Republicans Insert "Senate Floor Debate" AFTER Session Ends

Attention, Social Studies teachers!

Here's your lesson in Historical Revision for the week (from SCOTUSblog):

Senators Lindsey Graham (R- Doofus) and Jon Kyl (R- Lemming) didn't actually say the things they LATER inserted into the congressional record:

In the few minutes that it took the Senate to complete passage of the Detainee Treatment Act last Dec. 21, little was said in the chamber beyond a round of congratulations for a job well done. But the Congressional Record for that very brief legislative effort now runs to 21 pages, with three columns of small print per page. And out of that Record of what was not said but nevertheless was recorded has emerged a debate that may go a long way to influence how the Supreme Court and the D.C. Circuit Court resolve the next big controversy arising out of the war on terrorism.

That controversy, simply put, is whether the foreign nationals being held as terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have any legal rights of any consequence.

Graham and Kyl inserted 8 pages of "dialogue" into the official record of Dec. 21, 2005, in order to influence future US Supreme Court rulings in the president's favor.

Final Senate consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 -- containing the detainee law -- was perfunctory; on Dec. 21. No one debated the meaning of any provision in the bill, and it won passage without a recorded roll-call vote. An audio recording of that part of the floor proceedings made by C-Span indicates no debate at all.

But the Congressional Record shows that the discussion was extensive, indeed. The Record in that part opens with a statement by Sen. Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat and one of the authors of the new detainee law. He argues that the final measure was not retroactive, and so did not strip the courts of jurisdiction over existing cases. The Bush Administration wanted that, but "we successffully opposed" the maneuver, Levin said.

The Record then moves to a lengthy exchange between the new law's two other key sponsors, Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and John Kyl of Arizona. Kyl begins, and it sounds as if he is on the Senate floor: "I would like to say a few words" about the legislation, which he said "expels lawsuits brought by enemy combatants from United States courts." He then comments, realistically: "I see that my colleague, the senior senator from South Carolina, is also on the floor."

Back and forth, Kyl and Graham discuss the new law, with continuing emphasis on their argument that the courts will lose jurisdiction over existing cases under the new bill. Along the way, they criticize the Supreme Court's 2004 decision in Rasul v. Bush, allowing the Guantanamo detainees to file challenges (but without specifying any relief). The new law, they stress, is intended to overturn Rasul. At one point, Kyl says: "The system of litigation that Rasul has wrought is unacceptable." Graham immediately says: "I agree entirely."

For eight pages, the colloquy continues.

This smells.

Lindsey Graham smells.

Jon Kyl smells.

Republican historical revision smells.

Like yesterday's diapers.


So you think you know Delilah?
Judges 16:19-- And she made him sleep upon her knees; and she called for a man, and she caused him to shave off the seven locks of his head.