I had been following Dean's writings on this and never progressed beyond speechless. I still haven't really seen any play on MSM on this, probably because it's just too explosive and we all know which road they'll choose. What is so astonishing on this is the black and white proof, there doesn't seem to be any gray areas that I've read. Oh, and thanks for the great post Mary!
Posted by mainsailset at July 9, 2006 05:57 PMSo where does it leave Senator Graham?
In the arms of his boyfriend.
He is a neo-con. Nothing he would do surprises me. Dismay me, yes. But no surprises. It's a black period in our nation's history. I hope the republic can withstand the assault from these people.
Posted by phidipides at July 9, 2006 06:53 PMI've put more of this on the front page than I would normally, but I ran into the limits of the MySQL text type which expects text fields to be under 64K characters. This format provides me enough characters to save the whole post as a single post across the original and the extended post text fields. Glad it is later on a Sunday afternoon where I ran into this problem. (And next time, perhaps I can do a better job of editing the post to cut out the extraneous words.)
Posted by Mary at July 9, 2006 06:54 PMMary,
Thanks for posting this. I was planning to write something up later this week and you've covered it much better than I could have.
I wrote about this travesty sometime back - and I wanted to make sure we give it some air time since the media seems to not care about it. This is the worst kind of fraud - deeply, deeply anti-American fraud - and I feel bad that Kyl and Graham (or for that matter Brownback) are not being prosecuted for it.
Posted by eriposte at July 9, 2006 07:11 PMTh frd s lftsts tryng t xtnd th rghts f mrcns t ths wh r ctvly skng t dstry mrc. Wht's nxt, vtng rghts fr jhdsts?
[Editor: ignore=off]I disagree with the premise of Mary's question.
For Graham to "sell out" implies he was a principled man at one point along the way.
As a closeted gay man, Sen. Lindsey Graham, has tried to "pass" by voting YES on every piece of antigay legislation that required his vote.
This is kinda' like asking, what made Arlen Specter or Dianne Feinstein sell out? They arrived at the party already smelling foul.
Posted by Christopher at July 9, 2006 08:26 PMThe best was the last part of the Dean column:
Out of an apparent concern for interbranch comity, the High Court has chosen to ignore the bogus brief filed by Senators Graham and Kyl, rather than reprimanding the Senators. Nevertheless, when Graham and Kyl sought to file the very same brief, a month later, with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columba, Slate's Emily Bazelon reports that court "issued an unusual order rejecting" their amicus brief alone, although they accepted five others.No one familiar with this remarkable behavior by Graham and Kyl can doubt why the court did not want to hear from these senators.
That shpuld really sting, but i doubt that it does. but it may also answer the question about their lawyer.
When he jumped on Clinton, he lost all cred. He simply doesn't exist to me. La la la, la la la.
Posted by TIKI AL at July 9, 2006 09:04 PMThe fraud is leftists trying to extend the rights of Americans to those who are actively seeking to destroy America. What's next, voting rights for jihadists?
I'll translate: "I am willing to end the Bill of Rights and any decency in the U.S.S.A. because I bought into the neo-con fear agenda. In have no standards beyond xenophobia and racism, and have an incredible desire to be so afraid of these people that I can't stomach the idea of any of them having a trial, in a court, with legal representation, and knowing what the charges against them are. I'm a neo-con and I am stupid. I will pass that same stupidity on to my children."
America! A shining beacon to the world, torture and all.
Posted by phidipides at July 9, 2006 09:36 PM"are not from the ACLU. These are not from people who are soft on terrorism, who want to coddle foreign terrorists.
This supposedly describes the ACLU?
Fuck you, Lindsey Graham. And your boyfriends too. You are too propagandized and dense to represent Fuller Brush, let alone a state in the Senate.
Why did Lindsey Graham sell out?
Too many "cute" boys lived in his neighborhood?
Posted by TIKI AL at July 10, 2006 12:58 AMThe Reactionary Right has spent decades threatening to strip the courts of jurisdiction to hear cases involving particular areas, but this is the first time it's actually been done.
Just another bit of evidence regarding their real attitude towards the rule of law. Cases involving election challenges or environmental protection will likely be next.
Now, does it seem like a country that closes its courts to certain matters and certain people is a confident, vital, strong "democracy"? Or would this be a tactic one would expect to see in certain central European countries in, say, 1935?
Posted by euzoius at July 10, 2006 05:39 AM
the ongoing "good cop/bad cop" routine by the GOP Congress is so transparent - yet so many on the Left are all too ready to buy in to anything close to a Bush criticism by one of his own party. Folks, these guys are all in robot lock-step. The fact that the Hagel's and Graham's step out every so often and make noise is diversionary.......look at the votes! In the end, they ALL toe the party line.
Posted by T2 at July 10, 2006 06:49 AMGraham never sold out--he was always in it "for the money". In effect, Lindsey Graham started his presidential campaign either for '08 or '12 when he ran for Senate. Now, as a Senator, he tries to play populist as long as it suits his interests. But make no mistake about it--this weasel has never been about "doing the right thing".
Posted by buck turgidson at July 10, 2006 08:09 AMI think we all know what the administration has on Graham.
Posted by Daath at July 10, 2006 08:17 AMWill the GOP "swift-boy" Lindsey in the primary, like they did McCain?
Posted by TIKI AL at July 10, 2006 09:07 AMWhere in the constitution does it guarantee civil rights to non-citzens that take up arms against the US. I reallly haven't seen in. The UCMJ applies to US military members not other militaries and the Geneva convention applies only to those countiries that have signed it. When did Al Queda sign?
Posted by Avenger D-22 at July 10, 2006 09:36 AMWhere in the constitution does it guarantee civil rights to non-citzens that take up arms against the US. I reallly haven't seen in. The UCMJ applies to US military members not other militaries and the Geneva convention applies only to those countiries that have signed it. When did Al Queda sign?
Christ! I'm lit-up like a Christmas tree and I can answer this one. Because, you stupid fucking git, we set a standard for the world to follow. Dumbshit. Fucking dumbshit. Go have sex with your mother or children and leave us alone. That's the standard, dumbshit.
Posted by phidipides at July 11, 2006 12:21 AMWE signed the Geneva Conventions, you nitwit, thus WE are bound by them.
Do you think maybe the Supreme Court would have spotted these arguments if they were applicable?
And by the way, the due process clause of the fifth amendment applies to all "persons" (including non-citizens), although that was not the issue in the Hamdan case.
Posted by euzoius at July 11, 2006 07:40 AM