: Does that mean the rat B@$t@rd$ in black will represent me if I am captured by the "alleged" Al Queda folks? Will that mean a beheading with a rusty knife, or one more cleaner? Are there Democratic Party field offices in Pakistan, Iran, and Palestine?
Jim Clyburn said it best, the war going well means bad news for them!
June 13, 2008 at 4:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
carolinadude (anonymous) says...
This sorry so and so just won the gop primary by more than a 2-1 margin over Witherspoon. I don't understand what my fellow republicans see in this guy. I just don't get it. Please help me understand how he could win by such a large margin.
June 13, 2008 at 5:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sixcar (anonymous) says...
Like the rest of you, Graham has pissed me off on more than one occasion. But this is one area where he's spot-on right.
June 13, 2008 at 6:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
berthelot (anonymous) says...
Why would the Government need to hold people indefinitely without charges? I'm sure they have all of the rock hard evidence of guilt that would be required to justify locking another human being in a box for years on end without trial, no? Oh, thats right, they don't have anything that could stand up in a trial... tricky. Oh well, stick them under the rug in Cuba until we can come up with something. The American people will be fine with it as long as we talk about how the treatment is better than what the Nazis received. Unbelievable.
So the administration is afraid of what exactly? Seven years later they can't produce enough evidence to continue holding these prisoners after a fair appeal... seven years later. On what planet is this still considered the USA?
June 13, 2008 at 7:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
number1volsfan1 (anonymous) says...
Now the federal courts will be inundated with terrorists demanding their rights. Are all you liberal Graham and Bush bashers willing to house these "upstanding citizens" while their appeals take years and tax payer dollars creeping through the courts?
Who needs Al Qaeda while the ACLU and the Supreme liberals are doing their job for them?
June 13, 2008 at 8:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
driftwood (anonymous) says...
Amazing I never knew that Constitutional rights were given to non-American's let alone those who are trying to kill our soldiers. I just hope Al Qaeda gets together and promises us some rights as well, I wonder if there is an ACLU there that American prisoners can complain to.
June 13, 2008 at 8:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Lenny (anonymous) says...
Instead of detaining our soldiers should just finish the job... what's next miranda rights? These aren't american citizens they don't get the same rights as us...
June 13, 2008 at 10:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CHRISJIII (anonymous) says...
Graham is a hypocrit!!!!
June 13, 2008 at 11:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
grannyofsix (anonymous) says...
i have a few words i was going to say we should do to these TERRORIST but with my luck what i think is a good plan would be concidered a terrorist act too
June 13, 2008 at 11:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
saflagler (anonymous) says...
Even as a conservative I heavily dislike Senator Graham and disagree with him on a lot of issues (Lindsey Grahamnesty for example), but I absolutely agree with him on this issue. How can the Supreme Court possibly say it's consitutional for enemy combatants, captured outside the US, to have due process rights?? This is going to flood our courts with pointless cases and strengthen our enemies morale. It seems like ANYTHING the President, or any Republican, for that matter says is automatically refuted by the left jst b/c it's the right believes in it. Instead of looking at issues and basing a decision on the merrits of the issue it is automatically shot down b/c somebody they don't like believes in it. That is a very dangerous way to make policy.
June 13, 2008 at 1:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SCdeacinNYC (anonymous) says...
They are enemy combatants/prisoners of war and they have rights under the Geneva Conventions.
Many of these people were arrested since 2001, we don't even know if any of them are actually terrorists or were just caught. Terrorists or not (the term is subjective to most people outside of America)they are a citizen of someone's country and often or not are afforded such rights under international law. When Americans are caught, kidnapped, tortured or worse we call it barbaric. Aren't we supposed to be the "civilized" ones here (as they would like you think)?
Seven years and we still don't have enough evidence to probe that these people are indeed terrorists, justify containing them this long and try and convict them of terrorism?? What a mess...Guantanamo is a disaster just like the war in Afghanistan has been (mostly because of our attention to the bigger war in Iraq).
June 13, 2008 at 1:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
common_sense (anonymous) says...
JohnQ, lay off the bottle.
June 13, 2008 at 1:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
berthelot (anonymous) says...
Jane,
I think you need to step back and take a long look at your comments, and then reconsider your position.
You say: "It is my understanding he wanted these animals to have access to our courts."
I understand this is a leap, but would you require every law abiding citizen of the United States to appear in court regularly to prove his innocence of crimes against the USA? Of course you wouldn't, the burden is on the prosecution to provide proof of guilt. We never have to defend our innocence in this country. Who then would you want to have access to our court system? Tax-paying criminals only??? We have the judicial system in place for one reason: to deal with criminals. It has served us well for many years. If you can prove your case, justice will be served.
Furthermore, if you are going to assume the right to detain someone for years on end based on circumstantial evidence then you MUST accept the responsibility of proving such allegations in a timely manner with a proper trial. If you have no evidence of wrongdoing that can be presented to a court and you continue to detain the suspects then you are committing a war crime. End of story.
If you can't prove it, it doesn't exist...unless you are brown with a beard apparently.
I implore you all to answer this question:
What harm may come from a fair trial?
June 13, 2008 at 4:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
berthelot (anonymous) says...
Gold star to JohnQ who got it right on the first try.
June 14, 2008 at 6:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rollo (anonymous) says...
This is not a constitutional issue. Not even legitimate POWs (which these are not) are granted habea corpus under the Geneva conventions.
If you doubt me, look it up, educate yourself.
June 14, 2008 at 10:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Postandcourier.com is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Postandcourier.com does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website.
Users can now build user-to-user connections, follow friends' recent posts, add an avatar that fits their personality, and more. If you have posted here before you'll need to sign up again, or if you've never posted before, start now by signing up!
Full terms and conditions can be read here.
Thank you for your interest in this story. The comment thread for this article has been closed.
- Most Commented
- Most Emailed
- S.C. losing port traffic to other states
- Out with old ...
- Cart gives Buddy new lease on life
- Water — 'The smell is gone'
- Schools plan to update visitor-security system
- GenPhar site 'red-tagged'
- Off campus
- Historic manor house used by Girl Scouts is among buildings that might be torn down to make way for future
- Man, 17, killed in motorcycle wreck
- Tough times have taught comedian's sister to love life
