G.O.P. Senator Resisting Bush Over Detainees

[spindrifter]

By KATE ZERNIKE
Published: July 18, 2006

WASHINGTON, July 17 — Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina often plays the contrarian, the conservative Republican willing to poke a stick in the eye of the White House.

Now Mr. Graham is playing an even higher-profile variant of that role, as the Senate’s foremost expert on military law in the midst of the emotional debate over what rights to provide to terror suspects.

A former military lawyer who is also a reserve judge on the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, his influence is shaping up to be pivotal in forming the Congressional response to the Supreme Court ruling striking down the White House’s plan for bringing terror detainees to trial.

Mr. Graham advocates using the existing court-martial system as the basis for trying suspects, a position that has drawn fire from many other Republicans. They say it could cripple the government’s ability to protect the nation by giving detainees too many rights and making it harder to use highly classified intelligence against them.

<more>

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/18/washington/18graham.html?hp&ex=1153195200&en=044baea5f5792f04&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[salinen]

1. Kate Zernike

must be insane. Graham pokes it in alright.

[kurth]

2. Graham votes with the fascists 90+ percent of the time

He's an asshole just like every Republican on the hill. Why are they calling him a "maverick"?

BULLSHIT.

[pinto]

3. See your point, but don't discount his influence on this issue.

His opposition is a wedge on the detainee legal situation.

[ClassWarrior]

4. Agreed. We gotta use these Cons whenever we can.

Divide and conquer.

NGU.

[BlooInBloo]

5. Keep falling for it folks.... Just like DUers fall for...

... "the Specter tough-talk"

Suckers.


EDIT: Democrats should really take what TPM said to heart: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/009059.php - and stop falling for the silly "oh this could change it all!" crap.

[ClassWarrior]

6. Oh yes, it's better to divide us with names like "suckers," right?

NGU.

[BlooInBloo]

8. (shrug) If pointing out repetitive, silly errors is "dividing", then yes.

But notice it's only "dividing" if those making the errors don't care about making errors. Like in the Leopold debacle.

If people actually care about not making errors, it's not dividing.

[ClassWarrior]

7. Point to where the poster said "oh this could change it all"...

I'm waiting...

Oh, that's right, the poster said this could be a useful wedge.

Sheesh.

NGU.

[pinto]

9. I'm not saying this "could change it all", nor do I believe for

a minute that one comment makes for anything momentous.

It's an interesting comment from a hard core RW'er in a position (committee) of influence...It's been reported in the press. Nothing more nor nothing less.