Graham Answers Critics on Haynes Nomination

10 June 2006

In a June 8 letter Sen. Graham answers his critics regarding the Haynes nomination. The response was because the conservative Coalition to End Judicial Filibusters wrote a letter to him about his actions regarding the Haynes (Resume) nomination.

Conservative blogs such as ConfirmThem and Free Republic are not happy with the response because they feel that he is volating a principle and just plain carrying water for John McCain, his friend.

Sen. Graham expressed concerns about the treatment of detainees during the Abu Ghraib scandal. He was disturbed by the signing statement that accompanied passage of last years defense bill becasue it claimed an ability for the President to violate the Detainee Treatment Act if he thought it was necessary. His concerns wth Mr. Haynes relate to the role he played in regard to torture.

He says:

"Many Members of Congress, including myself, an Air Force lawyer with more than twenty years of experience in military law, have reviewed memos written by the military legal officers to the civilian leaders in the Department of Defense regarding detainees.

In these, military lawyers express grave concerns about confusing and legally flawed interrogation policies. They also warn about the negative consequences that could befall our Soldiers, Sailors and Marines for carrying out these directives, such as being charged with violations of domestic criminal law and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

Were their concerns -- which proved to be on-target -- properly addressed by the civilian leaders, such as Mr. Haynes, when formulating DoD policy? And should we promote civilian leaders while military personnel are being punished?

The memos seem to indicate the opinions of the military legal community were ignored. We must not let that happen again."

The bloggers are commenting by saying "This RINO needs to be defeated" and "Detainees rights, are you crazy" on the Free Republic. ConfirmThem participants are saying that "Graham is the problem on the nomination" and calling him a hypocrite as well as "smelling a primary challenge."

It is interesting how the same people who say that no precedent should be set for having second hearings on nominees that already would pass committee, but then say that they support the second hearing for Haynes. This change of mind is more about Sen. Graham and them wanting to monitor the performance of his duties. They are not willing to let him make a decision based on everything he knows about the nominee. They want a "yea" vote or else. This is not how the process works.