« Wizbang Podcast #38 is up! | Main | A view from the middle, part II »

Hewitt rips Lindsey Graham's heart out

- and eats it, live on air!

Well, okay, maybe he didn't - but he did expose the vacuity of Graham's stance on the terrorist tribunal bill. Lindsey was wishing John McCain was there to hold his hand . . . from The Hugh Hewitt Show:


HH: Senator Graham, my response to that, and I'd really like to hear how you respond to that, is I think you're wrong. I've been teaching this for ten years. I've read the Hamden up and down. I've read Kennedy's concurrence, and I believe Chief Justice Roberts, with whom I shared an office in the White House Counsel's Office, will uphold President Bush's bill. So given that I believe Kennedy will come back, and that there are at least five votes to uphold President Bush's bill, because obviously, Justice Kennedy only wanted you to act. That's what he wanted, was the Justice Jackson, third-tier kind of situation. Since the President's bill would be, in my opinion, upheld, even if I'm wrong, it will just be sent back. But that higher level of protection of denying access to classified information, which could end up through the al Qaeda means, back in the hands of people who want to kill us, why not try the President's way?


LG: Well, here's the reason, I think. One, I don't want to do it a third time. You've got 25-50 people down there that should have been prosecuted years ago, and we've just been screwing around with this thing, Hugh, playing cutting corners when we don't need to. 10 of the guys ready to be prosecuted will go into the court and say I did it, and look the judge in the eye. One of them's already looked the judge in the eye and said I will kill you and your family. If we enact a procedure where the jury can convict the accused on information not shared with the accused, it will fall, and we'll be setting a precedent for a trial to happen in a foreign land with one of our soldiers...

HH: Now Senator Graham, that's a different argument.

LG: The mother of the Marine...let me tell you. I don't want to legitimize a trial of her son in some foreign land where they never showed him the evidence against him, and they convict him. That is not going to happen. It need not happen. It would be a disaster.

HH: So help me out, Senator Graham. You just switched arguments on me. You supported the earlier bill struck down by the Court that provided no protections. Now you're demanding more...


Read the whole thing at the link above, and then read Hugh Hewitt's own post on it.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Hewitt rips Lindsey Graham's heart out:

» Conservative Outpost linked with GOP Senators give Democrats cover on National Security

» Beowulf linked with Fox News Sunday Preview for 9/24/06

Comments (15)

Lindsay has been a VERY dis... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Lindsay has been a VERY disappointing Senator thus far. I hope the state GOP manages to find a competent candidate to challenge him (not something I have faith in, mind you).

Just some advice for Lindsay: If the people of SC wanted to vote for McCain, WE WOULD HAVE DONE SO. I don't think "McCain's lap dog" is REALLY an effective persona.
-=Mike

Graham is an embarassment. ... (Below threshold)

Graham is an embarassment. It's a shame he sits in Strom Thurmond's seat - he isn't fit to shine Strom's shoes.

He refuses to try the Bush formula JUST IN CASE the Supreme Court might overrule it, because he "don't want to do it a third time."

Boo-hoo. This job too tough for him or something? Too much heavy lifting?

I have written to Senator G... (Below threshold)
Eneils Bailey:

I have written to Senator Graham's office three times about his McCain-like antics. Like John McCain, he loves waking up in the morning and reading positive articles about himself in the Washington Post.
MikeSC, you are right about the people of SC voting for JM in the Republican primary. He was not wanted the last time and Rudy could beat him here in 2008.
I do wish for a Republican to come forth and challenge Graham in 2008. Wish the timing would be right to push Governor Sanford into the race, but he running for re-election to the governor's office this year.
Lindsay Graham has too many stains in his political underwear for a lot of people here in SC.

the scary thing is if the S... (Below threshold)
jp:

the scary thing is if the SC Dems nominate a moderate Dem like a Bill Nelson type to run against Graham....he could be vulnerable

"... rips his heart out"... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"... rips his heart out"?

Nice imagery. Conservofascists are so eloquent! I guess it helps excite the masses to speak in such blood-thirsty tones?

Yeah, Hugh, rip his heart out! That will show our fellow Americans just how serious we are about ruining this country and killing any Americans who dare stand in our way!

What an asshat.

Hugh's show is podcasted, t... (Below threshold)
Joseph:

Hugh's show is podcasted, the segment is about 12 minutes in:

http://boss.streamos.com/download/Townhall/audio/mp3/c2770cd8-c8bf-48f9-8d6b-a4a7b04895c5.mp3

I see old "pucker puss" (le... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

I see old "pucker puss" (lee lee) is up early and getting in his $.oooooooooooooooooo2 worth. Is it really worth that much?

"Read the whole thing"... (Below threshold)
kjf233jht5321ktr:

"Read the whole thing"

I have a better idea. Why don't you get off your butt, and earn your clicks, and explain it to those of us who are not laywers.

We're giving the same right... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

We're giving the same rights we have as U.S. citizens to the terrorists. This is and will be a huge mistake. I hope not many of us will have to pay the price for the vanity of McCain, Graham, et al.

Watch out Lindsey, the McCain Virus seems to be spreading . . .

Listen to yourselves. I'm ... (Below threshold)
Luke:

Listen to yourselves. I'm a Republican, but you jackholes commenting on here are disgusting. You skewer the Dems for voting out Lieberman in Conn. but would you ever consider voting for McCain or Graham? And why not? Not doctrinaire enough for you? Not strictly conservative enough for you?

You're a bunch of intolerant, right-wing authoritarians. My way or the high way. What happened to big tent? You listen to conservative commentators and lose your objective reasoning capabilities.

That said, I think we need the harsh interrogation methods Bush is proposing. But that needs to come from a new Geneva Convention for a new era, addressing new threats. It can't come from us unilaterally asserting our own interpretation when the body of international law out there interpreting the existing Article III is wholesale different from what Bush wants to do. And why? Because what makes this country great, what separates us from other great world powers in the past, is our values and our commitments to not only claim but stand upon the high ground when we know we don't have to.

Listen to yourselves. I'... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Listen to yourselves. I'm a Republican, but you jackholes commenting on here are disgusting. You skewer the Dems for voting out Lieberman in Conn. but would you ever consider voting for McCain or Graham? And why not? Not doctrinaire enough for you? Not strictly conservative enough for you?

Well, I'm actually fond of the 1st Amendment and NOBODY has done more to attack it than John McCain (it's ironic that Bush is accused of ignoring the Constitution, when it's idiotic crap like the McCain/Feingold bill that has done the most damage to it). Graham is just a spineless jellyfish who does virtually anything McCain does.

You're a bunch of intolerant, right-wing authoritarians. My way or the high way.

Damn me for liking free political speech.

What happened to big tent? You listen to conservative commentators and lose your objective reasoning capabilities.

Hmm, we have Lincoln Chaffee, who is more liberal than more than a few Dems.

You have Dems more conservative than a number of Republicans...where?

That said, I think we need the harsh interrogation methods Bush is proposing. But that needs to come from a new Geneva Convention for a new era, addressing new threats. It can't come from us unilaterally asserting our own interpretation when the body of international law out there interpreting the existing Article III is wholesale different from what Bush wants to do.

So courts are incapable of noticing that the Conventions actually mention who is and who is not covered by them, eh?

And, whew, I'm glad our enemies are following them so stringently.

Because what makes this country great, what separates us from other great world powers in the past, is our values and our commitments to not only claim but stand upon the high ground when we know we don't have to.

So, THAT is what makes the US great, eh?

Interesting theory.
-=Mike
...Wrong one, mind you, but interesting...

"but would you ever conside... (Below threshold)
Eneils Bailey:

"but would you ever consider voting for McCain or Graham?"
Luke,
I did not vote for Graham in the Republican Senatorial primary, but voted for him in the general election.
I did not vote for McCain in the Presidential primary, but I would vote for him in the 2008 Presidential election if he is selected as the Republican Presidential nominee.
There is hardly any way that I would pull the lever for a dem based on having a disagreement on a few issues with these gentlemen. In the Republican party we can have disagreements on some issues and not feel compelled the kick someone out of the party, like you dems.

Fair enough, Bailey. It's ... (Below threshold)
Luke:

Fair enough, Bailey. It's true that we can have disagreements, and McCain is certainly not your average Republican. Just remember two things 1) I'm a Republican, 2) Lieberman wasn't voted out of the party he chose to leave after being denied the nomination. McCain wouldn't be forced out either, he would just be denied the nomination.

And Mike, also some decent points, but unfortunately they are... wrong. Firstly, the US Supreme Court ruled in 2003 that McCain-Feingold is not an unconstitutional limit upon free speech on its face. See McConnell v. FEC, 540 US 93. Particularly, it held that "political 'free trade' does not necessarily require that all who participate in the political marketplace do so with exactly equal resources," and that the imposed limits on soft money could be unconstitutional if it was done in a certain way. It has not been done in a way that has been unconstitutional so far, and it remains the law to the best of my knowledge. So your contentions are not factually supported.

Secondly, Zell Miller? He's pretty damn conservative last time I checked, and Sen. Nelson from Nebraska is more conservative than some Northeastern Republicans.

I concede that the Geneva Conventions don't necessarily apply to terrorists. But Bush said we would abide by them! And, by his very seeking of language that would clarify the terms of Article III, he is signalling that he will continue to abide by them.

Finally, what makes us great then? I'm talking about real power. Real power isn't just about guns and brute force, it's about ideas. We fight for democracy and freedom, and the terrorists don't. That fact alone is not enough. Maybe it's enough for you, but it's not enough for the rest of the world. And where are the terrorists coming from? The rest of the world. We don't need to show the terrorists anything, but we need to show POTENTIAL FUTURE terrorists that we are not evil... in their eyes.

or, I should say, that we d... (Below threshold)
Luke:

or, I should say, that we don't reinterpret international law to suit our own ends, which signals abuses of power that should be opposed. And opposition in the Muslim world means blowing up people.

And Mike, also some dece... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

And Mike, also some decent points, but unfortunately they are... wrong. Firstly, the US Supreme Court ruled in 2003 that McCain-Feingold is not an unconstitutional limit upon free speech on its face.

To be gentle, SCOTUS was wrong. These were the same justices who also made the horrible Kelo v New London decision.

Just because SCOTUS says it's not a problem does not mean it's not a problem. The SCOTUS has a history of being wrong.

Particularly, it held that "political 'free trade' does not necessarily require that all who participate in the political marketplace do so with exactly equal resources," and that the imposed limits on soft money could be unconstitutional if it was done in a certain way. It has not been done in a way that has been unconstitutional so far, and it remains the law to the best of my knowledge. So your contentions are not factually supported.

Brad Smith, who ran the FEC, has basically said that the law completely violates the entire spirit of the 1st Amendment. He has one of the most well reasoned condemnations of the law that shows just how little McCain knows about his "signature" issue and how much Feingold covers up its blatant flaws.

http://www.examiner.com/a-279321%7EBradley_A__Smith__Yes__senator__McCain_Feingold_does_censor_political_speech.html
-=Mike




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy