No Nomination Games Being Played June 15, 2006

I agree that something needs to be done about the obstruction of judicial nominees, but what can be done so that we do not change to operation of the Senate? The “nuclear option” is no option at all because it will destroy the Senate.

Sen. Graham is blocking Mr. Haynes on principle because of his role in the torture scandal. No game here. Mr. Haynes wrote and endorsed the memos.

You bet that there would be cries of foul play if his election were moved up to tomorrow because it is not supposed to be until 2008. He is not supportive of nominees colling their heels for years, but the one in question is problematic and there was some given up by the compromise.

The abuses have existed for a long time, but that does not mean we need a radical solution that makes irreversible changes.

I support the reforms because it would give all nominees of all presidents a fair vote, however, the Senators should have a right to block if there are substantial concerns, such as there are with Mr. Haynes.

I do not have a problem with knowing who is doing the blocking, however, a rules change should be done without the “nuclear option” and the Specter approach is a good start.

Response to “Lord on Judicial Nominations” on ConfirmThem.

Glad to Be Sen. Graham’s Friend June 15, 2006

Paul at PowerLine is as disappointed in Sen. Graham’s lack of a response to the issue of weather he is blocking the Haynes nomination as he is in the senator’s recent letter to conservative groups. The partisanship of the retired military officer does not matter as long as his concerns are valid. I am sure that Paul would be siging a different turn if this military officer were a partisan Republican. The other man mentioned, Mr. Guter is not incoherent just becasue he disagrees with a policy. If Mr. Haynes could not break from his ’superiors’ as General Counsel of DoD than it is right to question his indepedence as a judge when dealing with the cases that are sure to come before the court in the interceeding years.

Sen. Graham is relying on the testimony of former officers that either worked with Haynes or in the environment that Haynes created when he sold out his DoD position to go along with the Jusitce Department position. It is unfair to say that Sen. Graham is ignoring pro-Haynes viewpoints of the officer cited. If Maj. Gen. Michael Marchand would go in and talk to him or write a letter to him than He would consider his viewpoint as well.

He is talking about the JAG memos, which took him a year and one-half to get and they were classified for some unknown reason. He refers to these memos because they represented DoD policy and the concerns about the effect on the service men and women were valid. If the advice was followed than why couldn’t the Senator have them sooner? If they weren’t doing aything wrong why classify the opinion of the JAGs when the memos between Bybee, Haynes, Gonzales, and the other civilian lawyers were made public? Why did Secretary Rumsfeld later have to decertify some of the methods and why are we still dealing with this if he listened to their advice and the document addressed their concerns?

The argument that Sen. Graham did not consider the views of Maj. Gen. Roning or supoprters of Haynes is wrong because just the fact that he called someone that poisitively assessed Haynes is telling about his willingness to consider views contrary to his own and the critics.

The letter does not directly address the issue of his role in stopping the Haynes nomination, but conservatives have drawn the conclusion from the wording that he is the impediment. This is no surprise to me because he has said that there was one nominee that he would vote against and I think Haynes is that nominee. If the Haynes nomination goes through committee and to the floor there will be a filibuster and I would rather see Sen. Graham do everything in his power to preserve the civility and working order of the Senate.

No Enemies of Jim Haynes, Just People Asking Pertinent Questions June 8, 2006

As Paul at PowerLineBlog points out Jim Haynes has his defenders who are also people who worked with him. If there is nothing wrong with him being a plaintiff against Secretary Rumsfeld in a case over abuses with the ACLU and being on the National Veterans for Kerry sterering committee, than why mentionthis becasue it is not relevant except as a tool to say look here’s a liberal who worked against the Presidnet in an election and was willing to work with the ACLU as a way to tarnish his argument and call it incoherent. He may say there is nothing wrong with this but it is enough to plant doubt in the minds of people who might have been willing to support the argument before that Haynes was unfit. This casts a political question that does not belong. I do not believe that this stuff would have even been mentioned if he had worked with say the ACLJ on a case or the Bush Veterans Committee.

Paul has also spoken with a former co-worker that says good things about Mr. Haynes. However, this alone does not take away the serious and important questions being raised by the retired officers, Sen. Graham, and Sen. McCain about his role in the torture scandal.

Why is it not a good enough reason for him to have been instrumental in writing and approving memos that may have contributed to the environment of the Abu Ghraib situation? To me and others this is enough. He may be a dedcated civil servant with the ability to serve on the vourt, however, the nomination is derailed not for political reasons, but for reasons of principle. We don;t torture and we should not condone or support it either. The Haynes nomination is a chance for us to make a conclusive statement about torture and the memos. It is no more disgusting that the nomination is held up than if it were a nominee you did not like who had the same background.

Lindsey Graham may have been blocking Haynes’ nomination, but he is doing so for a reason or principle, not because of politics. The Judiciary Committee is the place to stop an undesirable nominee. If you want him out of Committee so bad and believe he is being blocked get a majority of senators to sign discharge papers and move him out of committee without a vote. Lindsey is doing the honorable thing standing up for who the American people are and that we do not stand for torture even of terror suspects. He is not carrying water for John McCain, but standing on his own two feet. This is a risk for their political careers, but I contend that it is one worth taking. I do not live in South Carolina, but I write letters supporting the block becasue I feel it is the way that we best serve the country and keep the court room a quiet place where everyone can feel that they will recieve justice. The block is the honorable course. I think that the good people of South Carolina should lend moral support in his block of the Haynes nomination becasue of the torture issue. Lindsey is a fine public servant, but he does not support torture. This is his way of telling us that the president is not going to completely get his way and that is correct.

The Critics of Jim Haynes Aren’t Incoherrent June 7, 2006

I will listen to retired high ranking military officers who were JAG lawyers; Sen. Graham, a current JAG lawyer, and John McCain before I would listen to conservative activists about the nomination of Jim Haynes. Why? Because all these men have been lawyers who deal with the law of war or in John McCain’s case a former POW.

Lindsey Graham’s block on the Haynes nomination is standing for a principle that we have always stood for; we do not torture. They should be unhappy about his role with regard to the treatment of GITMO detainees and what happened at Abu Ghraib becasue it is contrary to our values as a nation.

If a retired admiral says that Haynes was unwilling to listen to the opinion of the JAG lawyers then it has credibility becasue he worked inside with him. It also has credibility becasue there was a mini war between the civilian Defense Department attorneys and the JAGs. This battle over detainee treatment calminated in a report by the JAGs and an evntual rescinding of some of the original tactics by the Secretary of Defense. Haynes’ job was to advocate for the policy based on Defense Department standards not those of the Justice Department becasue the military fights the war and know its laws.

Haynes, as the chief lawyer for DoD, would have had exclusive control of the legal envirnment that led to abuses at Abu Ghraib. Signing memos that allowed for inhumane treatment of detainees and tactics short of death would have contributed to this situation. Sexual humiliation did not have to appear on the list of approved tactics becasue anything short of death was approved.

Some of the decisions were not made by Haynes, but he could have stood up as a lawyer and said to whoever wanted to do these things, such as keeping people inperpetuity, that it couldn’t and shouldn’t be done.

Haynes was obliged to make sure the policy did not end up as it was in the first place. If he had done this he would be confirmed no problem. He may be an independent judge, but his involvement in the torture scandal and the memos is enough to disqualify him. It is also his job as Defense Department Counsel to argue for policies weather from Justice or not that are in keeping with the rules set down in the UCMJ, statutes, and treaties. He doesn’t get off the hook that easily.

I am sorry, I will take the word of admirals before I take the word of a law professor who had an arranged meeting with the nominee to discuss these issues in particular. The admirals worked with him at the time of the policy debate and the memo writing so they would have deeper insight into his true intent and mind. It is easy to show concern after the fact when you know you are being looked at for a court seat, but he may have showed no such concern at the time.

Lindsey Graham has been trying to prevent a vote on the merits because of the policy and the interest of the JAG lawyers not being listened to during the policy debate. Their concerns were completely ignored until we were caught with the abuses. Lindsey Graham is right, Haynes deserves to be blocked.

Response to “The Incoherence of Jim Haynes’ Critics” by Paul at PowerLineBlog