Supreme Court already ruled against Graham Amendment

The Graham amendment creates a legal black hole of almost unimaginable proportions for those swept up by the Bush Administration’s “war on terror.” The Supreme Court ruled last year in CCR’s case, Rasul v. Bush, that the detainees at Guantánamo have the right to challenge their detention in U.S. court – they did not want the Executive branch of the government to be able to lock people up and throw away the key. If the Bingaman amendment does not pass, the Bush Administration will have successfully stripped federal courts of jurisdiction to hear the cases of the Guantánamo detainees.

Center for Constitutional Rights

EMERGENCY ACTION! REVERSE DISATROUS AMENDMENT ON DETAINEES

http://www.demaction.org/dia/organizations/ccr/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=1500

Rasul v. Bush 2004

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasul_v._Bush

Congress is the LEGISLATIVE branch, and was not a party in the Supreme Court's decision whatsoever. The court did not rule on the issue if CONGRESS could erase these rights rather than the Executive branch unilaterally because that was not the subject of the case!!

And maybe the court should rule that way, but that's three moves ahead.

will be certain to vote the "right" way on this amendment if it comes to the SCROTUS.

To see Rasul v Bush see:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=03-334

If you read the opinion, the Court relies on the STATUTORY Requirements of Habeas Corpus NOT the Constitutional Basis. That is why Graham wants to change the Statute, to reverse the decision of the Supreme Court. Now the Court indicates that the Stature is based on the Constitutional recognition of Habeas Corpus, but the Constitution NEVER defines what is Habeas Corpus, except to say Habeas Corpus can NOT be suspended except in times of war.

See Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 2 for the language that says "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section1