/* ------------------- begin IP Block script ------------------- Block IP address script Points to php script on blog.racetotheright.com IP addresses are within the script ---------- */ /* -------------------- end IP Block script ------------------- */

Friday, September 29, 2006

Newsweek: Grahm: Battling Bush

--posted by Pete Arnold on 9/29/2006

Every time one of these "War Against Bush" Democrats talks, I don't know weather to punch a kitten or put on a strait jacket. Here is a "Republican" doing the same.

Newsweek is talking here about Sen. Lindsey Grahm, who has:

Played a key role in opposing President Bush's plan to authorize military tribunals for terror suspects and reinterpret the Geneva Conventions to permit some aggressive interrogation techniques.
Okay, for one, just to point out how correct I am (cauz I'm a dick like that) Newsweek puts the word "President" in font of "Bush" because that is correct grammar, to use a person's title and all... so when someone says "Battling Bush" they should be saying "Battling President Bush" or you could say "Battling the President of the United States of America." I guess to shorten it, you could say "Battling the USA." interesting huh? (BTW, I'm not in agreement with the President's (correct English) whole Immigration thing, I just think when your blinded by choosing your actions that oppose someone else, you are a moron.)

Anyway... on with the show.

In this article, Newsweek asks some questions to Grahm, and of coarse, Grahm (can I just call him Cracker?) goes on and on about his opposition to President Bush and protecting America.

Lets take a look at some of the questions and his answers:

Newsweek:How do you see the military commission and torture issues playing out? Is the president going to get the legislation he wants?
This idea of trying somebody where they don’t get [to see] the evidence against them, but the jury does—that’s dead. That’s going nowhere...
Okay, terrorists get the same rights as American citizens. Whatev.
Newsweek:Why are you so against it?
Grahm:Let me give you the best example. What if a CIA paramilitary guy is caught in Iran, trying to find out about the Iranian [nuclear] program? What would our response be if the Iranian government put them on trial as a war criminal? And had a procedure where the prosecutor could give to the jury or the judge a file marked “secret” and never provide that to the accused? We would scream bloody murder ... We would go crazy.

Grahm, I hate to brake it to you, but the Terrorists against us represent NO country. Which means the whole POW thing doesn't apply to them. Lets look at what the the Deffinition of POW by the Geneva Conventions.
A prisoner of war (POW) is a soldier, sailor, airman, or marine who is imprisoned by an enemy power during or immediately after an armed conflict.
The laws apply from the moment a prisoner is captured until he is released or repatriated. One of the main provisions of the convention makes it illegal to torture prisoners, and states that a prisoner can only be required to give his name, date of birth, rank and service number (if applicable).
Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention protects captured military personnel, guerrilla fighters and certain civilians.
In principle, to be entitled to prisoner of war status, the captured service member must have conducted operations according to the laws and customs of war, e.g. be part of a chain of command, wear a uniform and bear arms openly. Thus, franc-tireurs, terrorists and spies may be excluded. In practice these criteria are not always interpreted strictly. Guerrillas, for example, may not wear a uniform or carry arms openly, yet are typically granted POW status if captured.
Holy Nutz. Terrorists may be excluded because... they must have conducted operations according to the laws and customs of War. And Terrorists don't, this is WHY its called TERRORISM! By your own definition, Grahm, the Spy we sent it wouldn't count either. Any knowledge of his mission would be disavowed. Didn't you ever watch freak'in Mission Impossible?

Terrorism refers to the use of violence against noncombatants for the purpose of
achieving a political goal, on a scale smaller than full-scale warfare.
Just so everyone is clear on this. Terrorists are not POWs. Any Questions?

Newsweek:What do you make of the president’s comments at [last Friday’s] news conference [in which he threatened to terminate the CIA interrogation program if the White House legislation doesn’t pass.]
Grahm:He seemed pretty worked up about this. He’s probably frustrated. But how many people have died in Iraq over the last few days?
Okay. Grahm takes the topic of the conversation from the President's comments about CIA Interrogation to how many people die in Iraq. He is a democrat, I can understand that... perfectly clear link... right? No.
Yea, Cracker. Frustrated because people like YOU don't seam to understand stuff like the difference between "Terrorist" and "POW." Seriously! I can look this stuff up in 10 mn while watching an Episode of Penn & Teller's Bullshit!

Every day, there are scores of people getting killed in Iraq.
Yeah, but we’re not talking about that. We’re talking about this. So the president is getting to talk about something other than Iraq. He’s getting good build-up from his base. He’s getting beat up by you guys [in the media] a bit. I’m getting hit from the right. The politics of this is a mixed bag.
SCREEEEEEEEEEACH! What? Um, we're not talking about... what were we talking about? Oh, we were talking about the CIA... no, people dieing in Iraq... no, something other then Iraq? Getting beat up? awha, WTF.

Newsweek:Another big issue is the use of aggressive interrogation techniques like water-boarding [a simulated drowning experience], sleep deprivation and other techniques that might be considered abusive.
Grahm:Have we gotten useful intelligence using these techniques? I don’t know. I’m not on [the Senate intelligence] committee. And I wouldn’t believe them if they told me .... I know the prosecutor at Gitmo believes that water-boarding inherently renders a statement involuntary. Water-boarding is a near drowning experience. It’s pretty hard to say that a person voluntarily gave you something there. It may have been accurate. But it sure wasn’t voluntary. So they don’t need to go down that road. They don’t need all that stuff ...
Let me refer again to the Geneva Conventions:

It is illegal to torture POWs.
Terrorists are not POWs.
Secondly, we DO need all that stuff. Look at what he said:

It may have been accurate. But it sure wasn’t voluntary.
Duha. I don't think any member of a terrorist organization that wants all US peoples killed... would have been captured voluntary. Neither would a criminal of any kind in the US. Well, crap. I guess we can't question someone who is suspected of a crime because based on his capture not being Voluntary, he has suffered some type of torture? NEXT!

Are there no circumstances in which we should use them?
Grahm:Either we’re going to use torture or we’re not. And when you say, we won’t use torture, unless we think we really, really need it [then] we’re not a rule-of-law nation ... John [McCain] and I argue. We love “24.”
Holy crap. He actually took an opportunity to attack a Television show... which doesn't happen to endorse peace and love and roses and rainbows with terrorists... And a really good TV show at that. I bet he can credit blame President Bush's poll numbers going up on "24" somehow.
And for him to say "Either we do or we don't" is kind of like an open ended argument. Either killing a human is wrong or its not... Either a fetus is a human or not... then we walk right over to an abortion argument with two steps.

Newsweek:You mean the TV show?
Grahm:He memorizes it. That’s his favorite TV show. These guys going all around, shooting people in the kneecaps. And he won’t miss an episode. But he’ll come back the next day and say, we still have got to treat people right. ..What if the president of the United States were told there’s a terrorist somewhere and we believe he knows where lethal weapons are. If the president of the United States authorizes people—‘do whatever you have to do’—here’s what we’d be giving up: If we let our chief of state decide the law is getting in the way, what’s to prevent some other [foreign] chief of state from saying, ‘that American pilot we’ve captured, he knows where the next bomb wave is coming, do what you got to do.’ That’s what’s hard about being a democracy ... The enemy has no moral dilemma. They don’t sit around wondering, what do we do here? People tell me—hah! They’ll cut our heads off. I say, ‘I know that. So what do we do? Cut their heads off? What does that make us? It might make us feel better. But you’ll wake up one day and the next thing you know, you’ve lost your way.’
For the love of God. Again with the whole "terrorists are equal" crap. Besides, I don't think anyone wants the terrorist's heads cut off... if their dead, they won't learn nuth'in... and neither will we...

Why do you care so much about this issue?
For the past 20 something years, I’ve been a military lawyer. Every military lawyer I’ve ever met believes that this is vital for the safety of our troops .... I can give you dozens of example of cases involving captured Americans where abuse stopped at a certain point because the people doing it were afraid of being prosecuted as a war criminal ... During the Somalia conflict, they had one of our helicopter pilots. We dropped leaflets all over Mogadishu telling everybody, all the militia people, that we were watching, and that anybody who abuses this person will be a war criminal and we will come after you ...
Damn, this guy doesn't stop. Captured Americans are just that: Americans. They are from America. These terrorists again, don't qualify under the Geneva Conventions because they do not claim to be Iraqi, or Saudi, or what have you. They claim to be Muslim, which is not a country. If they were Iraqi, they would be handled different when captured.

Newsweek:Did you deal with these issues as a military Judge Advocate General (JAG)?
What I’ve done, like every other JAG, is teach the law of armed conflict. There is a pretty famous case back in Vietnam where a downed pilot, I think it was a Navy guy, got shot down. And a couple of Vietcong guys came up to him, captured him. He raised his hands in surrender, they dropped their weapons. He lowered his hands, got his pistol out and shot both of them. He came back to the carrier and started bragging about it. He ended up getting prosecuted—because he feigned surrender. That’s a violation of the law of armed conflict. You know, people may think that’s silly. But I told that story to all the pilots, just to say: ‘Your country will be advocating there for you. But you have to do your part too’ .... I know Al Qaeda are a bad bunch of people, I know the Taliban [are], you know, animals. But every war in the future won’t be with them.

Yes, thank you for pointing this out.... the whole "al Qaeda are a bad bunch of people" thing. And the American who shot those guy should haven prosecuted, under the rules, that’s right... If people are willing to follow the rules... rules work great. Right, Al Qaeda?

Newsweek:What did you make of former Secretary of State Colin Powell’s letter [opposing the president’s plan and stating that “the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism.”] How did that come about?
That was John [McCain] talking to Powell ... I know Powell is really committed to this.

Opposing the plan that I've been tearing apart just by reading the Geneva Convetions? Whatever. I know I'm no expert, but... I'm more of an expert then most of the people I talk to... Except you, Tony! (no realy, I'm smarter.) Just kidding Tony! ;)

Newsweek:One thing I’m hearing from defense lawyers is that you still have the language in there that’s going to deny habeas corpus rights, strip access to the federal courts for all the other detainees who are still locked up in Guantánamo.
Grahm:That’s absolutely right.

Well, if you swing with a blindfold on long enough, you'll eventually hit a baby seal... thats how the saying goes, isn't it? Anyway, you can read all about Habeaus Corpus here and its suspension in the War on Terror here. Liberals yelp that all this means is President Bush can come to your house, arrest you, and your cat, and hold you forever and ever and ever. Why don't you read about it (apparently unlike the liberals do) and come to your own conclusion... go ahead. I'll wait...

What that means is there will be trials for the big 9/11 conspirators like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, but everybody else could be stuck in indefinite limbo with no access to the courts.
Bullshit. There are 400 and something lawsuits filed against our guys complaining about the food, the TV access, all kinds of crap. Prisoners of war don’t sue their captors .... Habeas rights came about because the Bush administration took such a hard line. What we did last year [in the Detainee Treatment Act] is say, dismiss those lawsuits about conditions of your imprisonment, replace that with a right to go to ... the D.C. Court of Appeals and you can appeal whether or not you were validly confined as an enemy combatant ... They’ll have their day in court to challenge whether or not the government has properly confined them ... But we’re not going to give them the ability to bring medical malpractice lawsuits.

President Bush takes a hard line. Gawd damn right. That’s why I voted for him... remember Kerry's hard lines (link is to CBS even!)?

But the Guantánamo detainees have been declared enemy combatants at Pentagon hearings which were not real trials. They had the same flaws you just said you don’t want to see in these military commission trials. The detainees weren’t able to see the evidence against them.
They do get redacted versions of why they’re an enemy combatant. Under a law of armed conflict, you can have one person say, ‘OK, you’re an enemy combatant. This is a military decision.’

Yep... thats correct.

But isn’t the practical effect of all this going to be the small fry—not the big September 11 conspirators like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed—but the small fry will stay there indefinitely without having the right to challenge any of the evidence against them?
That was true of the Germans and the Japanese ... But here’s the practical effect. If you’re a small fry and you’re not dangerous, and we got all the intelligence we can get out of you, well, we’ve let 230 go. We don’t have a desire to keep these people in jail, we don’t want to be the world’s jailors... But if that person is truly a member of an enemy force that is committed to your destruction, you don’t have to let them go. And there’s no requirement to try him as a war criminal. That’s the way war works.

Thats correct to. This guy is pretty slimey, but he still has an R on his name, so some of the stuff is logical. The Libs wouldn't agree with this fact either... which points out that it's probably common sence.

I’ve been hearing from all these defense lawyers who say the process is pretty unfair regardless.
Well, if I was a defense lawyer, I’d be bitching too.

Defence lawyers... Like the ones that worked for OJ Simpson? ehhh... thats a streach, but i'm trying to comment on everything he says... Next!

So are we going to have a bill on this soon?
Grahm:Yeah, I think a bill will come out of committee [this] week. It’s going to be something we all can live with. I’ve got things that I think are just a bridge too far. I’m willing to give, but I can’t sit by and watch a guy be tried and, even though I may hate his guts, he never gets to see the evidence against him ... You know what I’ve learned from this? I can see how easy it was to put all the Japanese in jail [during World War II]. The temptations are great to lash out and fight back. But history tells us, in the long run, the way we’ve tried to live our life as a nation is the best way, that the higher purpose of our reason to exist as a nation always serves us better than going the low road ... The bottom line—why does Lindsey care about this—I don’t love the terrorists, I just love what Americans stand for.

A bill. Yes sir. The ACLU says "Legislation Upends the Rule of Law." You know what we here say about the ACLU? If they are against it, we are for it... If the ACLU is for it, we are against it.

What he says about the best way and higher purpose and all that... Bahm. Right on. His line about not loving terrorists, just what americans stand for... not quite sure what he means by that... he's been a couple of places in this little interview. I don't know, even with that great ending, I'm not getting a warm fuzzy from Sen. Lindsey Grahm.

Labels: ,


Post a Comment

<< Home