 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
shawa
CNO
Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 2004
|
 Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 5:51 pm Post subject: Time for Lindsey Graham to wake up |
 |
|
I hope Lindsey Graham reads this SLAM from the paper of record in his home state.
| Quote: | The State
Time for Lindsey Graham to wake up
By JEFFREY SEWELL
Guest columnist
To say that Lindsey Graham has been a disappointment to the conservatives who were the heart and soul of his campaign would be an understatement. Unfortunately, our senior senator has moved from disappointing to downright dangerous.
In recent days, we have seen al-Qaida, in all of its videotape glory, threatening Americans with death and destruction unless we surrender to the Wahabbist strain of Islam and convert. We’ve seen “American al-Qaida” Adam Gadahn and his Egyptian cohort Ayman al-Zawahiri “invite us” to join Islam (or face destruction), while al-Jazeera runs old footage of Osama bin Laden with the 9/11 hijackers just to further emphasize the point.
The threat against America has never been so obvious or so ominous. I’m grateful that we have in President Bush a man who understands these threats and has acted to protect us from them.
Faced with this same threat, what is Sen. Graham’s response? Is it that protecting America is less important than protecting the American constitutional rights of foreign terrorists? Is it that judges who disagree with his Clinton-appointed JAG buddies about guaranteeing terrorist rights — which don’t exist in either the Geneva Convention or the U.S. Constitution — shouldn’t be confirmed to the federal bench?
Why would Sen. Graham want al-Qaida perpetrators to enjoy constitutional rights they have not earned and do not deserve?
It’s bad enough that Sen. Graham has so blatantly sought political advantage by tying himself to the political future of Sen. John McCain, evidently believing McCain to be the front-runner in the coming presidential race. It becomes worse when that effort endangers American security, as it has when he supported the awful McCain-Kennedy alien amnesty bill, or opposed efforts to deny illegal immigrant identity thieves the Social Security benefits they have wrongfully stolen, or when he single-handedly denies qualified men such as Jim Haynes from becoming federal judges (as reported by Lee Bandy in The State) or becoming the chief Republican Senate spokesman for terrorists rights.
Does he not realize that al-Qaida operatives are not American citizens deserving constitutional protection? Does he not realize that al-Qaida (or Hezbollah, or Hamas or Islamic Jihad) is not a nation-state signator to the Geneva Convention, and therefore not covered by its protections? Does he not realize that even if we granted these “rights” to terrorists, not a single one of our soldiers would ever be given reciprocal treatment by the barbarians we face in this struggle of civilizations? Does he not realize that, to the contrary, terrorist organizations will view these steps as weaknesses to exploit and a further signal to attack?
The positions the senator takes and the statements he makes have become direct detriments to the security of the United States and the citizens of South Carolina. Has he forgotten the lessons of 9/11, or did he simply never learn them?
For all of our sakes, I hope Sen. Graham wakes up to the dangers we face as a nation, and soon. Continuing on his current course would be disastrous for our country. |
Because Graham served as a JAG Officer, he assumes the authority to protect TERRORISTS RIGHTS?? Huh???
_________________
“I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. ‘Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.” (Thomas Paine, 1776) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
kate
Admin
Joined: 14 May 2004
Posts: 1891
Location: Upstate, New York
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
interesting note re JAG Officer Graham
Real Clear Politics
| Quote: | September 22, 2006
Separation of (Lindsey's) Powers
by JED BABBIN
No one outside the military justice community is likely to be aware of the September 20, 2006 decision in United States v. Lane by the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. It would be an uninteresting case, just a druggie being booted out of the military for the crime of cocaine use, but for the unusual Constitutional issue it decided: whether a sitting senator, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, can serve both as a member of the Senate under Article 1 of the Constitution and as a military judge under Article 2. The Court of Appeals ruled "no", in resounding terms.
The Constitution's Article 1 Section 6 says, in part, that, "No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the authority of the United States...and no Person holding any Office under the United States shall be a member of either House during his Continuance in Office." This is part of the Separation of Powers, known as the "incompatibility clause." The Supreme Court has said that, "The Constitution thereby...prohibits members of Congress from holding other offices through [this] limitation..."
Relying on Supreme Court cases dating back to 1879, the Court reversed and remanded to the lower court, writing that:
In this case, a Member of Congress is serving in a position that requires the exercise of judicial power to affirmatively find beyond a reasonable doubt that an accused committed a criminal offense, that there is no prejudicial error, and that the sentence is lawful and appropriate. A position that requires the exercise of those powers is an office of the United States and cannot be filled by a person who simultaneously serves as a Member of Congress.
This ruling effectively tosses Sen. Graham off the Air Force Court of Military Appeals. Sen. Graham is a member of the Judiciary Committee. One can only wonder what he would say to a judicial nominee who was as apparently ignorant of the Incompatibility Clause as he. |
odd that this conflict with the Incompatibility Clause hasn't come out before this case.
_________________
.
one of..... We The People |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
