Senator Graham Censured by Army Court
EmailSen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has been censured by an Army court on the same day he agreed to a deal with the White House outlining new provisions for military justice in cases involving suspected terrorists. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces yesterday held that Sen. Graham violated the Incompatibility Clause of the Constitution when, as a Reservist, he sat on the Air Force’s intermediate appellate court while also a member of the Senate. According to one military law expert, there is no penalty for Graham, but the court overturned the case on which Graham sat, entitling the defendant to a whole new appellate review of his court-martial. THE BLOTTER RECOMMENDS Public Corruption Now Top Priority for FBI, Over 2,200 Active Investigations Click Here for More of the Brian Ross Page It is unclear if the government will seek to appeal. If it doesn’t, Graham would have to give up his certification as an appellate military judge. A spokesman for Sen. Graham, Kevin Bishop, said the ruling was not a censure or a rebuke of "any kind." He said it was a "separation of powers" issue and referred all questions to the Air Force. Click Here to read the Opinion of the Court
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Finally Mr. know it all big shot Senator Graham is shut up!!!!
Posted by: Communications21 | September 21, 2006, 10:57 pm 10:57 pm
Sen Graham being a lawyer is never
going to admit guilt or conflict of
interest.
Whatever means used to circumvent
the Geneva Convention I remain ap-
palled at of alot of our leaders!!
It appears that arrogancy,decietful
ness and outright lies flourish in
and thruout politics, buisness,and
society.Greed,Greed & more Greed!
Posted by: John | September 21, 2006, 11:16 pm 11:16 pm
Why does anyone give this guy any credence whatsoever?
He was one of the House managers during the impeachment of President Clinton. He is a hack and nothing more.
Posted by: No New Texas | September 22, 2006, 12:05 pm 12:05 pm
At least you punks can’t call him a chickenhawk.
Posted by: Walter E. Wallis | September 22, 2006, 12:54 pm 12:54 pm
WWJT?
Who Would Jesus Torture?
It is not the gays, the feminists or Hollywood who will damn this country and leave us bereft of gods love. It is the pharisees of the republican party who torture, lie, and steal while claiming to be christians.
Matthew 6:5
Posted by: feckless | September 22, 2006, 1:04 pm 1:04 pm
I’m not surprised. Graham was in on lieing to three federal courts and the supreme court in amicus briefs containing ficticious debate concocted by his nibs, John ‘I cannot tell the truth’ Kyl and Brownback of Kansas. Appearently the people of South Carolina Love such a liar or they don’t think “reading is fundemental”.
Posted by: Lyle | September 22, 2006, 4:26 pm 4:26 pm
As we in SC know, Sen. Graham is a very nice boy and a sweet man. Walter E. Wallis seems to think that the senator’s service compares favorably to combat duty. No surprise there, since the real armchair generals and Monday morning quarterbacks in this country today are the ones who suppoert this degrading and incompetent administration and its embarrassing performance in all of its ventures, except of course the conversion of the the US treasury into a piggy bank for Cheney and Bush. Real patriot you, Walt.
Posted by: joecgillis | September 22, 2006, 5:16 pm 5:16 pm
I don’t suppose that any of the players in this game have read any or all of the Sermon on the Mount. And, if they have read it, I suppose that they believe it was written for the ‘common’ folk, not for the great (?) and powerful men of our country.
My understand is that the Sermon is not a suggestion but is a rule for those who claim His name.
Posted by: dorothy morris | September 22, 2006, 7:52 pm 7:52 pm
I love it the way a party that demeans all military service suddenly becomes sensitive about the nature of that duty when it comes to excoriating political opponents. Is a CIB and 5 battle stars enough for you, sonny boy?
Posted by: Walter E. Wallis | September 23, 2006, 10:05 am 10:05 am
What! They’re not going to waterboard him?
Posted by: Eileen | September 23, 2006, 11:16 pm 11:16 pm
5 Battle Stars??? for a LAWYER??
Must have been a hot day in the courtroom.
Posted by: Cole... | September 24, 2006, 11:53 am 11:53 am
“a party that demeans all military service” – - what a moronic comment, really . . . How anyone sees Bush and Cheney as having provided any military service or service of any kind, other than self service for them and theirs is way past believable at this point as the country heads to financial meltdown next year, hopeful the “true believers” will get exactly what they have coming, unfortunately the rest of us will also find our lives changing remarkably for the worse – - you can’t have organized criminals run a country and “bust it out” and think things will continue on nicely as they have in the past, have a good one Walt . . .
Posted by: XUSArmy | September 24, 2006, 1:37 pm 1:37 pm
You have 2 choices. Get tough & fight or be prepared to like in a restrictive Islamic world.
Posted by: Never Surrender | September 25, 2006, 8:12 pm 8:12 pm
Never Surrender wrote: “You have 2 choices. Get tough & fight or be prepared to like in a restrictive Islamic world.”
If what you say is true, why did we then invade one of the few non-Islamic countries in the Middle East?
When this is all finished, we’ll have replaced a secular government in Iraq with an Islamic one. Was that what you were intending?
Posted by: Tom Ritchford | September 25, 2006, 9:49 pm 9:49 pm
He [Kevin Bishop]said it was a “separation of powers” issue and referred all questions to the Air Force.
Since when is ANY Republican interested in SEPARATION OF POWERS?? I guess when it’s time to “punish” someone who has been opposing their stance on something, in this case, torture, of course.
Posted by: Betty | September 25, 2006, 10:22 pm 10:22 pm
PS: Everyone in SC is wondering why such a sweet guy like Graham is not supporting gay marriages or gays in the military???
Double standard I guess!!!
Posted by: joecgillis | September 26, 2006, 3:46 pm 3:46 pm
The nature of the issue with Senator Graham isn’t one of conflict of interest. It revolves around an issue of civilian control over the military but military control over itselves once action is authorized by civil authorities. There are a number of legislators who are in the reserves. Although most are Republican, there have been Democrats as well. No one complains when these representatives serve in combat or in support thereof. The statutory framework is one that is not entirely fleshed out and the courts have been dealing with issues of first impression on issues similar to the one present here. One should use caution in demeaning those who do not serve in combat. They remain an essential part of the military. Those in combat are merely the tip of the spear. Without the rest of the spear, the tip is aimless and immobile. The majority of our service men and women do not see combat so perhaps those dismissing the value of their service should be sure their brain is engaged before running their mouths.
Posted by: pat moran | September 29, 2006, 4:05 pm 4:05 pm
“The majority of our service men and women do not see combat so perhaps those dismissing the value of their service should be sure their brain is engaged before running their mouths.” — Pat Moran
I don’t know what PMs data source is on that, but I guess the majority avoids combat duty by the military’s process of sending the same 500,000 people back to combat zones over and over again if they survive their initial tour(s).
I’m sure the value of their service is maximized by each deployment to the combat zone, and other service members can feel more minimized each day that they do not receive orders to a combat zone.
The Navy’s training of sailors in Army weapons systems at Fort Jackson, SC so they can deploy to Iraq and help with tasks like perimeter security and driving trucks provides new and exciting opportunities for them to be part of the Army of One and enjoy the variety of a Navy career that’s not just a job, it’s an Adventure.
Posted by: MNVet | September 30, 2006, 2:49 pm 2:49 pm