In listening to the remarks of the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], now I am confused. I remember they used to criticize a former President by ridicule, saying he could not walk and chew gum at the same time. It would seem to me that handling two ideas is not that difficult: habeas and antiterrorism, even if what he said is true, that they were not related; however, they are. If someone gets convicted of bombing a building and killing people, people who are the victims of that, and survivors, would like to be sure that the appeals cannot go on and on and on, as they do now. So bringing to closure and bringing the sentence that is imposed into reality does have something to do with bombing buildings, and that has something to do with terrorism.
Henry Hyde: “In listening to the remarks of the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], now I am confused. I…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the relationship between habeas corpus and antiterrorism legislation.
Share
More from Henry Hyde
I announce my difficulty in opposing my good friends, Mr. Berman and Mrs. Tauscher. They are both very learned in this field. However, this amendment is very similar to Mr. Sherman's amendment and should be defeated for virtually the same…
I was simply going to suggest to my good friend, Mr. Berman, that while you are looking for patterns of conduct, think of the Libya example. Mr. Khadaffi might just turn in all their weapons. That is entirely possible.
Someone once said brevity is the soul of eloquence. I shall attempt to emulate that by saying we are happy to accept this excellent amendment.
On May 11, 2006, I was absent for the following procedural votes. Had I been present, I would have voted: Rollcall No. 137, on motion to adjourn, ``nay''; Rollcall No. 138, on motion to adjourn, ``nay.'' ____________________





