Lindsay Graham, a Republican who has some integrity

[pnwmom]

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Senator_Graaham_offers_strong_defense_of_0917.html

SNIP

"There are CIA agents all over the world trying to protect us. What would happen if a CIA agent were captured in Iran trying to suppress their nuclear program, and the Iranian government put this person on trial as a war criminal, and the Iranian prosecutor had a file marked "secret," gave it to their judge and their jury and said convict this man, and they never shared the evidence with the American agent? We would go nuts. We would say that secret trial violates the Geneva Convention standards for trying people. What if the Iranians gave him a lawyer and allowed the lawyer to look at the evidence the jury had but would not allow the lawyer to talk to the agent about the case against them? What would we do if the Iranians sentenced an American to death based on evidence the American never saw? We would go crazy. Unfortunately, there's 90 percent agreement on how to do these trials after the Supreme Court ruling, but there's a provision in the military commission model of the president's proposal that would allow the jury to get evidence not seen by the accused, call it classified and the person go to jail never knowing what the jury convicted him of.

"I'm all for protecting classified information from being unfairly disclosed, but you cannot have a trial and call it an American trial, have a Geneva Convention trial where the person goes to jail and never saw what the jury saw. What does confrontation rights mean? It means you can tell your side of the story. Pedophiles and terrorists -- everybody we try deserves to know what they're accused of so they can defend themselves. And if we do it differently now -- different than we've done in 200 years -- it will come back to haunt us, because other people will start doing this. And imagine an American in a foreign land going to the death chamber never seeing the evidence against them. It would be an outrage against our people, and we can't legitimize that."

SNIP

When asked if he foresaw a risk to his political career from taking this position, Graham said:

"Well, I'm getting pounded at home by some people -- why can't you work with the president? The president wants to defend us. The CIA needs to get good information. These guys are barbarians. Why are you standing in the way? I'm not standing in the way. I share the same goals, but I'm a military lawyer. Twenty-two years as a member of the Air Force JAG Corps. When I put that uniform on, I took an obligation as a military officer. Now I have an obligation as a senator. I admire our president, I want to help him. But the biggest risk in the world is not Lindsey Graham losing an election. We can have a good country without Lindsey Graham being in the Senate. We cannot have a great nation when we start redefining who we are under the guise of redefining our law."

[charlyvi]

1. Um. Not so fast.

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.

According to Graham's talking points for the bill (which I received by e-mail) his amendment would prohibit detainees from using the court to challenge:

* The legality of their detentions
* The propriety of returning detainees to their home countries
* Adequacy of medical care at Guantanamo
* Quality of the food
* Speed of mail delivery
* Allotment of exercise time and other conditions of confinement

You can read the text of his amendment here. (pdf) (scroll down, the first page is blank.)

This would effectively end all litigation brought on behalf of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, as well as any future litigation on behalf of those imprisoned at the CIA secret detention camps. This bill is intended to have retroactive application.

http://www.talkleft.com/new_archives/013056.html

Graham is a former JAG; that he would write and sponsor a bill containing these Constitutional restrictions does not shine a light of integrity on him in my eyes. This goes against, or should go against, every principle a JAG should hold. Integrity? Not so much.

[razors edge]

5. exactly

Graham is a former JAG; that he would write and sponsor a bill containing these Constitutional restrictions does not shine a light of integrity on him in my eyes. This goes against, or should go against, every principle a JAG should hold.

He cannot claim he is unaware that this legislation is in support of actions already taken by the bush admin. He knows also that if passed it will only give cover to those crimes as far as trial in the american media, not in court as I understand.

[cspanlovr]

6. Wish I had seen this before I responded. It seems when they

do something admirable, you have to watch what they're doing with the other hand. Too bad.

[cspanlovr]

2. I agree. I don't think * can conceive of this.

I really respect what these Republican Senators have done.

[Stinky The Clown]

3. He was also real great as a 'House Manager' in the Zipper Trials of Clinto

fuck him.

[charlyvi]

7. Yep.

He has since admitted that he acted out of pure politics; so much for the good of the country. Again....integrity? Not so much.

[KoKo]

4. STOP! READ THIS...before you give Graham too much credit!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2156160&mesg_id=2156160

[meg]

8. Clearly you don't remember the Clinton impeachment (eom)

[Marlie]

9. I clearly remember the Clinton Impeachment

And I still can't stand looking at that little weasel. I don't trust him as far
as I can throw him, never could and never will.

[AtomicKitten]

10. you are very generous in your praise

I'm not so accommodating as far as Graham is concerned.

[AX10]

11. That's you opinion, not mine.

[fuzzyball]

12. Is this the same rep. Graham who sat on the kangaroo court to impeach

Bill Clinton? I don't trust him as far as I can throw him.

[Catherine Vincent]

13. This Lindsey Graham?

Integrity? Give me a break!

[mitchum]

14. Gomer has NO integrity

[pnwmom]

15. Mea culpa! Whatever. But I still say he has "some" integrity

as opposed to Bush, Cheney, etc. who have ZERO integrity.

[charlyvi]

18. LOL!

Don't be upset pnwmom! We still love you; we just don't agree with you!


:grouphug:

[jscorse]

16. wild, how being against torture is a high bar these days

[lwcon]

24. Indeed

Graham, McCain, et al., will be big heroes of political ethics for the four minutes they're giving Bush a hard time before the inevitable cave in.

Taking an occasional break from evil does not a decent man make.

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[Straight Shooter]

17. Isn't Graham the fugger who asked Alito if he was a bigot?

IIRC, he asked the setup question that was the cue for Mrs. Alito to burst into melodramatic tears and rush out of the room, thus effectively restraining the Dems from being too harsh on poor liddle-widdle Alito.

[mitchum]

30. Yep, Linday is a drama queen

[Booster]

19. Americans are once again being played like a violin. These

war crimes have been going on for years, and members of Congress, including Graham, viewed the photos and videos of torture almost 2 years ago. Now, so close to the November elections, they are beside themselves over this torture issue and standing up against that bad man, George W. Bush, showing all of us just how much integrity and honor they have. Yeah, right. They get re-elected over their "new" backbone, and the Republicans once again have the majority in all the braches of government, and they go right back to kissing Bush's butt. You know the bad thing? It will most likely work.

[FrenchieCat]

20. **some** ain't enough......He needs a helleva lot more!

[struggle4progress]

21. I'll cheer for Lindsay briefly. "Hip! Hip! ..." OK, I'm done cheering.

It's alright to support him when it looks like he's doing the right thing, but of course he was on completely the wrong side when we last had to fight the detainee fight.

[flaminbats]

22. Graham opposes allowing gays in the military..

wouldn't it be terrible if gays could be drafted? :wow:

[Auntie Bush]

23. Grahm is just playing politics. He wants to be McCain's VP.

If he was a true American he would not be trying to take habeas Corpus away. Check out this article from the Times today if you want to know why habeas is important.

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
The View From Guantánamo
By ABU BAKKER QASSIM
Habeas corpus set me free. Will it be around for others?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/17/opinion/17qassim.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

[Ninja Jordan]

25. He's a closeted gay who was obsessed with Clinton's penis.

He led the fight to smear Clinton.

[hayu_lol]

26. Good 'ol boy Lindsey was the darling of the Freepers...

over the past 6 years. Strongly suggest you go back and look at his statements and background. Just another freeper sleezebag.

[Disturbed]

27. He is a weasle.

He admires the Pres. who has violated The US Constitution many times and allowed this and much more.



If he was a decent human being, Sen. Graham would be demanding the Impeachment of the Pres. VP, Rumsfailed and the rest of the Criminal Junata.

[mitchum]

31. Indeed! Everyone in SC has known this for a long time...

He's not very well closeted, though

[chieftain]

28. Some integrity but not a lot.

He, McCain and Warner have allowed the Bush regime to leave the blame for Abu Graib solely on the backs of lower level military personnel when they know better. I will admit that these guys are the best of a sorry lot, but that's the most I will give them.

[LynneSin]

29. I'm not ready to jump on the Lindsey Graham bandwagon

But I will say a thank you to someone who is doing the right thing

[Donald Ian Rankin]

32. He still has an R after his name.

We should oppose him for the same reason we support moderate Democrats - he counts as a Republican for purposes of control of committees and such like.