Detainees and Habeas – An Open Letter to Sen. Lindsey Graham

I am also reviewing the Supreme Court’s decision and am disappointed in your over reaction to it. The one tweak that may be needed to satisfy the Court is to allow the review to be a habeas review. I thought that the procedures were generous and sufficient, but that does not equate to constitutional and in keeping with the habeas statute. I certainly don’t think you should make a statement like the one you have until you have completely finished reviewing the decision. I am a bit concerned about your constant warring with the Court.

In my reading so far I see nothing that says that they would have a right to sue. However, if the Court did have full review and found that an individual was wrongly detained; especially because of the length of time involved that justice ought to be rendered even if it meant a lawsuit against our government for improper detention.

Liberal or Conservative?: The use of Political labels to smear candidates

It is now the fashionable order of the day to use the political labels such as liberal or conservative as a smear for a person inside your group that thinks differently on major issues. For example, a Republican being branded liberal is a bad thing inside the Republican group, while a Democrat being seen as conservative is equally bad inside the Democratic camp.  This negative labeling brings up the question what are conservative and liberal other than labels we use to describe people either pejoratively or positively depending on who is using the label to describe an action that was taken.

 

I beleive that there are four categories of individuals inside both major parties: conservatives, liberals, moderates, and neoconservatives. This labeling gets more complicated because different actions can earn different labels for the same person. What is the meaning of each of these labels?

 

• Conservatives are those who adhere to a philosophy of conservatism which believes in tradition, stability, and established institutions. Core political political positions include lower taxes, limited government, limited regulation on business and investment, and a strong national defense.
• Liberals are those who adhere to a philosophy of liberalism which belives in progress and essential goodness of the human race. Core political positions include autonomy of the individual as well as protection of civi rights and civil liberties.
• Moderates are those that profess non extreme positions on the core issues of both liberals and conservatives.
• Neoconservatives are people who promotes the assertive promotion of democracy and the intervention of the United States in world affairs by military means.

(Definitions from Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary.)

 

These thoughts are coming out of an article that is in The State newspaper this morning. Political columnist James Rosen chronicles Senator Lindsey Graham’s voting record in his article Graham : Liberal label inaccurate. The article chronicles the difference in treat he recieves from the media and political colleagues and that he recieves from the people, particularly of the upstate region he calls home.  Currently he gets defined by the relatively few times he crosses a party line to solve a problem. The actions looming largest in the minds of the voters are the following:

 

Immigration: Senator Graham supported a bipartisan compromise that included border enforcement and a set of rules that most liberals disagreed with to legalize the illegals that had been here for a certain amount of time. This seemed fair enough, but many just wanted them all sent back.

 

Torture: He questioned the administration’s policy on the definition of torture. This angered “conservatives” who thought that he should go along with the administration on this point. He questioned this policy based n his experience as a military lawyer. The military is, by nature, a conservative institution.

 

Hillary Clinton: Sen. Graham praised Hillary Clinton which recieved criticism from conservatives.

 

Gang of 14: Counted correctly as one of his accomplishments, but nonethe less highly criticized by fellow conservatives. He brokered the deal to preserve the instittution of the United States Senate.

 

Looking at each of these actions to measure his conservatism or liberalism is foolish becasue one has to measure his entire record. It is also not neccessarily conservative or liberal to walk in lockstep (which he hasn’t done) behind a president. Looking at each of these actions puts him n the moderate-conservative camp. I am not counting the praise of Hillary Clinton in the caluculation because I think that one can have no political agenda when praising a colleague.

 

I see the immigration compromise as moderate becasue it allowed people to recieve special visas after returnining to their country of origin and meeting certain requirements.

 

Sen. Graham’s response to the torture is conservative because it follows established precedent and laws. It also follows the experience of the military, which he loves and is a very conservative institution. In his response he also wanted to protect any member of our armed forces that may be held captive.

 

The Gang of 14 compromise could also be seen in a conservative light as preserving the institution of the United States Senate and allowing the confirmation of several formerly controversial nominees, as well as, Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito.

 

Calling Sen Graham a liberal is using the term as a pejorative in order to gain political advantage and is espescially disingenuous when one examines his entire record and observes the hard right camapign he is running just to maintian his Senate seat.

 

We need to properly use the labels to identify people instead of as pejorative. I do not fell that either position of seeking progress or maitaining tradition is wrong. In fact I beleive that this country is about seeking progress within the existing traditions and institutions of the nation.

Letter Regarding Iran

I am gravely concerned that we are on the road to war in Iran. Considering S.J. Res. 23 (2001), S.Amdt. 3017 (2007) and Gen. Petraeus’s recent testimony I fear there may be either a resolution to take hostile action against Iran or the president claiming he has the authority to do so based on the aforementioned acts of Congress.

There are also the reports in the New York Times and Washington Post this morning about the Iran threat. This smells of being a reprise of the buildup to war with Iraq. It also doesn’t ease my fears that Adm. Fallon, who was trying to calm the frayed nerves of Middle Eastern countries, has resigned his post. He had said upon nomination that there would be no war with Iran on his watch. Now that we are not under his watch I fear that we will get ourselves whipped into a frenzy again and take hostile action against Iran.

Sen. Graham Returns to Iraq for Military Service

Sen. Graham is in Iraq to complete a third tour of duty according to Stars and Stripes. He was in Iraq in May and August of 2007 as well for short tours of duty. He is an Air FOrce Reservist and teaches at the Judge Advocate General School in Alabama.

Graham told Stars and Stripes in an interview “I’d like to do more, but [with] the day job, you know in the Senate, it’s hard to get away for any long period.”

Graham is proving again that he is dedicated to serving his country, both in uniform and out. It may seem odd for a politician to be in uniform, but there is precedent stretching back in history and Sen. Graham is just another link in that proud history.

Letter to Senator Kit Bond regarding Foreign Intelligence Srveillance

I believe that your office is trying to cover up the President’s wrongdoing. According to the Washington Times there is an assessment from your office that says the following: “There is nothing new or aggressive about relying on Article II authority in the context of foreign intelligence surveillance.”

There would be nothing new or aggressive about relying on Article II authority in the realm of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance if there had been no FISA in 1978, no Patriot Act in 2001 & 2006 and the Protect America Act last year. These laws set a framework of how the President is supposed to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance. He cannot use Article II authority to do something that the law does allow. Congress makes the laws and the President signs them. Why should this be the case if we are going to allow a President to conduct activities that run a foul of the law and claim Article II protection so that anything can be done that the President likes; when the President likes. I keep emphasizing the President because this would apply to any President not just this one.

Terroism is no Joke Governor; Security is Necessary

The latest budget battle between Gov. Mark Sanford and the state legislature led by House Speaker Bobby Harrell and Senate President Glen McConnell centers arouond security for the state capital. Today’s Greenville News reports that Mr. Sanford joked in a cabinet meeting about how he sometimes would like the SC statehouse to be a terrorist target. Mr. Harrell  asked “Do we need something like an Oklahoma City-style bombing of our historic state capitol before the governor realizes there is a need to insure the safety of the people who come to our capitol?,” in a press release.  Mr. McConnell responded by saying that the governor’s wait until we are attacked attitude is unacceptable. There are more state employees, tourists, and school children that are on the capital grounds than elected officals most of the time.

It is acceptable to debate the method by which we protect the capital complex and how much is spent to accomplish this end. However, there should be no debate about weather to secure this complex in a common-sense manner in light of the Goose Creek incident that was reported in outher South Carolina newspapers within the last month.

The Charleston City Paper reported that there are 308 potntial targets in South Carolina. Then The State reported on the court case involving the Goose Creek supects. The Egyptian student charged has pleaded not guilty according to Live 5 News and the Charleston Post & Courier reports that this suspect will not recieve bail.

Since these terrorists like to attack the structures of government wouldn’t it be prudent to secure the statehouse from a potential truck bomb in the garage? In light of Goose Creek isn’t it completely inappropirate for Gov. Sanford to joke about wisihng the capital being a terrorist taregt? It is always inappropriate, but even more so in light of this case.

Revealed: The truth about Iraq

Liberals are pushing hard to withdraw American forces from Iraq as soon as possible. But is what they’re saying really true?

In a new paper, Heritage Foundation expert James Phillips answers some of the most frequently asked questions and dispels liberal rumors aimed at derailing American efforts to secure Iraq.

The questions:

• We did not find weapons of mass destruction or any clear link to al-Qaeda. Knowing what we know now, should we have invaded Iraq?
• Is the U.S. capable of winning the war in Iraq, and what does winning look like?
• After successfully capturing Saddam Hussein, shouldn’t the U.S. focus on getting bin Laden, rather than trying to force democracy on a society that doesn’t want it?
• Why should U.S. soldiers lose their lives waging another country’s civil war?
• How can one call this anything but a civil war?
• Polls show that over half of the Iraqi people want us to leave. Shouldn’t we respect their wishes?
• Isn’t it time for the Iraqi government and army to take over?
• How have our actions in Iraq affected our relationships with other nations?
• After Iraq, what next? What threats will we have to address?

Click here to read the answers.

Find out more about developments in Iraq on Heritage’s Progress in Iraq website.

Comments

After Tour of Duty in Iraq, Graham Backs ‘Surge’

Robim Wright
The Washington Post

The following is excerpted from an article in The Washington Post (August 28, 2007):

After serving two weeks of reserve duty in Iraq, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) yesterday called for continuation of the “surge” of U.S. troops in Iraq and warned that any decision to mandate a withdrawal this year would undercut critical gains made in recent months.

Graham, a colonel in the Air Force Reserve and a longtime supporter of military deployment in Iraq, is the only member of the Senate to serve in Iraq.

“With all due respect to Senator Warner, the model he is suggesting — to put pressure [on the Iraqi government] by mandating troop withdrawal — is exactly the opposite of what we should do,” Graham said in an interview after returning from Iraq this past weekend. “I believe the pressure that will lead to reconciliation will not be from what an American politician thinks but what the Iraqi people think. And I’m confident that the Iraqi people have turned a corner.”

“The surge has produced better security. And if you mandated withdrawal now, it would undercut the progress we’ve made and embolden people who are on the ropes. Be patient. Continue to supply strongly economic, political and military support, and I believe . . . we’ll have a breakthrough in Baghdad,” he said.

A member of the Air Force Judge Advocate General’s Corps, Graham worked primarily on detainee and rule-of-law issues in Iraq. When he was in a courtroom in Baghdad’s Red Zone — as some refer to the area outside the heavily fortified Green Zone — witnessing the trial of two Iraqi policemen charged with building an arms cache to aid a local Shiite militia, a car bomb exploded and two mortar shells landed nearby.

No other serving members of Congress have deployed in Iraq, according to congressional sources.

Click here for footage from this press conference.

Click here to read full story.

The Racist Undercurrent of the Immigration Debate

In ‘There’s racism in this debate’ Ed Morales outlines numerous examples of racism or bigotry in the recent debate on immigration.

-Rush Limbaugh doctored a photo of Sen. Lindsey Graham to show him wearing a sombrero.

-Pat Buchanan says on Meet the Press that “many” immigrants are “child molesters, rapists, and robbers.”

Shoot the Clay Pigeon — Don’t Support Cloture

Majority Leader Harry Reid plans to use a rare procedural maneuver known as the “clay pigeon” and plans to use it to force a vote on the immigration bill rather than debate each amendment that was approved in negotiations. This move stifles a bill and will damage the Senate as much as the nuclear option would have. It disallows complete debate on a very important issue.

This maneuver would be executed by doing the following according to the Washington Post:

 

 

Under the tentative plan, Reid as early as Friday would launch his target _ an amendment encompassing all 22 proposals _ and shoot it into its component pieces. The Senate would then vote on ending debate on the immigration measure, which would take 60 votes and limit discussion of the bill to 30 more hours. After that interval, all 22 amendments would have to be voted on, with little opportunity for foes to interfere.

“The process has been rigged from the beginning, which we think gives us justification to use every measure possible to slow this thing down and stop it,” says Sen. Jim DeMint.

I agree with Sen. DeMint and I say we should shoot the “clay pigeon.” The cloture vote should fail so that the bill fails and a decision has to be made about weather to bring it back to the floor under fair procedure or completely leave it alone. Having the cloture vote failing would shoot the “clay pigeon” by denying any votes until a full and fair debate and vote is allowed on all amendments.

Cloture has already failed once because according to Sen. Cornyn the immigration issue is too important to be debated behind closed doors. Sen. Cornyn is right and that is the reason we need to shoot the “clay pigeon.”

 It is time to show those who want to force bills down out throats that we mean business. Shooting the “clay pigeon” accomplishes this end. I urge readers to call their Senators and request a “nay” vote on cloture for the immigration bill.