[Marine_Uncle]

Your response is reasonable. My objects are to the senate to consider "fixing" what Graham's original wording entailed.
Clearly if the only way to open the door's to our military tribunals to start trying these cases is with this modified form, then so be it. Which obviously mirrors your sentiments on the issue.

I am sure most of us are aware that with this modification:
"Under the agreement, prisoners who receive a punishment of 10 years in prison to death would receive an automatic appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Lesser sentences would not receive automatic review, but detainees still could petition the court to hear their case."

This may very well open the Pandora Box.

[oceanview]

but its limited - one appeal to DC and another (if they take it) to the SCOTUS. these habeas appeals which they have now, can drag on forever - and have bottled up the military tribunal mechanism from even starting up.

I think that unless some issue can be found in the tribunal mechanism the military sets up is so flawed - these two courts will be unlikely to start tossing out military justice verdicts. But, we shall see.

[Cboldt]

This may very well open the Pandora Box.

SCOTUS already did that. The Senate is tring to close off the line of access to civilian court system that SCOTUS opened up.

See Rasul v. Bush. 542 US 466 (2004).

Held: United States courts have jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay.