Graham amendment - end of freedom, Post all Updates Here Options

[ConcernedObserve...]

Nicely said.

I too was very upset with Graham during the Clinton impeachment but even during that time I felt that his motivations were different from the others. I don't expect Graham to be out front on an effort to impeach Bush unless there is strong evidence presented of high crimes and misdemeanors (not just policy differences).  I would, however,  not put it past Graham to vote to remove Bush (he is no longer in the House and can not particpate in an impeachment) if he felt the evidence showed that Bush was guilty. I think that he would consider it his duty as an American to break away from his Party should that occur.

But, I have not forgotten that Graham is a politician, and as a politician he will do some things that are purely political. When he does "political things" he is a formible foe because he projects to the public a reasoned persona.  He is not as easily dismissed as some of the obvious crazies because of that reasoned persona.

I certainly don't advocate that we give him a pass on anything because he, more than some, can cause us great harm. But on big issues I really do think that he trys to do the right thing. But as I said earlier you still have to watch him. His view on what is the right thing is usually not in sync with our own.

By the way here is a link so that you can read the impeachment presentation that he gave in the Senate.

http://www.afn.org/~govern/graham.html

You have a really mean streak did you know that ? Wasn't it enough to sit through that presentation once ? I wanted to kill him then ! I sure don't want to go through that twice ! :

[lazyboy]

Of course the MSM (CNN in particular) is going to let anything and everything else beat this to get news coverage. I wonder why that is. I hate to see the American public lose their rights without even knowing it. First it will be 'terror suspects' and as we have already seen, soon it will refer to 'the opposition'.

[no retreat, no s...]

You have a really mean streak did you know that ? Wasn't it enough to sit through that presentation once ? I wanted to kill him then ! I sure don't want to go through that twice ! :

I wanted to see exactly what he said which is why I looked for that presentation. I thought that enough time had passed where I could view those words dispassionately. During the impeachment I was anything but dispassonate.

If we come to the point where impeachment is raised concerning Bush I want to make sure that people like Graham are reminded of their words.

I think people may misunderstand what both you and I seem to be saying. We certainly are not advocating that people vote for Graham or donate money to his campaign. I think we are both just saying that he is a man of principle (his own) and is sometimes very useful to our side of the aisle because of it.

[ConcernedObserve...]

I wanted to see exactly what he said which is why I looked for that presentation. I thought that enough time had passed where I could view those words dispassionately. During the impeachment I was anything but dispassonate.

If we come to the point where impeachment is raised concerning Bush I want to make sure that people like Graham are reminded of their words.

I think people may misunderstand what both you and I seem to be saying. We certainly are not advocating that people vote for Graham or donate money to his campaign. I think we are both just saying that he is sometimes very useful to our side of the aisle.

I'm not even going that far nrns, I am saying he is principled and tenacious about matters in which he believes. I doubt he would ever agree with me about anything ! I have no illusions about his conservative nature or the depth of feeling which accompanies it. But I do believe he is an American first and a politician second.

[no retreat, no s...]

I'm not even going that far nrns, I am saying he is principled  and tenacious about matters in which he believes. I doubt he would ever agree with me about anything ! I have no illusions about his conservative nature or the depth of feeling which accompanies it. But I do believe he is an American first and a politician second.

You guys are just too quick. I edited my post above but not before you replied.

[ConcernedObserve...]

You guys are just too quick. I edited my post above but not before you replied.

sorry about that!

I am seldom accused of being a fast typist ! Thank you !

[no retreat, no s...]

sorry about that!

I am seldom accused of being a fast typist ! Thank you !

[no retreat, no s...]

We need to know more about this Graham proposal. For instance, why is the Bush administration opposing it? Are they afraid that once the lawsuits are removed the cases will be heard by the tribunals and evidence they don't want to come out will come out? Something is very strange here

Posted on Thu, Nov. 10, 2005

Senator seeks to bar detainees from U.S. courts
Lindsey Graham said he was against "criminalizing the war." Some Republican colleagues disagreed.
By Liz Sidoti
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - A Senate Republican wants to bar suspected foreign terrorists held at the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, from challenging their detentions in U.S. courts. The proposal is drawing protest from human-rights groups and opposition from the Bush administration.

The senator, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, said he also faced some resistance from Senate GOP colleagues as he considered whether to try attaching his proposal to a defense bill that the Senate is debating this week. Senators could vote on the proposal as early as today.

"What I object to is criminalizing the war," said Graham, a 20-year Air Force lawyer. "Enemy combatants, POWs have never had access to federal court before."

His effort comes as the GOP-led Senate prepared to rebuff the White House a second time by approving another defense bill that would ban the cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of foreign prisoners in U.S. custody. The measure also would require U.S. troops to follow interrogation procedures in the Army Field Manual.

The administration has threatened to veto any bills containing the provisions. Top House Republicans have indicated their opposition, too.

The proposals, sponsored by Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.), are in Senate versions of a $445 billion military spending bill that was passed last month, and in a defense policy bill that is before the Senate. The House bills do not include the provisions.

McCain yesterday voiced worries that efforts to kill the provisions could succeed.

Under a scenario that McCain said was possible, House-Senate negotiators would strip the provisions from the must-pass spending bill, then never complete the other bill that includes the detainee language, the defense policy bill.

"That's what I am told the strategy is," McCain said, declining to say who had told him that. "I hope that it's not true. I hope that they won't do that."

McCain said he did not yet support Graham's detainee proposal. "We need to go slow on this a little bit," McCain said.

Graham said he accelerated his work on the proposal after Monday's Supreme Court decision to review a challenge to the administration's planned military trials for foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo.

Initially, the administration refused to allow the 500 or so detainees at the U.S. naval base to challenge their imprisonment by filing habeas corpus petitions. The Supreme Court in 2004 ruled that U.S. courts were open to filings from the detainees. Many detainees were captured in Afghanistan and have been held at Guantanamo for several years without charges.

Lawsuits have piled up since.

Graham said the administration wanted to deal with the issues instead of having Congress involved.

The American Civil Liberties Union and other rights groups oppose the proposal. The Center for Constitutional Rights said that it would "will only serve to reinforce the growing perception that the United States has become an enemy of human rights."


http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/na.../printstory.jsp

[no retreat, no s...]

McCain yesterday voiced worries that efforts to kill the provisions could succeed.

Under a scenario that McCain said was possible, House-Senate negotiators would strip the provisions from the must-pass spending bill, then never complete the other bill that includes the detainee language, the defense policy bill.

"That's what I am told the strategy is," McCain said, declining to say who had told him that. "I hope that it's not true. I hope that they won't do that."

McCain said he did not yet support Graham's detainee proposal. "We need to go slow on this a little bit," McCain said.

If you want the McCain amendment to pass without change you MUST contact Congress ASAP. If you wait, it may be too late.

[no retreat, no s...]

There are two links at the bottom of this post. One is for the ACLU website where you can use their sample email text to send to Congress or you can use the Congress.org link below to create your own email.

Tell Your Member of Congress to Stop Torture

In a stunning vote to restore the rule of law to stop the government from using torture and abuse, the Senate voted 90-9 for an amendment by Senator John McCain (R-AZ) to ban the use of torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. The McCain amendment must now pass the House of Representatives, and the Bush Administration is promising to fight it every step of the way. Your action is needed to make sure the McCain amendment becomes law.

Write to your member of Congress and urge that the House of Representatives insist that the McCain amendment should stay in the Defense Department appropriations bill. Click here to read more.

Complete the form on the left with your information.
Personalize the subject and text of the message on the right with your own words, if you wish.
Click the Next Step button to send your letter to these decision makers:

You can click on this link to send a letter to congress. They have a sample email that you can use.

https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?pagen...page=UserAction

Or you can visit Congress.org and type your own email. Both of these sites make it very easy to contact Congress.

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/

[Arneoker]

This is Linsey Graham, Republican, not Bob Graham, Democrat!!!

Lindsey Graham is definitely a very conservative Republican, but has been a relatively independent, reasonable conservative Republican. But that very fact makes it more disturbing that he would sponsor something like this. I would expect this more from a bobblehead toady such as my own Senator George Allen than someone like Graham.

[Arneoker]

Pah I say! Humph! 

I don't think that anyone is saying trust Graham or promoting him for President, or saying that he is some kind of reliable friend. He just seems like a relatively more reasonable Republican.

[MushroomCloud]

I'm still confused about this issue.

However, the Democrats in Congress are very strong right now and strong willed, and I feel comfortable that they will be able to handle whatever it is. The Republicans are on the ropes and on the defensive, and they now realize their power is slipping fast. They're actually trying to backpedal on a lot of issues and I'm loving it. Some of them are actually even attempting to do something good for our country -- would you believe it?

But I agree that everyone should make up their own mind about the Graham proposal and contact their senator.

What about the Medicaid cuts issue? That one is a real horror, and it is being discussed right now. There is more than one very important issue on the table.

[no retreat, no s...]

I went to Graham's website to see if they had posted his amendment yet. I didn't find it but I did find an earlier press release from July '05. I wonder if this is the same amendment that he is seeking to propose as early as today? If so, not good.


Date: 07/25/2005
Graham Set to Offer Amendment Strengthening Presidential Role in Detaining Enemy Combatants



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) is scheduled to offer an amendment to the defense authorization bill strengthening the legal hand of the Bush Administration and future Administrations to hold enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (Gitmo).

“It is imperative we have procedures in place at Gitmo that will keep terrorists off the battlefield as long as necessary to protect our nation,” said Graham, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. “My amendment seeks to achieve that goal.”


“Without congressional authority we run a real risk a federal court will either take over or impede our efforts at Gitmo,” said Graham “We are winning in some courts and losing in others. It is now time to strengthen Gitmo so it can meet our national defense needs.”


Graham noted that by Congress acting through statute, the likelihood of keeping properly designated enemy combatants off the battlefield for an undetermined amount of time is enhanced and will strengthen Gitmo’s legal position in federal court.


“The president has established procedures to determine who is an enemy combatant and to annually review their status,” said Graham. “It’s now time for Congress to sign-off on these procedures and turn them into a statute, a move the courts will give great deference to.”


The major provisions of the Graham amendment include:


The Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT), established by the president, would become statutory law. The tribunal determines the status of whether a detainee is an unlawful enemy combatant.

The Annual Review Board (ARB), also established by the president, would become statutory law. The ARB reviews the combatant’s status on an annual basis to determine if the individual is an enemy combatant, still holds intelligence value and/or, still presents a threat to the United States. Graham modifies current procedure by allowing an enemy combatant to have a military lawyer present when appearing before the ARB. They currently have a military representative present.

The president is also given flexibility to update CSRT and ARB procedures by giving Congress 30 days notice.
“My goal is to legitimize the actions our nation is taking at Gitmo and keep enemy combatants off the battlefield as long as possible,” said Graham. “Congress can and needs to act to legitimize the long-term detention of enemy combatants at Gitmo. The War on Terror will go on long after this Administration and we need to have congressional buy-in into this matter.”


“By getting Congress to put some of these things into law, it will strengthen the Commander in Chief’s hand in the War on Terror,” said Graham. “We can also clear up any legal confusion that currently exists and can show the courts the Executive and Legislative branches have acted together which will tremendously strengthen the legal position of Gitmo, President Bush, and all future Commanders in Chief.”

[no retreat, no s...]

I'm still confused about this issue.

However, the Democrats in Congress are very strong right now and strong willed, and I feel comfortable that they will be able to handle whatever it is.  The Republicans are on the ropes and on the defensive, and they now realize their power is slipping fast.  They're actually trying to backpedal on a lot of issues and I'm loving it.  Some of them are actually even attempting to do something good for our country -- would you believe it?

But I agree that everyone should make up their own mind about the Graham proposal and contact their senator.

What about the Medicaid cuts issue?  That one is a real horror, and it is being discussed right now.  There is more than one very important issue on the table.

You need to contact Congress concerning the McCain amendment.

[no retreat, no s...]

They are discussing Habeas on the floor of the Senate on Cspan 2

[no retreat, no s...]

They will be voting on the Graham admendment at 4:30.

[no retreat, no s...]

We have a quorum call in the Senate.

And seeing as how I'm alone in this thread, I'd like to have a quorum call too

[graham4anything]

I don't think that anyone is saying trust Graham or promoting him for President, or saying that he is some kind of reliable friend.  He just seems like a relatively more reasonable Republican.

Why would I trust him? Or MCCain?
Why should we help McCain get his own ratings up?

What is the point?

We already know torture is bad. Let Bush defend it another 3 years.

[Pie]

Lindsay is speaking now. Just tuned in and I do not like what I am hearing so far.

Okay I am confused. He says vote for McCain's but also his-

do not give terrorists the ability to sue our troops ?

do not change 200 years of tradition

do not give terrorists same rights as American citizens

no habaeus corpus

try terrorists in military court only

have Congressional support and control over executive branch

This post has been edited by Pie: Nov 10 2005, 03:29 PM