Lindsey Graham Defends the Constitution, citizens, and Courts in front of Erik Holder

[jillian]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTmLKUT817Y&feature=related


Good for you Graham, i dont always like what you do but this time you nailed it dead on


I'm surprised Holder and Obama have decided to bring the enemy combatants to the united states without knowing the answers to such questions as Lindsey Graham presented to him.

Its a pretty sad state when we have incompetent fools like this running our justice department.

Watch and Listen.

short version

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sG7lm8Sfbo4

I can't get youtube at work. I don't mind Lindsey Graham. He's not an insane wingnut and he actually thinks... although i don't generally agree with him.

as for the "enemy combatant" thing... they're only that because the bush administration said they are. no one is bound by that determination. and if the majority of us thought bush was right about things, mccain would have been elected, no?

So what would you classify them as if you could be the decider?

Someone I respect very much suggested they should be considered POW's. That wouldn't have offended me because they would have had all rights available under the Geneva Conventions. The problem is, we aren't at war and they aren't nationals of any one particular country. Holding them for six years without charges or trial offended me.

Me? IF they acted, I have no issues with them being considered what members of the FALN, IRA, Timothy McVeigh and the blind sheikh were considered -- criminals.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I can't get youtube at work. I don't mind Lindsey Graham. He's not an insane wingnut and he actually thinks... although i don't generally agree with him.

as for the "enemy combatant" thing... they're only that because the bush administration said they are. no one is bound by that determination. and if the majority of us thought bush was right about things, mccain would have been elected, no?

So what would you classify them as if you could be the decider?

Someone I respect very much suggested they should be considered POW's. That wouldn't have offended me because they would have had all rights available under the Geneva Conventions. The problem is, we aren't at war and they aren't nationals of any one particular country. Holding them for six years without charges or trial offended me.

Me? IF they acted, I have no issues with them being considered what members of the FALN, IRA, Timothy McVeigh and the blind sheikh were considered -- criminals.

Ah, touche!

Indeed, I wouldn't mind it if they were kept as POWs. The length of wars has nothing to do with it just ask John McCain, Jeramiah Denton and Red McDaniels all of whom were held longer than this.

As a practical matter, some the difficulties I mention either on this thread or another today, I don't think that considering them criminals is workable. If that becomes the policy, we need to withdraw the military from Afghanistan and replace them with FBI agents. They have the experience in handling criminals. We shouldn't let a bunch of amateurs handle the apprehension of criminals.

(The FALN before Holder got them released, right?)

 

[saveliberty]

What are you afraid of? Fear not. Liberal democrats will save the day again. We'll clean up the mess the scardy cat cons got us into...........again.

hey! haven't you heard? your DUmbasses have tainted the jury pool.

SO again you admit to being scared and not trusting the American people to do the right thing in a serious situation like this one. We need a big daddy to protect us from ourselves?

Americans are smart enough to realize you try people in military court when you capture them in a war zone as an emeny combatant. American courts are reserved for nonmilitary folks. How you got fear as the message out of tainting the jury pool is quite the feat of a retarded door jam. In order for the courts to function properly, jurors are not suppose to have prior knowledge or at least to have an opinion that could make a fair decision impossible. I understadn your having trouble with these concepts, because your party leader screwed it all up.

 

[saveliberty]

DEVNELL neg rep'd me!

Thanks loser!



I guess that's what happens when the other guy just has nothing, but disagrees with you.

You are not alone Tech Esq. He sent some my way too.

 

[jillian]

Ah, touche!

Indeed, I wouldn't mind it if they were kept as POWs. The length of wars has nothing to do with it just ask John McCain, Jeramiah Denton and Red McDaniels all of whom were held longer than this.

yes... but we were at war in Vietnam. There is no war with "Al Queda". Are we at war *with* Afghanistan or *in* Afghanistan? Are we at war *with* Iraq or *in* Iraq? You can't wage war against an ideology. If WWII had been a "war on fascism", we'd still be in the midst of WWII. And we don't know where these people were captured. There's nothing to indicate they were picked up on the battlefield. There isn't anything.

As a practical matter, some the difficulties I mention either on this thread or another today, I don't think that considering them criminals is workable. If that becomes the policy, we need to withdraw the military from Afghanistan and replace them with FBI agents. They have the experience in handling criminals. We shouldn't let a bunch of amateurs handle the apprehension of criminals.

I think saying "oh ... we can't try them in criminal court" is a cop out. That's my opinion. am I right? I don't know. There hasn't been any transparency. There haven't been any allegations whatsoever. I keep thinking about "what if they got it wrong about some of these people?" (not talking about the current situation... I believe he's guilty as hell). What if it was you? Would you want to be tried with the rules of evidence? or would you want a kangaroo court where they could use hearsay against you? or worse...

(The FALN before Holder got them released, right?)

if you listen to michelle malkin... and i make a point of never doing so.

 

[saveliberty]

I dont think dev actually listened to, watched, or read the Question and answer session.

The point being that in our criminal courts you have to have your miranda rights read to you at the time of detention and interrogation. If you did not have them read to you your case can be easily dismissed under the writ of habeas corpus.

Smooth move to try them in a constitional court system, giving them rights under the constitution, that were violated during their capture and subsequent detention and interrogation.

And that has always been the point about subjecting what are essentially either "illegal combatants" (usually subjected to summary execution), or EPW (Enemy Prisoners of War) to "criminal" prosecution. If we are fighting a war, these people should never be prosecuted, unless we classify them as illegal combatants (which is what they look and act most like). In that case, we should do as we, and other nations, have always done with them. "Drum head" trials. With the agreement of three officers, they are executed immediately.

I'll give you libs a little insight from the people in the Pentagon (as this was being discussed this morning). If, since we are going to try these people, we have to Mirandize them upon capture and therefore cannot question them for immediate military intelligence, we have no benefit in capturing them at all. At least to the people who would do the capturing. And since it is usually a riskier proposition to capture than kill, guess what the orders of Company Commanders and Platoon Leaders to their men will be. "No need to try to capture anyone. Shoot to kill."

Perverse result to your criminalization of the war, huh?

"I'll give you libs a little insight from the people in the Pentagon (as this was being discussed this morning). " - I wouldn't put too much faith in that kind of talk.

Let's see the reason we try these people is to give them due process and to appear a country of laws and reason. Giving a order to kill all enemy combatants would have the opposite effect and put our troop at greater risk. Talking out your ass DevNell. Big man with the Pentagon inside scoop.

 

[jillian]

Americans are smart enough to realize you try people in military court when you capture them in a war zone as an emeny combatant.

in a "war zone"? don't you mean on a battlefield. do you even know where most of the detainees were captured?

American courts are reserved for nonmilitary folks.

what military are these detainees part of?

How you got fear as the message out of tainting the jury pool is quite the feat of a retarded door jam. In order for the courts to function properly, jurors are not suppose to have prior knowledge or at least to have an opinion that could make a fair decision impossible. I understadn your having trouble with these concepts, because your party leader screwed it all up.

And yet we never had any problem trying other terrorsts....

odd.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Ah, touche!

Indeed, I wouldn't mind it if they were kept as POWs. The length of wars has nothing to do with it just ask John McCain, Jeramiah Denton and Red McDaniels all of whom were held longer than this.

yes... but we were at war in Vietnam. There is no war with "Al Queda". Are we at war *with* Afghanistan or *in* Afghanistan? Are we at war *with* Iraq or *in* Iraq? You can't wage war against an ideology. If WWII had been a "war on fascism", we'd still be in the midst of WWII. And we don't know where these people were captured. There's nothing to indicate they were picked up on the battlefield. There isn't anything.

Actually, Vietnam wasn't a declared war either (remember the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution provided Johnson with the ability to send troops).

I disagree, there was not one person in Congress that didn't know they were voting for war with Afghanistan when they voted. And, it was with the government of Afghanistan, that's why we toppled their government and we are still fighting the Taliban to this day. NATO recognized it on September 12 and invoked Article 5 of the Washington Treaty. That's why NATO is fighting in Afghanistan today. This has all the earmarks of war.

I think we correctly analyzed the situation by considering members of the Taliban government not in uniform as unlawful combatants under the Geneva Convention. Similarly, we found members of AQ unlawful combatants for reason's stated in Professor Dorf's paper below.

See Professor Dorf's analysis of the questions presented by AQ and the Taliban and their status. FindLaw -- Dorf

It should be noted, that precedent in this situation, that is un-uniformed irregular participating in hostilities in a combat zone, are subject to "drum head" trials. That is upon the agreement of three officers, they are summarily executed. This is done for the protection of the civilian populace who may be placed in danger if combatants cannot clearly tell who is a combatant and who isn't.

As a practical matter, some the difficulties I mention either on this thread or another today, I don't think that considering them criminals is workable. If that becomes the policy, we need to withdraw the military from Afghanistan and replace them with FBI agents. They have the experience in handling criminals. We shouldn't let a bunch of amateurs handle the apprehension of criminals.

I think saying "oh ... we can't try them in criminal court" is a cop out. That's my opinion. am I right? I don't know. There hasn't been any transparency. There haven't been any allegations whatsoever. I keep thinking about "what if they got it wrong about some of these people?" (not talking about the current situation... I believe he's guilty as hell). What if it was you? Would you want to be tried with the rules of evidence? or would you want a kangaroo court where they could use hearsay against you? or worse...

The problem with trying them in criminal court is exactly as Graham stated to Holder: The moment custodial interrogation begins, that person has the right to a lawyer, to remain silent etc. Miranda attaches at that moment. So that means no intelligence interrogations (at least without his lawyer being present ). That may be one thing if you are snatching a financier off the streets of Prague, but if you are engaged with AQ in the mountains of Afghanistan, what then? Are Infantry soldiers expected to Mirandize a captive? It goes against all the training they have received?

Frankly, and this is really the impracticality of the situation, it's more dangerous to take captives than not. The Army has their own agenda. They want to win the battle they are in and safeguard their men. If they cannot illicit actionable battlefield intel from a captive, then what's the point of risking life and limb to get one? Just kill them. And, that will be the order of every responsible Company Commander and Platoon Leader in Afghanistan.

(The FALN before Holder got them released, right?)

if you listen to michelle malkin... and i make a point of never doing so.

Or, if you read the LA Times apparently.... Holder Pushed For FALN Terrorists Pardon

 

[saveliberty]

Americans are smart enough to realize you try people in military court when you capture them in a war zone as an emeny combatant.

in a "war zone"? don't you mean on a battlefield. do you even know where most of the detainees were captured?

American courts are reserved for nonmilitary folks.

what military are these detainees part of?

How you got fear as the message out of tainting the jury pool is quite the feat of a retarded door jam. In order for the courts to function properly, jurors are not suppose to have prior knowledge or at least to have an opinion that could make a fair decision impossible. I understadn your having trouble with these concepts, because your party leader screwed it all up.

And yet we never had any problem trying other terrorsts....

odd.

Yes, well the President never convicted them before the trial before. I know, it is new for me too.

 

[NYcarbineer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTmLKUT817Y&feature=related


Good for you Graham, i dont always like what you do but this time you nailed it dead on


I'm surprised Holder and Obama have decided to bring the enemy combatants to the united states without knowing the answers to such questions as Lindsey Graham presented to him.

Its a pretty sad state when we have incompetent fools like this running our justice department.

Watch and Listen.

short version

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sG7lm8Sfbo4

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed wasn't captured on the battlefield. He was arrested in Pakistan.

Pakistan isn't a battlefield? Really? In what sense?

The Paki army is fully engaged. Everybody agrees that AQ is in Pakistan not Afghanistan. We've been killing AQ and Taliban leadership in Pakistan for years with drones. How is Pakistan not a battlefield? Because we captured KSM with a special ops team not in a shoot out on a remote mountain somewhere? Happens all the time in a real war. You should see what happened in WW II.

Pakistan wasn't a battlefield last year when the conservative blogotards went ballistic when candidate Obama talked about going into Pakistan after al qaeda with or without Pakistan's permission.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTmLKUT817Y&feature=related


Good for you Graham, i dont always like what you do but this time you nailed it dead on


I'm surprised Holder and Obama have decided to bring the enemy combatants to the united states without knowing the answers to such questions as Lindsey Graham presented to him.

Its a pretty sad state when we have incompetent fools like this running our justice department.

Watch and Listen.

short version

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sG7lm8Sfbo4

I can't get youtube at work. I don't mind Lindsey Graham. He's not an insane wingnut and he actually thinks... although i don't generally agree with him.

as for the "enemy combatant" thing... they're only that because the bush administration said they are. no one is bound by that determination. and if the majority of us thought bush was right about things, mccain would have been elected, no?

i'll see if i can find you a transcript. give me 5 min

I tried hard to find an actual transcript, i found a lot of articles with quotes but no full transcripts for you .


This is why they should have had the military tribunals years ago within months of capturing these guys instead of just storing em in Gitmo, now look at the fallout of the last administrations inaction....this is just bad.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There's going to be one awful chorus of yeah but's from the wingnuts when these guys eventually get convicted.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

There's going to be one awful chorus of yeah but's from the wingnuts when these guys eventually get convicted.

if they are convicted and put in jail I will be happy BUT if either of these happen i will be very angry:

• A precedent is set that you can be detained and interrogated without your miranda rights being read to you would be bad.
• These enemy combatants being let free because they weren't read rights and were deatained and interrogated after.

 

[Maple]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTmLKUT817Y&feature=related


Good for you Graham, i dont always like what you do but this time you nailed it dead on


I'm surprised Holder and Obama have decided to bring the enemy combatants to the united states without knowing the answers to such questions as Lindsey Graham presented to him.

Its a pretty sad state when we have incompetent fools like this running our justice department.

Watch and Listen.

short version

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sG7lm8Sfbo4

I loved this, Graham made Holder look like the absolute incompetent idiot that he is. What a dressin down Graham did on Holder, I hope they show this over and over and over again. It was a spectacular take down of the liberal Obama administration. Holder had egg all over his face, he could not answer questions, Graham knew more about constitutional law than the attorney general did.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTmLKUT817Y&feature=related


Good for you Graham, i dont always like what you do but this time you nailed it dead on


I'm surprised Holder and Obama have decided to bring the enemy combatants to the united states without knowing the answers to such questions as Lindsey Graham presented to him.

Its a pretty sad state when we have incompetent fools like this running our justice department.

Watch and Listen.

short version

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sG7lm8Sfbo4

Lindsey didn't "nail" it. He doesn't seem to understand that terrorist / enemy combatants have no rights under our Constitution. As such, Miranda rights and constitutional rights that we as American citizens have, do not apply to the people in question.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTmLKUT817Y&feature=related


Good for you Graham, i dont always like what you do but this time you nailed it dead on


I'm surprised Holder and Obama have decided to bring the enemy combatants to the united states without knowing the answers to such questions as Lindsey Graham presented to him.

Its a pretty sad state when we have incompetent fools like this running our justice department.

Watch and Listen.

short version

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sG7lm8Sfbo4

Lindsey didn't "nail" it. He doesn't seem to understand that terrorist / enemy combatants have no rights under our Constitution. As such, Miranda rights and constitutional rights that we as American citizens have, do not apply to the people in question.

However, brining them to trial in the US criminal court system automatically extends constitutinal rights to them.

If they had a military tribunal you would be correct but in a US criminal court trial you are wrong.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTmLKUT817Y&feature=related


Good for you Graham, i dont always like what you do but this time you nailed it dead on


I'm surprised Holder and Obama have decided to bring the enemy combatants to the united states without knowing the answers to such questions as Lindsey Graham presented to him.

Its a pretty sad state when we have incompetent fools like this running our justice department.

Watch and Listen.

short version

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sG7lm8Sfbo4

Lindsey didn't "nail" it. He doesn't seem to understand that terrorist / enemy combatants have no rights under our Constitution. As such, Miranda rights and constitutional rights that we as American citizens have, do not apply to the people in question.

However, brining them to trial in the US criminal court system automatically extends constitutinal rights to them.

If they had a military tribunal you would be correct but in a US criminal court trial you are wrong.

Just because they are on U.S. soil, that does not mean they get constitutional rights. The administration wants to give them rights. They are dangerously wrong.

If you believe in a strict reading of the Constitution, the perps in question do not have rights under our Constitution even if they are tried on American soil. The Constitution was written for American citizens not terrorists or enemy combatants. The President wants to cross a line that should never ever be crossed, by giving them V Amendment rights, a lawyer etc.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Lindsey didn't "nail" it. He doesn't seem to understand that terrorist / enemy combatants have no rights under our Constitution. As such, Miranda rights and constitutional rights that we as American citizens have, do not apply to the people in question.

However, brining them to trial in the US criminal court system automatically extends constitutinal rights to them.

If they had a military tribunal you would be correct but in a US criminal court trial you are wrong.

Just because they are on U.S. soil, that does not mean they get constitutional rights. The administration wants to give them rights. They are dangerously wrong.

If you believe in a strict reading of the Constitution, the perps in question do not have rights under our Constitution even if they are tried on American soil. The Constitution was written for American citizens not terrorists or enemy combatants. The President wants to cross a line that should never ever be crossed, by giving them V Amendment rights, a lawyer etc.

I hope you are right but i dont have faith in our government respecting anything they dont agree with in the constitution.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

However, brining them to trial in the US criminal court system automatically extends constitutinal rights to them.

If they had a military tribunal you would be correct but in a US criminal court trial you are wrong.

Just because they are on U.S. soil, that does not mean they get constitutional rights. The administration wants to give them rights. They are dangerously wrong.

If you believe in a strict reading of the Constitution, the perps in question do not have rights under our Constitution even if they are tried on American soil. The Constitution was written for American citizens not terrorists or enemy combatants. The President wants to cross a line that should never ever be crossed, by giving them V Amendment rights, a lawyer etc.

I hope you are right but i dont have faith in our government respecting anything they dont agree with in the constitution.

If the President gets his way, they will be tried as if they were American citizens. It would be a mockery of our Constitution and our court system. I am not going to hold my breath.

 

[Intense]

There's going to be one awful chorus of yeah but's from the wingnuts when these guys eventually get convicted.

Get off of it. What We will have to look forward to is OJ times 10. Makes me want to puke just thinking about. I would rather host the Olympics, and I live in Queens. Gridlocked Circus with an enhanced terrorist threat.