Sen. Graham: 'Incredibly Disappointed' With Terror Suspect's Trial

Yawn.

MSG Stan Hutchison - Dear MSG, Congress did not need to declare war. They passed the AUMF; just as good for capturing bad guys and holding them for interrogation and possible prosecution for war crimes. Deciding on your own that Obama was "wrong" for droning an American al Qaeda is nice, but has no legal weight. "Enemy combatant" is a description. Just like "unlawful combatant." It refers to the opposite of a lawful combatant. You are familiar with opposites? Therefore, those who do not follow the Geneva Conventions or Law of Land Warfare are "unlawful," and get ZERO extra legal privileges. Privileges and protected status come with following the rules. You are familiar with rules? How about, "Don't do the crime if you can't pay the time?" Your idea that a Citizen of this country is above the responsibility of citizenship is startling. Rights cannot exist without responsibilities, which must balance for justice to be served. It is true that American justice would rather see a guilty man go free rather than see an innocent man punished, but nothing is perfect. If you break the rules there are consequences, no matter your citizenship. And by the way, in 2013, when then President Obama declared an end to the Global War on Terror it did not mean that the war was over. He didn't rule be decree, although many acted as if he did. Our enemies insisted then, and insist now that we are indeed smack in the middle of a war, declared or not.

MAJ Montgomery Granger - At least you are consistently wrong. The AUMF is not a declaration of war. Second, SCOTUS has already said that you can't take legal privileges away from people. They are either POWs or illegal combatants, and if they are illegal combatants, you have to provide them with due process whether in civilian court or military court.

This is relatively simple, and it is both in statutory law and case law. You don't get to deny rights to people because you don't understand Constitutional law.

MAJ Montgomery Granger - We can have a discussion without you being condescending, can't we?
I will repeat my #4 point from above:
4. I will never support allowing a citizen of this country to be denied his Constitutional rights. That is a very slippery slope to go down.

I think you are obsessed with the Constitution. It's a living, breathing document that could never stand on its own. Common law, International law, military law, wars, insurrection, invasion, Congress, the Executive; all these things and many more, including litigation. Lindsey Graham has been a JAG officer his entire career and is much more learned on International and military law than you or I are. If this is a personality thing with you, shame on you, Sir. If you truly have a passion for the law, I respect that, I'm sure you can share it in a more gentlemanly way.

MAJ Montgomery Granger - I'm familiar with Col. Graham's service and record. Are you aware that from 1995 to 2005, he had only two good years for retirement? Or that he was promoted to Lt. Col. and Col. without have completed the Air Command and Staff College and Air War College? Or that during his long assignment as a Senior Instructor at the JAG school at Maxwell AFB, he didn't teach a single class?

Second, some of Sen. Graham's statements and positions, such as his one supporting the CSRTs, were later shown to be in error when it was determined that "classification as an enemy combatant by a CSRT actually supports, rather than precludes, a finding of POW status. Thus, the CSRTs could not strip detainees of their presumptive POW status simply by finding them to be enemy combatants." Joseph Blocher, Combatant Status Review Tribunals: Flawed Answers to the Wrong Question, 116 Yale L.J. 667, 671 (2006).

By the same token, Sen. Graham has been uniformly consistent on the idea of holding enemy combatants for the duration of the "war"--in the same manner that we hold POWs. His discussion of the issue during the confirmation hears of now Justice Kagan when she was being confirmed as Solicitor General are very instructive on his views. Next, Sen. Graham was one who pushed to deny rights of due process to detainees--and that was shot down repeatedly by the Supreme Court.

Finally, what you are proposing has already been ruled out by the Supreme Court as being against the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court has said what the law is, and that is the province of the the judiciary, and solely their province. You swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, but you are proposing that we ignore the law, to ignore the Supreme Court rulings, and to deprive detainees of their rights under United States law, against that very Constitution. That's wrong, and although I've pointed out what the Court has said, you ignore that to press on with your proposal to ignore the Constitution. I think that's shameful.

Capt Gregory Prickett - I served a total of 22 years, 20 of them "good" for retirement. Does that make me less capable or competent? Mr. Graham's opinions differ from yours, but not mine. Those of us who study Geneva and the Law of War are at a disadvantage over those who prefer to only reference the U.S. Constitution, like yourself. The six German saboteurs who were executed in 1942 after being caught dry-foot on American soil, who were denied habeas and tried by military commission, by unanimous consent of the Supreme Court. What's different now?

MAJ Montgomery Granger - for one thing, the law is different, both the Geneva Conventions and statutory law. Second, the Army FM that you are so fond of is not law. Third, if you are talking about Ex parte Quirin, it was eight, not six saboteurs. All eight were sentenced to death, but one was commuted to life and another to 30 years. You may want to look at Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2 (1866), because that case says you can't use a military tribunal where civilian courts are still operating.

You might take a step back, too. What makes you think that I haven't studied or considered both the conventions and the law of war? You know, there's more than just FM 27-10 (which doesn't govern the Air Force, Navy, or Marines, in any event). There is the DOD Law of War Manual, Naval Warfare Information Publication 10- 2, Air Force Pamphlet 110-31, along with other various pamphlets and non-regulatory documents.

Finally, as to Sen. Graham's service, I was pointing out that the Air Force treated him differently than other JAG officers, because he was a senator. Any other officer who only had two good years out of ten, did not have AC&SC or the Air War College, would have been separated from the service, not promoted to colonel.

MCPO, I don't think the constitution covers foreign enemies or combatants. I could be wrong but I think we the people made this an issue.

Could be wrong, but.....


https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/after-green-card-granted/rights-and-responsibilities-permanent-resident/rights-and-responsibilities-green-card-holder-permanent-resident

SPC Robert Coventry - you're incorrect. The Constitution covers anyone within the boundaries of the United States. MCPO Roger Collins is exactly right.

I’m taking a picture of that, Capt.