jump to navigation

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

Posted by Judith in Judiciary.
Tags: , , , ,
add a comment

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

Posted by Judith in Judiciary.
Tags: , , , ,
add a comment
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

Haynes Should be Blocked from Being on the Court May 24, 2006

Posted by Judith in Judiciary.
Tags: , , , ,
add a comment

In a “Vote that Shouldn’t be Ducked” Paul at PowerLine accuses Sen. Graham of ducking a negative vote on the nomination of Jim Haynes for the Fourth Circuit by blocking the nomination from moving out of the Judiciary Committee. This is based on an article in The Hill newspaper that says Graham is blocking the nomination.

I do not agree that he is ducking the vote. He has counted the tea leaves and sees enough votes in Committee to approve the nomination and then on the floor to confirm him. The only way to prevent the battle over the policy at Guantonomo from heating up again is to block the nomination. This is a better course of action than participating in a filibuster which would be hypocritical.

Blocking Haynes a Good Move April 4, 2006

Posted by Judith in Judiciary.
Tags: , , , , ,
add a comment

EdWhalen reports that “According to a very knowledgeable non-Senate source, the news is much worse for Fourth Circuit nominee William Haynes: Senator McCain is committed to stopping Haynes’s confirmation, and Senator Graham, as a favor to Senator McCain, will keep the nomination from being reported out of committee. If this news is accurate, it would appear that there is no hope for Haynes’s nomination.”

Paul at Power Line anlyzes this in the following manner: “

As I have argued, Haynes, an outstanding public servant, is being made the scapegoat for questionable legal advice provided by the Justice Department with respect to the interrogation of detainees. Haynes used that advice to provide guidance to the military, as he should have. If Haynes had provided legal advice inconsistent with the position of the Justice Department, he would have demonstrated a lawlessness that might constitute grounds for blocking his confirmation.

If McCain wants to punish an administration official for playing a key role in the development of our policy on interrogating detainees, a better target would be Attorney General Gonzales. The “offending” legal advice was prepared for Gonzales who then was the president’s counsel. Unlike Haynes, Gonzales arguably was in a position to cause the Justice Department’s position to be rejected.

But going after Gonzales would have injured McCain’s attempt to cast himself as a friend of the White House. Blocking Haynes, McCain must assume, carries no cost. And perhaps it doesn’t. But a pattern of these sorts of cynical calculations might.”

I do not think that Mr. McCain’s calculation is a cynical or wrong. Mr. Haynes could have protested more when the subject was discussed in meetings or argued against the memo once he received it, but he did neither, just implementing it until caught.

Mr. Graham has always said that their was one nominee he could not support and I have known that this was Haynes because of his role in the torture scandal. Blocking him for not disputing the legal advice of the justice department is a good move because he supports breaking the law passed to ban torture and might still support arguments to do so and thus allow the President’s signing statement to prevail in any argument over torture rather than the statute. This is bad for the country and the military.

Haynes has had an otherwise stellar career, but this one blemish is serious enough to derail the nomination as it should be. It is a question of law and not ideology for them to hash out. We should not be promoting someone who supports the violation of law regardless of his prior service.

September 23, 2005

Posted by Judith in Budget.
Tags: , ,
add a comment

The current debate within the Republican party is how to pay for Hurricane Katrina. Three options are spending cuts, tax increases and borrowing.

Spending cuts, especially of pork barrel projects like the bridge to nowhere in Alaska, are an appealing option. However, House Majority leader Tom DeLay (TX-22) claims that federal spending has been cut to the bone. On the other hand Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) says there should be cuts in outlays across the board. The House Republican Study Committee has also released a list of spending cuts with the the beginning of “Operation Offset.”

According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) said, This really is the time for the president to use the bully pulpit to ask the American people to sacrifice, and to ask the leaders of the Congress to set (budget) priorities in a different way than we are setting them now so that we don’t pass this debt on to future generations.” Sen. Graham suggested that there were many ways to cut the spending in order to offset the cost of Katrina. The Taxpayers for Common Sense suggest several cuts that congress could make in the budget to offset Katrina’s budget.
Some suggest using a temporary sales tax to offset the cost of hurricane relief. Graham says that everything from spending to taxes should be considered in determining how to pay for the disaster. I think this is correct, however, I believe that taxes, and even more so, borrowing which would explode the debt further should be last resorts after all pork-barrel projects are cut from the budget. This is especially true for the transportation and energy legislation passed this summer.

President Bush’s Social Security Reform Plan may be based on Sen. Graham’s Proposal May 24, 2005

Posted by Judith in Social Security.
Tags: , ,
add a comment

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has a proposal to modernize Social Security and make it solvent in to the future and it may be the basis of President Bush’s policy. The proposal, called the Social Security Solvency and Modernization Act, was originally introduced late in 2003. It languished in the Senate Finance Committee because of more pressing concerns, like National and Homeland Security. However, it will be reintroduced sometime early next year after the swearing in of the 109th Congress.

The proposal grants younger workers the option of investing 4% (up to $1300) of their SS payroll taxes into a private account in the Thrift Savings Plan, a government guaranteed program. This option also allows younger people to have increased survivors benefits if something should happen to their parents and the earnings or losses from the private accoount will be offset by the benefits recived form th 96% of the taxes not invested in the account.

The second option, which also applies to middle age workers, has no private account, but provides the increased survivors benefits and current law SS benefits.

The third option provides only current law benfits. Anyone can opt for this, however, current beneficiaries will stay in the current law system.

This plan is well thought out and comprehensive. It addresses both the issue of modernization (private accounts) and solvency. Who better than Sen. Graham to address this issue. His parents passed away when he was 22 and his sister was 13. His sister survived because of survivor’s benefits. He would do nothing to harm this program. He is showing leadership on this issue and is sure to raise his national profile by being a surrogate on many news shows.

More Info
The Social Security Solvency and Modernization Act (Summary)
Social SecuritySocial Security Solvency and Modernization Act
Choice Proposal: Social Security and Private Retirement Accounts