Sen. Graham on Detainee Treatment

Boumediene v Bush - Habeas Should be granted to Detainees

Graham Calls Supreme Court Ruling 'Dangerous and Irresponsible'

U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today made this statement on the Supreme Court ruling granting terror suspects in the War on Terror the right to sue in federal court.

High Court Justices Clash on Detainee Rights

The Supreme Court appeared deeply divided Wednesday over just how much due process Guantanamo Bay detainees deserve in challenging their imprisonment -- and how much they already have.

GOP blast Gitmo decision, Graham says he is willing to push for a constitutional amendment if necessary

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) vowed Thursday to do everything in his power to overturn the Supreme Court's decision on Guantanamo Bay detainees, saying that, "if necessary," he would push for a constitutional amendment to modify the decision.

Reactions to Supreme Court Ruling

"I am deeply disappointed in what I think is a tremendously dangerous and irresponsible ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. ... The court has conferred upon civilian judges the right to make military decisions. These judges have virtually no training in military matters yet civilian judges, in some of the most liberal district courts in the country, will have an opportunity to determine who is a threat to the United States."

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C

Law of War

Uniform Code of Military Justice

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is the foundation of military law in the United States. The UCMJ was passed by Congress on 5 May 1950, signed into law by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, and became effective on 31 May 1951. Prior to that date, each service branch had separate military justice codes which varied greatly in terms of the charges and punishments applicable to any particular act; the word "Uniform" in the Code's title refers to the congressional intent to make military justice uniform or consistent among the armed services.

Source: Wikipedia

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113C - Torture

Defines and outlines remedies for torture.

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 118 > § 2441 War Crimes

War Crimes Act

Convention Against Torture

The United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT) is an international human rights instrument, organized by the United Nations and intended to prevent torture and other similar activities. It created the UN Committee Against Torture, which focuses on the duties of national leaders in a preventive role. UNCAT came into force in June 1987 and to date 141 nations are party to it.

Source: Wikipedia

Geneva Convention Relative to Prisoners of War

The Geneva Conventions consist of four treaties formulated in Geneva, Switzerland, that set the standards for international law for humanitarian concerns. The conventions were the results of efforts by Henri Dunant, who was motivated by the horrors of war he witnessed at the Battle of Solferino in 1859.

As per article 49, 50, 129 and 146 of the Geneva Conventions I, II, III and IV, respectively, all signatory states are required to enact sufficient national law to make grave violations of the Geneva Conventions a punishable criminal offence.

Source: Wikipedia

FM 34-52 Intelligence Interrogations

Manual defining the actions of Army Interrogators in gathering intelligence from captured personnel.

FM 2.22-3 Human Intelligence Collector Operations

This manual clarifies the role of military police and military intelligence in detention and interrogation.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

542 U.S. 507 (2004)

Rumsfeld v Padilla

542 U.S. 426 (2004)

Presidential Siging Statement to Defense Authorization Act of 2006

sigining statement interpreting Detainee Treatment Act according to the President's whims.

Detainee Treatment Act

JURIST - Paperchase

News Stories

'Hamdan v. Rumsfeld': Path to a Landmark Ruling

September 5, 2006 · In the jargon of the Supreme Court, we talk about "landmark cases." Some, of course, are more landmark than others. But by any yardstick, the June 2006 ruling in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld was one for the history books.

Hamdan was the case in which the high court invalidated the system set up by President Bush to try accused war criminals at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The court's 5-3 decision is widely seen as the most important ruling on executive power in decades, or perhaps ever.

But cases like this do not materialize out of thin air, and the Hamdan case, like Brown v. Board of Education, was carefully nurtured, with the defense lawyers facing a constant stream of difficult issues. A wrong decision at any point could have ended up aborting the case.

Military Tribunals

Bush pushes Congress to pass White House plan for terrorist detainee trials

International Herald-Tribune: 9 September 2006

Bush has said the plan is both fair and tough enough to ensure dangerous terrorists can be brought to justice. However, some Republican moderates on defense issues, including Senators John Warner, John McCain, and Lindsey Graham, have agreed with the Pentagon lawyers that Bush's plan may go too far.

Looking for Agreement on Tribunals for Detainees

New York Times: 9 September 2006

The senators, Mr. Warner, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and John McCain of Arizona, maintain that they can work with the administration to resolve the differences, but they showed few signs of yielding on the disputed questions. "The determination simply has to be made on what flexibility the administration wants to show," Mr. Warner said.

Senate leaders back Bush detainees plan despite opposition

CNN: 8 September 2006

Indeed, a leadership aide said Warner, McCain, R-Arizona, and Graham, R-South Carolina, were given "24 hours to think their position over," indicating that the bill could be routed around the committee and placed directly on the Senate floor.

Senator: Bush plan won't pass

Dallas Morning News: 8 September 2006

SENECA, S.C. - Sen. Lindsey Graham said Friday that he's confident the Senate will reject President Bush's plan to try terror suspects without letting them see classified evidence against them.

Lindsey Graham: accused terrorists must see evidence against them

San Jose Mercury News

Bush admits to secret prisons

The Globe and Mail: 8 September 2006
Mr. Bush urged Congress to pass the new rules for military commissions during their current month-long session prior to their election recess. But the President's proposed law is likely to prompt a battle in the Senate involving Republican moderates John Warner, John McCain and Lindsey Graham, who have drafted a proposal that would include the right of defendants in terrorism cases to have access to all evidence used against them.

Bush says CIA has secret prisons overseas

Bush faces Republican revolt over terror trials

Guardian Unlimited: 8 September 2006

"It would be unacceptable legally in my opinion to give someone the death penalty in a trial where they never had heard the evidence against them," Lindsey Graham, a former military judge and a Republican senator from South Carolina who is a member of the armed services committee, told the New York Times yesterday. "Trust us, you're guilty, we're going to execute you, but we can't tell you why'? That's not going to pass muster."

Top Military Lawyers Dislike Tribunal Plan

Los Angelas Times: 8 September 2006

"I think we're making some progress," Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John W. Warner (R-Va.) said after one round of closed-door meetings. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a key negotiator who at one point rushed down a hallway in a Senate office building accompanied by administration officials, said only that he was optimistic an agreement could be reached.

Critics blast Bush plan to limit detainee rights

The Register-Guard: 8 September 6006

Bush's high-profile drive for his version of the legislation has been particularly awkward for the three Republican senators who circulated a different bill earlier this week: McCain; Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, R-Va., a former Navy secretary; and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a former Air Force attorney.

Tribunal bill is stalled

New York Newsday: 8 September 2006

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), sponsor of a tribunal bill that includes more rights for defendants, has insisted that a provision be dropped that allows evidence that the accused cannot see or challenge.

Military Tribunals Editorials

Vengence V. Victory

Fort Wayne News-Sentinel: 8 September 2006

To that end, Republican Sens. John McCain of Arizona, a former prisoner of war, and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a former military prosecutor, have proposed a military tribunal that would operate in a manner consistent with American laws. The McCain-Graham bill is the one that Congress should pass, not Bush's American Star Chamber.



Three senior GOP senators - John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and John Warner of Virginia - want to prohibit the use of testimony obtained through coercive interrogation, restrict the use of hearsay evidence and give judges the right to decide whether defendants should be allowed to see classified information that could be used against them.

Terrorist suspects should be tried, but Bush plan brings objections

Kansas City Star: 8 September 2006

Key Republican lawmakers like Sen. John McCain and Sen. Lindsey Graham express well-founded concerns.

Graham, a former military judge, objects to plans to conceal evidence from the accused. So do top Pentagon lawyers, who testified Thursday on Capitol Hill that the Bush proposal could violate treaty obligations.

EDITORIAL: Military tribunals for terrorists

Las Vegas Review Journal: 8 September 2006

In his Wednesday address, for instance, the president sought authorization to use at these trials information that was obtained under coercion. But three Republican members of the Senate Armed Services Committee -- Chairman John Warner of Virginia, John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina -- have already introduced their own legislation to authorize the tribunals, and that legislation would ban the use of evidence obtained by coercion.

Words and deeds on terrorism

Sarasota Herald-Tribune: 8 September 2006

Unfortunately, the president has insisted upon creating a military tribunal system with Draconian rules and procedures opposed by leading Republican senators such as Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a former military lawyer. Furthermore, the heretofore unacknowledged existence of CIA detention facilities is another troubling example of the administration's circumvention of American policies and traditions.

Tribunal Blogs

Backlash

d-day: 8 September 2006
Wiretapping, military tribunals, and more.

The Presidential Hail Mary

Inside the Multiplexer: 8 September 2006
Or so was the plan because it's worked well the last two election cycles. As long as Iraq and Afghanistan are out of sight/out of mind, everyone is golden. But the bill may be DOA. I pretty much suspected that it would be DOA. It was handed to people not running for reelection now but may in 2008, and Lindsey Graham, sitting at the head of the Armed Services Committee, is an ex-military judge. The Democrats simply side-stepped the issue and left it to Republican wrangling. So swallowed by committee it goes. I will be extremely surprised if it even gets to the floor in the 17 days left of an in-session Congress. Meanwhile, a suicide bomber blew himself up outside the British Embassy in Kabul this morning.

The Front Page from Hell Contest

The Purple State: 8 September 2006
B. At the same time, the President wants to be able to hold secret death penalty trials for prisoners in Guantanamo Bay in which they are not allowed to see the evidence against them. Fortunately there are still some GOP senators who consider themselves Americans first and foremost:

"It would be unacceptable, legally, in my opinion, to give someone the death penalty in a trial where they never heard the evidence against them," said Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who has played a key role in the drafting of alternative legislation as a member of the Armed Services Committee and a military judge. " 'Trust us, you're guilty, we're going to execute you, but we can't tell you why'? That's not going to pass muster; that's not necessary."

Bush admits secret prisons, demands Congress sanction drumhead tribunals

Thomas Paine's Corner: 8 September 2006

Cheney's Woodshed

TPMCafe: 8 September 2006

Now, as Bush makes his electoral push to shred some more of the tenants of American democracy, namely HabeusaCorpus and Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, there are three Republican Senators standing in his way: John McCain (R-AZ), John Warner (R-VA), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC). Cheney is saying, basically, that evidence obtained under extreme duress (read: torture) , can be used against accused terrorists, and that the "defendants" cannot see the evidence against them if it's classified.

Lie

Upper Left: 8 September 2006
But the sponsors of the legislation - Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John W. Warner (R-Va.), Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) - disagreed. They have embraced the view of senior uniformed military lawyers that blocking defendants' access to evidence would violate long-standing due-process standards and set a dangerous precedent for trials of captured U.S. military personnel.

White House Press Briefings

Press Briefing by Tony Snow

8 September 2006
There are times when, in these trials, you're going to want -- at least, you're going to feel some obligation to try to withhold from terrorists information that could place at risk people who provide information or means and methods. But at this particular juncture, let me just say what Lindsey Graham said the other day, which is he feels confident we're going to work this out, and so do we.

So we're working with members of Congress on this. We're going to find ways to make sure that we're able to proceed not only with questioning, but also with trials in a way that's going to be consistent with the human rights of those involved and, at the same time, the obligations of national security.

It's also worth emphasizing that the focus on this one issue tends to obscure the fact that for the vast bulk of what we're talking about, in terms of putting together these tribunals, people agree. So what we're now doing is we're wrestling with the way -- dealing with what is clearly a legally thorny issue, but it's not intractable, and we think it's going to be taken care of. And I know Senator Graham said that, and I've heard it from the President, as well. He said it in --

The Agreement

Bush, GOP Rebels Agree on Detainee Bill

The Bush administration and Senate Republicans announced agreement Thursday on terms for the interrogation and trial of suspects in the war on terror.

'I'm pleased we have agreement,' said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, emerging from a session in his office where National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley and key lawmakers reviewed the compromise.

White House to Revise Terror Proposal

The White House said Monday it was revising its proposal for dealing with terrorism suspects as indications grew that President Bush's plan was meeting increased resistance among Republicans in both chambers of Congress.

White House Deputy Press Secretary Dana Perino said the administration was sending the new language in hopes of reaching an agreement. A revolt by GOP senators, who have written their own proposal giving terror detainees more rights than the administration wants, has embarrassed the White House at a time when Republicans want to use their security policies as a main platform in November's congressional elections.

'Our commitment to finding a resolution is strong,' Perino said.

The Agreement: Editorials

Gutsy Graham

U.S. Sen Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., could pay a steep political price for participating in the Senate rebellion against President Bush's original conception of how terrorist detainees ought to be treated. Some of the senator's constituents saw no problem with Bush's desire to indemnify CIA interrogators from punishment for use of methods that border on torture, and to redefine the U.S. commitment to the Geneva Conventions to allow 'alternative methods' of interrogation.

The Geneva Conventions came into play, readers will recall, because the Supreme Court, in this year's Hamdin decision, required it. Graham and Republican Sens. John Warner, Susan Collins and John McCain worried that U.S. redefinition of the international treaty to accommodate harsh treatment of terror suspects could put U.S. prisoners of war at risk of inhumane treatment, while doing nothing to make the nation safer from terrorism.

Why did terror tribunal rules take so long?

Sen. Lindsey Graham, a first-term conservative Republican from South Carolina, has been at the core of protracted disagreement between President Bush and GOP senators over U.S. treatment of captured terrorists. He is seen by Bush's aides as a political opportunist. He sees himself choosing principle over expediency. But the real story may be the Bush administration's failure of governance.

The question is why the tentative agreement reached Thursday by the White House with Senators John Warner, John McCain and Graham, Republican members of the Armed Services Committee, could not have been achieved sooner. The senators complained the administration was slow sending up legislation needed for military trials of enemy terrorists after the Supreme Court struck down the U.S. tribunal system. It took an embarrassing intraparty quarrel to spawn compromise.

The Mavericks Agree To Continue To Torture Detainees

"I had a single test for the pending legislation, and that's this: Would the CIA operators tell me whether they could go forward with the program, that is a program to question detainees to be able to get information to protect the American people," President Bush said in the aftermath of the torture debate debacle.

"I'm pleased to say that this agreement preserves the single most potent tool we have in protecting America from terrorist attacks, and that is the CIA free to question the world's most dangerous terrorists and to get their secret's," the President added.

As you can probably imagine, liberals are outraged over the fact that terrorists will continue to be treated like terrorists, only now it may be possible with the acceptance of congressional approval.

S. 3930 Military Commissions Act of 2006

A bill to authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes.

S. 3930

Complete information from THOMAS

Vote No 239 On Passage of the Bill (S. 3930 As Amended )

Senate vote

Roll Call #508

Congressional vote

109 Bill Tracking S. 3930

This file tracks the history of the bill in the legislature.

Public Law 109-336

The law after sigining

Millenium Series Lecture

Lindsey Graham

GovTrack: S3930

Tracking the bill

Detainee Proposals

S. 3901 Military Commissions Act 2006

Sponsor: John Warner (R-VA)

H.R. 6054 Military Commissions Act of 2006

Sponsor: Duncan Hunter (R-CA)

H. Rpt. 109-664 HR 6054

Report on the Bill

S. 3860 Bringing Terrorists to justice Act 2006

Sponsor: Bill Frist (R-TN)

S. 3886 Terrorist Tracking, Identification, and Prosecution Act of 2006

Sponsor: Bill Frist (R-TN)

S 3930 Military Commissions Act of 2006

Sponsor: Mitch McConnell (R-KY)

H.R. 6166 Military Commissions Act of 2006

Sponsor: Duncan Hunter (R-CA)