Sen. Graham’s Strategy To Restore Bush’s Detainee Policy Is Unconstitutional
Sen. Graham’s Strategy To Restore Bush’s Detainee Policy Is Unconstitutional
In an interview with the National Review, Sen. Lindsey Graham strongly objected to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that the Geneva Conventions applied to enemy combatants. Graham suggested that Congress should reverse the Supreme Court’s interpretation:
We’ve got to put a fence around this decision by the Court to grant Common Article Three of the Geneva Convention rights to terrorists. In 2002, Bush said that enemy combatant terrorists will be treated humanely within the spirit of the Convention but not given Convention status. I think he was right. You don’t want to erode the Convention.
What Graham is sugesting is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has the final say on how treaties should be interpreted. The Court explained in another case, Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, issued the same day has Hamdan:
Under our Constitution, “[t]he judicial Power of theUnited States†is “vested in one supreme Court, and insuch inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.†Art. III, §1. That “judicialPower . . . extend[s] to . . . Treaties.†Id., §2. And, as Chief Justice Marshall famously explained, that judicial power includes the duty “to say what the law is.†Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803). If treaties are to be given effect as federal law under our legal system, determining their meaning as a matter of federal law “is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department,†headed by the “one supreme Court†established by the Constitution.
It’s difficult for Graham and other loyal supporters of the Bush administration to accept that their legal approach to combating terrorism is dysfunctional. The Hamdan decision spelled this out. And it’s not a problem they can rubber stamp their way out of.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
69 Responses to “Sen. Graham’s Strategy To Restore Bush’s Detainee Policy Is Unconstitutional”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
And they won't get a new treaty. No one else with good conscience would sign it.
July 6th, 2006 at 10:20 amWhat makes people think the Constitution applies to Senators? It obviously doesn't apply to the Bush administration, so why give a crap about it now?
July 6th, 2006 at 10:22 am(/sarcasm)
It's all too much like the Terrie Schavio verdict. The reichtwingnutz hate it & go bonkers trying to paint the SC as activist judges. The paradox is that the reichties WANT activist judgements, they just want them to fall the other way.
Sometimes I wonder if these folks have mirrors in their houses at all....
July 6th, 2006 at 10:27 amReply to #3:
It's as Jon Stewart said, the definition of an 'activist judge' is: 'a judge who makes a ruling you don't agree with'.
I personally think it's hilarious that the SCOTUS was aces with the neocons when they appointed Dubya President in 2000, but now that they've had the temerity to check this country's headlong plunge iinto fascism, they're 'activists'.
July 6th, 2006 at 10:35 amCan we get a ruling from the trolls, is the Supreme Court activist or not. Please tell us liberal leftards, but be mindful that we'll hold you to it. If they are activists, then when they rule in your favor are their judgements also to be questioned? Are they only activists when they disagree with the Republican agenda? If you do not want "activist" judges, then what do they do, just read us the laws as written, with no interpretation? Why have a judicial system at all? Oh, now I see what the Republicans (not all of them, just those to the far far right) really want.
I await the enlightenment from our esteemed Republican blog watchers.
July 6th, 2006 at 10:46 amWould that it were so absolute. Treaties are like statutes: they require Congress' approval, in some cases require Congress to pass additional legislation to make them meaningful, and can be abrogated or modified by Congress. The Supreme Court may be the final authority on the interpretation of treaties, but it works with what it has. If Congress passes a statute that has the effect of stating that Article III of the Geneva Convention does not apply to enemy detainees, then the Court cannot wish away the statute.
But it is never this simple in practice. The Court looked past Graham's attempt to strip it of jurisdiction to hear the Hamdan case itself. It might not treat an ambiguous attempt to negate Article III any more kindly. But don't put it past this Congress to try to do so. And don't assume it can't.
July 6th, 2006 at 10:51 am#5 - No, they are not activists.
That was painless, huh?
July 6th, 2006 at 10:53 amHenry, at least we can take faith in the fact that passing any actual bill into law is far too difficult a task for this Congress, Democrat and Republican. These schmucks will be in session fewer days this year than any in history. Things are pretty bleak in America when we rely on the laziness and ineptitude of our leaders to protect us from their stupid ideas.
July 6th, 2006 at 10:54 amWell, gee whiz Senator, since the President lied about how the detainee's would be treated, and still does, you REALLY should not enable him any further, or you will be complicit here. Time for BushCo to put up, or shut up.
July 6th, 2006 at 10:55 amI keep hearing a lot about this 'Constitution-thing' lately. Not sure what it is, but it seems clear from what I've read that it is hurting national security and helping the Iraqi terrorists win.
I think The President should just write a law to nullify this Constitution-thing once and for all.
July 6th, 2006 at 10:55 amThank you Chase. At least that's settled.
July 6th, 2006 at 10:57 amHenry,
good comment. Remember too, Congress can grant, and congress can remove, federal jurisdiction.
Congress could vote to abrogate the entire Geneva Convention if it chose. We could withdraw from the U.N., as well as any treaties we have entered into prohibiting Torture or granting Human Rights.
The question I posted last week remains: how much further towards a totalitarian State is Congress willing to go?
July 6th, 2006 at 10:57 am#10--I'm seriously waiting for the Amendment that nullifies the Constitution for the executive branch.
These Senators crack me up. They'll like 5 year olds--they just CANNOT BELIEVE they didn't get their way. So instead of playing fair, they now devise ways to cheat and still get their way. Petchulant little bastards...the lot of 'em.
July 6th, 2006 at 10:59 am#12 - To nitpick: Congress can grant or remove federal appellate jurisdiction.
There are specific, limited categories of jurisdiction outlined in the Constitution that are beyond the reach of Congress.
July 6th, 2006 at 11:01 amI’m seriously waiting for the Amendment that nullifies the Constitution for the executive branch.
Comment by Punchy — July 6, 2006 @ 10:59 am
seems those "signing statements" are taking care of that...
July 6th, 2006 at 11:03 amPunchy - King dumbya will issue that edict in a signing statement to the next bill he signs. Either that or one of those hard to trace "secret" executive orders.
We all laugh about that stuff and make fun of it. I think it's funny cause i DO see bushco trying to pull that crap. It isn't fantasy based conjecture. It's reality wrt this administration.
July 6th, 2006 at 11:04 am#13 Well said! The current lot in DC (and the Democrats are not immune to this) are absolutely stunned when told no. It's like they've never heard the word in their life. This is especially funny to me what with the apparent importance of Family Values in the last election. Apparently, teaching the meaning of no, and losing with dignity and grace is not a Value in the Families of these legislators.
July 6th, 2006 at 11:05 amAre you guys really concerned we will somehow devlove into a totalitarian state? Do you really think the President (or Congress or both of them together) will somehow "void" the Constitution or something?
Or do you just say this to be snarky and silly?
It's just that the more you say stuff like that, the more I think you really believe it.
July 6th, 2006 at 11:09 amI ran into Senator Graham while I was working at the Senate last semester.
July 6th, 2006 at 11:09 amScary guy.
#17
July 6th, 2006 at 11:10 amWhat do you expect?
The Senate is nothing but a bunch of rich, multimillionaire, whites (minus Barak Obama) who have never actually had to deal with problems that many Americans face everyday.
We have to stop treating the Senators as if they are a class above us. The Founding Fathers did not intend this.
And yes, that goes for Democratic Senators too.
14 - right back at ya, Congress can also limit federal original jurisdiction to only those enumerated in Article III.
But then again, why nit-pick when in order to do so you have to go out of context? In the context of the thread, my statement was correct. I can't imagine you're a perfectionist: you spend too much time and effort trying to support Bush's actions for that. So. maybe you're just a jerk.
July 6th, 2006 at 11:12 amSo. maybe you’re just a jerk.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — July 6, 2006 @ 11:12 am
Gets my vote!!
July 6th, 2006 at 11:17 amChase, am I concerned that I will wake up tomorrow and be in 1939 Germany? No. Do I feel all Americans should be at least a little concerned at each and every chip this administration takes out of our rights and expectations of privacy. An emphatic Yes! The slide away from Democracy is a slippery slope I am not at all comfortable approaching.
July 6th, 2006 at 11:20 am#14 - Well, "original" jurisdiction are those categories of cases and controversies enumerated in the Constitution.
And I wasn't out of context, you were just sloppy.
Also, to be crystal: I don't "try[] and support Bush's actions." I happen to agree with many of them. In some cases I think he's mistaken. In some I don't think he goes far enough.
I'm no more a Bush lackey than you are a Dean lackey or a Kerry lackey or whoever is the Dem-de-jure.
So pipe down Mick.
July 6th, 2006 at 11:22 am18 - They're working on it. More the Executive Branch than Congress. It is somewhat disconcerting to hear, as I have, one of the foremost Constitutional Law scholars wonder if the President can unilaterally suspend the 4th Amendment. But the less you and I have a reasonable expectation of privacy, the less the 4th amendment provides protection against "unreasonable searches."
Then, when the Supreme Court says the President overstepped his Authority regarding the rights of certain prisoners, several Congresspeople speak out intimating that Congress should give him the authority to do what he has been doing.
Same thing happened with the wiretapping. If, indeed, the President was violating the law in his methods of obtaining warrentless wiretaps, members in Congress suggested changing the law to allow him to do what he has been doing.
How many other secret programs are out there, ostensibly to search for terrorists, but just as capable of being used against anyone who dissents?
And if you saw Bush stumble over the word "tyrrany" a couple of weeks ago, you'd understand the metamessage.
July 6th, 2006 at 11:23 am#18 - Chase, we're just repeating the talking-points of the Republicans from the 90s as they 'claimed' that Pres. Clinton was trying to invalidate the constitutional protection of free speech when they were criticizing his actions.
Of ccourse, now that the President is a Republican, their argument now has some basis in fact. How many times have you heard people claim that criticism of President Bush is somehow un-American?
It's interesting that the "right" talking points of 10 years ago are now the "left" talking points. Time changes everything!
July 6th, 2006 at 11:24 amcorrection, "tyranny"
July 6th, 2006 at 11:25 amI completely agree that we should limit the effects of the court decisiosn. The detainees should be treated humanely and within the spirit of the convention, but not given POW status. Actually all the court said was that the commissions needed to be like regular military courts.
Once those at GITMO are reviewed and determined to be unlawful combatants or terrorists they are not covered under the Convention.
July 6th, 2006 at 11:25 am18 - Chase - Do you really want a list of all the signing statements and Executive Orders that attempt to overturn par(s) of the Constitution & the Bill of Rights?
I'd have figured after haveing been here a while you would have seen them all already. OK though. I'll start, others can add on as they see fit:
1) Bush claiming he has the authority to snoop on our phone, email & bank transactions without a warrant.
2) Bush claiming he doesn't ahve to abide by a law he just signed and can order torture of inmates.
3) Bush lying his way into conning the country to invade and occupy a foriegn soveriegn nation who didn't attack or threaten the US.
others please add to this list. It's gonna be a long day Chase....
July 6th, 2006 at 11:27 amQUOTE ".....humanely within the spirit of the Convention but not given Convention status. I think he was right. You don’t want to erode the Convention."
He wants to avoid eroding the Convention by eroding the United States Constitution.
July 6th, 2006 at 11:28 am#25 -
Mischaracterize the opinion. Basically, the majority stated that the President could not, absent Congressional assent, establish military commission. Some members of Congress have suggested they should enact such a law. What's the problem with that? A debate on the boundaries would be beneficial, don't you think?
They "suggested" changing the law to allow for wiretapping because they beleive the program is an important tool. Again, unless you have an issue with democracy in principle, where's the beef?
Don't worry man, you're free to dissent. In fact, anyone is. Trust me: President Bush doesn't give two shits about your harping and whining. He has a lot bigger fish to fry.
July 6th, 2006 at 11:31 am#31 - "President Bush doesn’t give two shits about your harping and whining."
He never has, and he never will, because most Americans don't have the cash to get his attention.
"He has a lot bigger fish to fry."
Like trying to find Usama bin Laden, after flip-flopping over "dead or alive / I don't think about him anymore / Dead or alive!"
Like trying to decide how he’s going to handle N. Korea after getting quagmired in Iraq because of all those WMD's that still haven't been found. Still.
Like trying to paint his ballooning debt/deficit legacy as anything other than a massive failure of his pro-big-government policies.
Yeah, way too many other fish to fry.
July 6th, 2006 at 11:39 amTrust me: President Bush doesn’t give two shits about your harping and whining. He has a lot bigger fish to fry.
Comment by Chase — July 6, 2006 @ 11:31 am
No he does not give "two shits" about what anything any american has to say if they are not weathy, a corporation, or both. You are conveniently forgetting he works for the people of the US. Remember "we the people?" We do not work for him. He does not just work for Haliburton and Exxon, although you would think otherwise upon the last five years.
How can you tolerate having a president who does not care what you think?
July 6th, 2006 at 11:49 amReply to #31:
They “suggested†changing the law to allow for wiretapping because they beleive the program is an important tool.
If the law has to be changed to make the program legal, that necesarily means the President was breaking the law prior to any such change.
No one is supposed to be above the law in this country, but Dubya & Company obviously think they are, and so far, they've managed to get away with it. How much more will it take before you see them for what they really are? (assuming, of course, your 'opinions' haven't already been bought and paid for).
you're free to disssent
Sure...as long as that 'dissent' is properlyquarantined.
Seriously, you need to wake up.
July 6th, 2006 at 11:50 amSo, it boils down to this: either Bush follows the Supreme Court's directive to adhere the Geneva Conventions ... or Bush walks away from the treaty.
In a constitutional republic like the United States, what to do seems pretty plain.
Sadly, it is demonstrative of our times that we even have to wonder what Bush will do.
And some folks doubt if Bush really said that the "... Constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper."
July 6th, 2006 at 11:52 amReply to #35:
#So, it boils down to this: either Bush follows the Supreme Court’s directive to adhere the Geneva Conventions … or Bush walks away from the treaty.
Disregarding our country\'s international obligations is a Dubya tradition. Just check out the following list, courtesy of motherearth.org.
July 6th, 2006 at 11:58 amNo, they are not activists.
That was painless, huh?
Comment by Chase
So, you identify yourself as a troll? Hmmm...
July 6th, 2006 at 12:11 pm#37 - Am I a troll? What makes a troll?
July 6th, 2006 at 12:14 pmNo, they are not activists.
That was painless, huh? -- Chase
Well, except for that part where Scalia was running around the other week making up nonexistent remedies for people who are victimized by illegal searches. And, of course, Bush v. Gore ("We're gonna pull some law out of our hind ends here, so for God's sake don't treat this ruling as a precedent or anything).
But, yeah, other than that ....
July 6th, 2006 at 12:20 pm#38 - By answering the question posed in #5, you have identified yourself as a troll. I hadn't thought of you as a troll, but...
This is called snark, Chase, just to make it clearer to you. ;)
July 6th, 2006 at 12:21 pmChase isn't a troll. moonbat patrol is a troll. Chase actually tries very hard to keep a level head, not be insulting, and to debate. A troll is someone who derails the debate by flinging shit at everyone. Hardly what Chase does.
July 6th, 2006 at 12:25 pmTo address the substance of the original post, what Graham wants might not matter: The Armed Services Committee will be holding hearings on legislation this summer, and its chairman, John Warner, seems to be inclined only toward legislation he's reasonably sure will pass constitutional muster. Not everything in Hamdan rose to the level of a constitutional question, of course -- a lot of it was merely procedural. But given that Geneva Article 3 imposes standards of behavior on parties who hold prisoners, pretty much without respect to who and what those prisoners were when captured, that might be the part the administration is stuck with.
July 6th, 2006 at 12:25 pmShouldn't Senator Graham be fighting Bush on behalf of Gay men all over america??
July 6th, 2006 at 12:32 pmIs he gay??
Can Congress now create a law to subvert the Supreme Court ruling in Hamdan, in order to deal with Hamdan himself? Would that not be an ex post facto situation?
July 6th, 2006 at 12:45 pmThey “suggested†changing the law to allow for wiretapping because they beleive the program is an important tool. Again, unless you have an issue with democracy in principle, where’s the beef?
Comment by Chase
From your statement I see that you agree that what the president is doing is not legal according to current law. That should be a beef for every American. If they suggest to enact a law that would make an action legal then you are breaking the law if you are doing that action at the moment. So simple even an idiot could understand that. Bush is a criminal for knowingly breaking the law. Period. No spin can undo that.
July 6th, 2006 at 12:45 pm#45 - I just don't think it's that cut and dried. There are 3 things that have to be considered here:
1. The FISA law itself permitting wiretaps in the first place.
2. The AUMF of 2001 giving the President the authority to convene military operations against AQ (and the like), their supporters and their protectors.
3. Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution.
This is old hat. What is important is how the three come together. That's what must be determined. Did he go to far? I don't think you can say definitively yes or no. I honestly believe he didn't, given what we know of the program.
The idea behind passing a law making the program overtly legal is that, from this point on, there would be no question regarding its legality.
July 6th, 2006 at 12:57 pmMy $0.02 on this issue?
Senator Graham and every member of this government who believe that we should abbrogate our duties under the Geneva Conventions (or somehow change said obligations) has just slapped in the face EVERY American Veteran and Soldier who has labored under the delusion that if they are captured during the course of combat that they will be cared for under the Conventions. The Geneva Conventions were not signed and ratified by our government to protect our enemies. They were signed to protect our own soldiers and the fact that members of our government (particularly a veteran such as Sen. Graham) want to abbrogate our duties under said treaty sickens me to the core of my being! We live in a country that is, supposedly, governed by the rule of law. All the Hamdan decision said is that we can't try these men under secret military tribunals with no civilian defense, etc. Per the ruling, they are to be tried under a general courts martial pursuant to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. We have heard for 4 years now that these men are the worst of the worst; that they are bloodthirsty terrorists who would not hesitate to kill us all if they had the chance. If that is truly the case, it is time for our government to put up or shut up. If they truly are BAD GUYS (and I don't doubt that some of them are) then it's past time for us to prove it. The record at GITMO isn't real promising in that regard though: something like 18 convictions (none of which were for terrorism related offenses) mostly for immigration violations along with the release of several dozen others that were held there does not bode well for the whole "worst of the worst" argument in my book. Regardless, Senator Graham and ANY other individual who thinks we should change the scope of American involvement in the Geneva Conventions should be ashamed of themselves.
July 6th, 2006 at 1:04 pmComment by Chase — July 6, 2006
TOO FUNNY!!!!
Word for the day:
Sophist: any of a class of ancient Greek teachers of rhetoric, philosophy, and the art of successful living prominent about the middle of the fifth century B.C. for their adroit subtle and allegedly often specious reasoning
July 6th, 2006 at 1:09 pm3 : a captious or fallacious reasoner
#43 Yes, I'm gay. I'm also hermaphroditic.
July 6th, 2006 at 1:12 pmSome days I'm Ann, some days I'm Lindsay.
Did I tell you I'm a lawyer?
Did I tell you I love 'W'?
Did I tell you I'll do anything I can to get on
the Sunday talking heads show?
Did I tell you I'm a JAG with the Air Force?
Some people call me the smartest man in congress.
I believe them.
I'm not an 'Activist Senator', I'm just in love with Bushy.
Someday I want to be on the Supreme's. People tell me I'll
be a good judge. Then, instead of SCOTUS, we'll have the
Supreme Court, Republican, Of The Unfair Majority, or
SCROTUM to you non-lawyers.
God, I love myself!
#47, your 2 cents just said a million.
Thank you.
July 6th, 2006 at 1:13 pm#47 - Well put.
My concern is that extending Geneva protections to extra-national terrorists doesn't do anything to help our service men they capture. No good-will on our part will entice them to stop beheading our captives.
I think that's the point of this argument - does extending GC protections to AQ and other extra-national terrorist orgs engaged in armed warfare (conventional and otherwise) against the US protect our men on the ground any better?
July 6th, 2006 at 1:13 pm#48 - Funny? Why?
Replace "overty" with "unquestionably" and maybe you'll catch my drift.
July 6th, 2006 at 1:15 pm#47 - Great post, green917.
July 6th, 2006 at 1:18 pmReply to #46:
I just don’t think it’s that cut and dried. There are 3 things that have to be considered here:
OK...let's consider them.
1. The FISA law itself permitting wiretaps in the first place.
The administration bypassed FISA, citing that obtaining warrants would have been 'too slow' (despite the inconvenient fact that FISA will issue retroactive warrants if the need for speed makes it necessary). Thus, the FISA law actully counts against the President here.
2. The AUMF of 2001 giving the President the authority to convene military operations against AQ (and the like), their supporters and their protectors.
Quote from Tom Daschle:
Thus, again, the AUMF is another argument against the President.
3. Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution.
Here's the text:
Please point out the parts of the above section that have anything to do with the issue at hand, or admit its irrelevancy.
Did he go to far? I don’t think you can say definitively yes or no.
Actually, given the above information, anyone capable of critical thought can make the determination that he definitely did go too far.
July 6th, 2006 at 1:24 pmWe have all disagreed with a decision by the SCOTUS at one time or another. Today, however, if the SC issues a ruling that certain Republicans don't like, the SC is charged with being activist (the latest dirty word, after liberal), and meetings are planned to re-write laws that supercede the high court.
July 6th, 2006 at 1:26 pmThis is the modus operandi of the Republicans, when, on the rare occasion they don't get what they want -- they throw a vertical hissy, resort to name calling and try to change the rules in their favor.
The whole damn bunch of them deserve to be drummed out of office. There are no moderate Republicans; they may appear to be so from time to time, as Graham has done on occasion, but see what happens when they don't get their way -- they are all the same. Put 'em in a bag shake 'em up, pour 'em out and see if you can tell one from another. In the end, they are like poorly die-stamped little tin soldiers. They all are the same but on close inspection, you can see they are all crooked too.
#51 - To answer your question, probably not. Then again, I don't recall ever having seen al Qaeda's signature on the Geneva Conventions. In order for us to be that "shining beacon of liberty on a hill" that President Ronald Reagan spoke of we have to be better than our enemies though. I was simply listing one of many concerns I have with this decision to attempt to remove our duties under the Conventions. It is not simply important because of what it means to our troops who may be captured in the field. It is important because it goes to the very heart of what our nation is supposed to represent in the world. If we don't grant freedom and liberty to those who would wish to harm us then everything the founding fathers did and said was for nought. The following says it all: "We hold these truths to be self evident. That all men are created equal". We are a nation that believes (allegedly at least) in upholding freedom and human rights. To abbrogate that duty that we, as Americans, have all inherited is a slap in the face to everyone who has fought against tyranny in this nation's history.
July 6th, 2006 at 1:26 pm#56, excellent again, green917. Namaste.
There is yet another point. When we uphold the rule of law, even applying it against our enemies, we gain stature internationally, just as those who don't lose stature. International pressure is then brought to bear against those who do not uphold the rule of law.
As it stands now, just the opposite is occuring. The U.S. is seen as a greater threat than "terrorists." Why? Because we no longer stand for upholding the rule of law AND because, unlike Saddam Hussein, we really do have weapons of mass destruction. And we haven't ruled out using Nuclear weapons against Iran.
July 6th, 2006 at 2:04 pmSince when did anything unconstitutional OR illegal stop the bullying thugs of the GOP?
July 6th, 2006 at 2:26 pmI am convinced that there are those who regard our freedoms as a light switch that can be turned off and on. To them they need " something or someone to hate" all the time. Their outlook is not based on liberty and freedoms but rather control and dominance at any cost. For them the constitution is not a liberating document nor a guarantee of our freedoms nor will it ever be. They need to hate "something or someone" and right now they have their sights set on lady liberty. Good luck living in the dark!
July 6th, 2006 at 3:17 pmI am convinced that there are those who regard our freedoms as a light switch that can be turned off and on. To them they need " something or someone to hate" all the time. Their outlook is not based on liberty and freedoms but rather control and dominance at any cost. For them the constitution is not a liberating document nor a guarantee of our freedoms nor will it ever be. They need to hate "something or someone" and right now they have their sights set on lady liberty. Good luck living in the dark!
July 6th, 2006 at 3:17 pmTime to sent these republicans back to the south!!!!
July 6th, 2006 at 3:44 pmReply to comment #60: That's why the listsen to Rush, Ann. Laura, Savage, Hannity and the rest of the right wing idiots, to find out who to hate and why.
July 6th, 2006 at 3:50 pmSen. Graham should be sent to GITMO to live in a cell as a prisoner for a year > after he comes back he can then tell us how nice the place is > NOT!
July 6th, 2006 at 4:25 pmOver three hours and no reply to my post #54.
Apparently, Chase has had enough.
July 6th, 2006 at 4:43 pm#57 - Briseadh, Namaste right back at ya! Your point is exceptional as well and hinges upon something else I've been saying for some time now. The single biggest problem with the Bush misadministration's foreign policy has been, is and will continue to be the fact that they believe that diplomacy is somehow a sign of weakness. I would argue the opposite personally. Diplomacy is ONLY engaged in from a position of strength and, as you said, since we have completely abandoned our position as 1 of the few nations in the world that could generally be trusted to uphold the laws of our land, the rest of the world just isn't buying our schtick anymore. Regardless, Senator Graham and anyone else who advocates that we change any of the laws that define us as a nation (ie- the Bill of Rights, the Geneva Conventions, etc) should be ashamed of themselves.
July 6th, 2006 at 4:58 pmByron York had the misfortunate of running his NRO piece after John Dean ran his Detainee Treatment Act Hoax piece. For details of what a WANKER Senator Graham is - see my Angrybear post.
July 6th, 2006 at 5:13 pmGraham's statements may not matter much when they actually work on the issue in committee. He will end up supporting what ever John Waraner and John McCain want. I think that some of his statements are about the base that actually love this this president right or wrong.
Alexandra, what is so scary about him?
July 7th, 2006 at 7:23 amThey more that the Right comes to realize that they're going to lose control,the scarier their actions will be! Watch their actions in Sept,Oct just before the elections,most of them will frothing at the mouth,going flat-ass loony!
July 7th, 2006 at 1:19 pm[...] Sen. Graham s Strategy To Restore Bush s Detainee Policy Is …Think Progress, DC - Jul 6, 2006… should be interpreted. The Court explained in another case, Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, issued the same day has Hamdan: Under our … [...]
July 8th, 2006 at 5:37 pm