Senators Jon Kyl and Lindsey Graham Broke The Law...DTA SCOTUS Brief

[originalpckelly]

We need to get this story out to the media; please don't overlook this it is far too important. This is partially from a story posted in an earlier thread. I took the story and information in that thread; I looked up the law on the matter, and I personally believe, and think once you read my case you will believe, that there is a strong case to prosecute Senators Jon Kyl and Lindsey Graham for making false statements (like purjury.)

I quote 18 U.S.C. §1001

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.


(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.


(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to—
(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or
(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.

From:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001001----000-.html

Concerning the falsified SCOTUS Brief filed; a story previously posted on this forum:
http://www.slate.com/id/2138750

Why does it meet the standard?
The Senators clearly designed the colloquy to look realistic; they made it look like it took place when it did not. I personally viewed the video available on the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld website. (It is linked to from the Slate article.) The facts are:

1. They didn't put the bullet which is usually required when a colloquy is entered into the record without actually taking place. This, however, could be explained away by a simple clerical error.

2. They thought (and stated in the brief) the debate was live on the floor of the Senate. This could have been senility as the debate took place on Dec. 21, 2005. A few months ago.

3. They made the colloquy look like it was real. This is the kicker because there is no innocent and valid explanation for this. It appears they purposely mislead the court knowingly and willfully.

4. They are not actual parties to the case, but they filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief. This makes them subject to §1001(a) and excludes them from the exemption in §1001(b). So although the solicitor general cannot be charged as he represents a party to the case, Senators Graham and Kyl are subject to this. Naughty boys.

This all might be evidence that the legislative and executive branches do not have their assigned interests or duties in mind, but are in collusion. Or it could just be overzealous Senators (though the conduct is unbecoming of Senators) who really really wanted something to happen, and broke the law in the process. The thing that seals the deal for me, as to whether they are in collusion with the executive, is that the Solicitor General filed the same claim in his brief. This is hard evidence that the checks and balances of our government are being violated. I know to most of us this is already clear, but if this was explained clearly and dispassionately to the American people, they might finally understand what has been going on the past few years.

I don't honestly know if any charges will actually be filed against the Senators, because the government is so screwed up that most of the people in the position to file charges are not going to file them for political reasons. I don't know if we can petition to have charges brought, but I hope that they will.

I must admit I am not surprised that Jon Kyl was involved; Kyl is a complete tool of the Bush administration. Graham has a streak of morality in him, and I actually wonder if Kyl strong armed Graham into doing this. Like I said, even though Graham is a Republican, he stood up to the administration on a lot of things. Maybe Graham and Kyl did it for different reasons. Who knows.

[fooj]

1. At any rate...I'd sure like to see Graham DISBARRED!

Welcome to DU!

[originalpckelly]

2. I know he is a Republican

But unlike all the other Republicans, he isn't a complete tool. Maybe he gets used sometimes, but usually he agrees on arguable points. I was really surprised when I found out about this. He, Spector, and I think DeWine sometimes are the only thing keeping the Judiciary Committee somewhat legitimate. All the other Committees are chaired by complete tools. So when I say I was surprised, that was after a lot of experience watching him in hearings. I think that if it can be proved that he made a willing choice to support Kyl, I'll be all for any legal action against him.

[fooj]

4. I don't care what party he represents.

He's pathetic. There isn't ANYTHING legitimate about him, lately. I'd love to see him knocked down a peg or two. Righteous, bloveating windbag...........

[Thorandmjolnir]

3. Just to add to your excellent observation

(http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/03/no-habeas-at-guantanamo-executive-and.php)


JURIST.com's Special Guest Columnist Ian Wallach commented earlier this year on the odd timing of Grahams amendment (the DTA).:

"Friday, November 11, 2005, was a National Holiday -- Veterans Day. On the previous morning of November 10, the Executive Branch brought motions in the detainee habeas actions pending in DC District Court seeking to stay (temporarily stop) them until certain allegedly-related procedural issues were resolved on appeal.

Later that evening, near the end of the Senate session and before the Senate retired for the holiday weekend, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) introduced a proposed amendment that explicitly stated that all pending and future Guantánamo habeas actions would be dismissed. No committee meetings were held and the vote took place late in the day. Senator Bingaman twice noted what he perceived as the impropriety of vanquishing a fundamental right, without hearings, on a Thursday evening before a holiday weekend."



"During the three-day Veterans Day weekend that followed, opposition to the amendment gathered steam. And so did an opposition to that opposition. On Monday, November 14, Senator Bingaman introduced an amendment that expressly allowed all pending and future Guantánamo actions to go forward. And Senator Graham introduced an amendment -- called “In the Nature of a Substitute” -- that was intended to replace the amendment that passed the previous Thursday. Senator Graham’s new amendment, now endorsed by senior Democrat Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), was very different. Notably, the new “Effective Date” section removed the language that called for the dismissal of pending habeas actions."

And, our friend Graham, introduced some letters to support his amendment. But, as Ian Wallach observes:

"By contrast, Senator Graham also introduced a collection of eight letters. However, seven of these letters contained virtually identical language. Here are some excerpts:

Date Author Excerpt
11.13.05 Bohdan Danyliw
Brig. General USAF (Ret.)

Former Command Judge Advocate Air Force Systems Command I urge you to hold fast and to prevent any watering down of the Amendment. If the habeas restriction is struck from the Amendment, then the pending 160 habeas applications will be only the tip of the iceberg. This is a true "floodgates of litigation" scenario. This is no way to run a terrorist detention facility and a war against foreign terrorists attacking our security.

11.12.05 Nolan Sklute

Major General USAF (Ret.) I urge you to hold fast and to prevent any watering down of the Amendment. If the habeas restriction is struck from the Amendment, then the pending 160 habeas applications will be only the tip of the iceberg, a true "floodgates of litigation" scenario. This is no way to run a terror detention facility, much less a war.

11.11.05 Dominick V. Driano

Brig. General USAF (Ret.) I urge you to hold fast and to prevent any watering down of the Amendment. If the habeas restriction is struck from the Amendment, then the pending 160 habeas applications will be only the tip of the iceberg. This is a true "floodgates of litigation" scenario. This is no way to run a terror detention facility, much less a war.

11.11.05 Walter A. Reed M. Gen. USAF (Ret.)

AF Judge Advocate General (1977-1980) I urge you to hold fast and to prevent any watering down of the Amendment. If the habeas restriction is struck from the Amendment, then the pending 160 habeas applications will be only the tip of the iceberg. This is a true "floodgates of litigation" scenario. This is no way to run a terror detention facility, much less a war.

11.11.05 Olan G. Waldrop, Jr., Brig. General USAF (Ret.)

I urge you to hold fast and to prevent any watering down of the Amendment. If the habeas restriction is struck from the Amendment, then the pending 160 habeas applications will be only the tip of the iceberg. This is a true "floodgates of litigation" scenario. This is no way to run a terror detention facility, much less a war.

11.13.05 Robert W. Norris

Major General USAF (Ret.) I urge you to make the strongest effort possible to resist efforts to weaken your amendment. If the habeas restrictions are removed we can expect a logjam of litigation with the attendant adverse effects on our ability to gather intelligence and prosecute the Global War on Terrorism.

[originalpckelly]

5. I think this is a big deal...

There have been many parliamentary irregularities over the past few years. None of them have been illegal though. Just very inappropriate. Just watch Rep. Pelosi on the floor of the house. It seems she is always bringing up one of these irregularities, but like I said none have been illegal. There is no doubt in my mind that there is a case for this crime. All the evidence is in plain sight. A grand jury should be able to indict based upon this evidence, and a good trial jury will convict.

[originalpckelly]

6. bump