Nine senators were absent from Thursday's vote on Sen. Graham's amendment to an appropriations bill that would strip Guantanamo detainees of the right to challenge the legality of their detentions in federal court using a writ of habeas corpus.

On Monday, Sen. Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico will seek a new vote on Graham's amendment, trying to convince Senators on the Judiciary Committee to gut the part of the Graham amendment that prevents detainees from using the writ.

So it is possible that some lawmakers could have it both ways, backing other provisions in Mr. Graham's measure that try to make the Guantánamo tribunal process more accountable to the Senate, but opposing the more exceptional element of the legislation that limits prerogatives of the judiciary.

Tinkering with habeas corpus is a dangerous thing. Today, Sen. Lindsay Graham and his fellow Senators told you they are only restricting habeas rights of enemy combatants, i.e., foreigners. But on November 16, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a second hearing on S. 1088 (pdf), a bill that would gut habeas corpus rights for Americans.

The legislation, known as the Streamlined Procedures Act, would effectively kill the writ of habeas corpus by stripping federal courts of jurisdiction to consider cases in which a prisoner's constitutional rights may have been violated. The legislation would apply to all criminal cases, including capital cases. The legislation is sponsored by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) in the Senate and Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) in the House.

I warned about the bill in July, quoting an LA Times article:

Virginia Rep. Bobby Scott, the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee considering the bill, conceded there was little chance of blocking it in the House. "The House has been very supportive of anything that would strip the innocent of a fair hearing. This bill will ensure that more innocent people will be put to death," he said in a telephone interview."

The New York Times reports that White House staffers think Karl Rove is not going to be indicted because he's back to his normal self, down to the spring in his step.

Rove gave his lecture at the Federalist society tonight. Not surpisingly, his theme was the need to stop what he called "judicial imperialism."

Among the decisions he criticized: a Supreme Court ruling that forbade the death penalty for murderers under 18, saying it "ignored the fact that at the time, the peoples' representatives in 20 states had permitted the death penalty for killers under 18."

In a week in which we have seen the Bush Administration pressure Congress to (1) exempt the CIA from an anti-torture amendment, (2) overrule a Supreme Court decision allowing those declared enemy combatents solely on the word of the Executive branch to challenge their detention in court; and (3) increase the power of the FBI to spy on Americans and others without judicial oversight or accountability to Congress, this hardly seems like a recipe for success.

Bump and Update: Unbelievable. The Senate today passed Lindsay Graham's amendment, 49 to 42 barring detainees at Guantanamo and others declared by the Executive Branch to be enemy combatants from seeking judicial review of the legality of their detentions.

Democrats indicated they may try to kill or change the provision before the Senate votes on the overall bill next week. Five Democrats sided with 44 Republicans in voting for the provision.

Who are the five Democrats who voted with Republicans?

Conrad, N.D.; Landrieu, La.; Lieberman, Conn.; Nelson, Neb.; Wyden, Ore.

As I said below, this is an end-run around the Supreme Court's decision in Rasul v. Bush which held Guantanamo detainees have the right to challenge the legality of their detentions.

**********
Original Post: Nov. 9, 9:52 am

Breaking: Senator Lindsay Graham is introducing an Amendment to the defense appropriations bill pending in the Senate (S. 1042) that would strip those designated by the Administration as enemy combatants of the ability to seek habeas review in federal courts. This is an end-run around the Supreme Court's decision in Rasul v. Bush which held Guantanamo detainees have the right to challenge the legality of their detentions.

by TChris

Supporters of the most obnoxious provisions of the Patriot Act contend that national security is more important than privacy or civil liberties. But many of the Act's supporters in Congress are even more concerned about their continuing receipt of campaign contributions from the corporate world. Corporate opposition to the Patriot Act captures their attention more readily than impassioned pleas from civil rights advocates.

Fearing a terrorist attack, the FBI descended on casinos, car rental agencies, storage warehouses, and other Las Vegas businesses with sheaves of "national security letters" demanding financial records covering about 1 million revelers. Startled business owners who questioned the action were told they had one choice: cough up their documents or wind up in court.

Any time a federal law burdens a significant number of businesses, Congress hears about it.

"Businesses want to cooperate in the war on terrorism, but this type of unchecked government power goes a little over the line," says Bob Shepler, director of corporate finance at the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM).

by TChris

As reported here, the CIA is housing and interrogating suspected terrorists in foreign prisons. The propriety of using secret prisons, where abuse (or even killings) may go unreported, is worthy of public debate, but Sen. Frist is unconcerned. Instead, he’s concerned that the administration's dirty little secret was made public.

"My concern is with leaks of information that jeopardize your safety and security - period," Frist said. "That is a legitimate concern."
...

Frist was asked if that meant he was not concerned about investigating what goes on in detention centers.

"I am not concerned about what goes on and I'm not going to comment about the nature of that," Frist replied.

Bump and Update: Raw Story reports that this information, posted on TalkLeft yesterday, is accurate. RS says Fitz is wrapping up his probe and looking to charge Karl Rove with false statements to investigators and perjury. His aide, Susan Ralston, is said not to be in jeopardy, but has been called back to the grand jury, perhaps Monday.

*******
Original Post: 11/9

Susan Ralston is described as Rove's "right hand man." She is also a Filipino American and her involvement in the leaks probe has generated news coverage in the Phillipines. The Philippine News reports today that she will again "appear before Fitzgerald" concerning a telephone call between Matthew Cooper and Karl Rove on July 11, 2003.

I just got my copy of Scott Turow's new book, Ordinary Heroes. It looks like the perfect read for Veteran's Day and one of the reviewers cautions to start it on a Friday night because you may not be able to put it down. From a Washington Post review on Amazon:

The story opens in 2003, when Stewart Dubinsky, a 55-year-old crime reporter, happens upon a bundle of letters that allude to his recently deceased father's court-martial during the last days of World War II. Stewart is knocked flat by the thought that his "tirelessly proper" father should have such a scandalous past. An insurance company lawyer and devoted family man, David had always claimed that his wartime service as an assistant judge advocate in Europe was unexceptional. Stewart decides to investigate whether he is "the son of a convict who'd betrayed his country and slipped away on some technicality, or, perhaps, the child of a man who'd endured a primitive injustice which he'd left entombed in the past."

Jen Banbury, writing in Salon, interviews former Brigadier General Janis Karpinski of Abu Ghraib notoriety about her experiences and her new book, "One Woman's Army: The Commanding General of Abu Ghraib Tells Her Story."

Karpinski makes a strong argument that she was made a scapegoat by George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, her immediate bosses and military intelligence commanders. Frustratingly, Karpinski never steps up and takes responsibility, in any way, for what happened at Abu Ghraib. Yet, despite her lack of accountability or mea culpa, the book is an often shocking, guns-a-blazing indictment of the inept occupation of Iraq, and of the men who planned it and continue to run it today. Salon reached Karpinski by phone this week to talk about the Gitmo-ization of Abu Ghraib, the policy that keeps thousands of innocent Iraqis behind bars, and the reasons that the people truly responsible for Abu Ghraib are still in power.

by TChris

It's convenient for marijuana buyers to pick up a bag at the neighborhood convenience store, but a 19-year-old who allegedly sold weed at a 7-Eleven store was arrested after a customer called the police to report that the store was empty. The police found the store clerk sleeping in the back office next a quarter-pound of pot, a scale, and a smaller bag.

by TChris

Two articles today raise questions that Judge Alito must address at his confirmation hearing. This Boston Globe article reports that Alito failed to recuse himself from a case in which his sister’s law firm represented a party.

In a written response to questions from the US Senate during his 1990 confirmation hearings to be an appeals judge, Samuel Alito promised: "I would disqualify myself from any case involving my sister's law firm, Carpenter, Bennett & Morrissey of Newark, New Jersey."

Rosemary Alito left the Carpenter firm in 1994, when she joined McCarter & English. That firm represented a bank seeking a rehearing before the Third Circuit. Court records indicate that Judge Alito didn’t recuse himself, but voted to deny the rehearing. Judge Alito says he doesn’t remember the case.

It's a court day for me, which means an open thread day for you. All topics are welcome.