Chris Shays attributes Abu Ghraib abuses to sex ring

What's up Chris? You saw more of the Abu Ghraib photos than we did and now you say that there was no torture or abuse? This is ludicrous.

The Stamford Advocate reports that Congressman Chris Shays said the following in a debate with Dianne Ferral:

Now I've seen what happened in Abu Ghraib, and Abu Ghraib was not torture. It was outrageous, outrageous involvement of National Guard troops from (Maryland) who were involved in a sex ring and they took pictures of soldiers who were naked. And they did other things that were just outrageous. But it wasn't torture.

This is disgusting coming from a sitting congressman who saw more of the pictures from Abu Ghraib especially because we were told that they were too provocative and the American people did not need to see them. It is also disgusting because Senator Graham said that the pictures depicted rape and murder.

If dog leashes around the neck and sexual humiliation aren't torture, congressman, than what is torture?

Well shays did define torture when asked as "anything that could cause mental or physical pain or sleep deprivation" and claimed that he had only seen 600 photos and not the ones that were the worst.

Even if he attributed the behavior to a sex ring among the Maryland National Guard wasn't the things they done designed to cause mental and/or physical pain? Perverts use sex for power and not that for which it was meant.

A dog leash around the neck? Is this not meant to at least cause mental pain by placing the detainee in a humiliating position? IF they pull the leash a little too tight does that not risk physical pain?
This is outrageous and should not be stood for from our elected officials.

Judiciary Oath a Bad Idea

Today, the Committee for Justice released and extended its "Fair Judiciary Oath" to Senate candidates. The two requirements for the oath are to support a fair up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate and opposition to 'arbitrary' blocks in committee.

I cannot argue with a fair vote on the floor, but I would never sign the right of filibuster away because I would have to ask what I should do if a nominee that I thought was objectionable got out of committee. I would vote against such nominee if given the occasion, but I would not want to stop someone who believed that they needed to filibuster to bring public attention to it. Let the voters vote out those who filibuster if they feel so strongly.

The second provision is even worse because it would take away a Senator's right to make an independent decision about each nominee because a decision to support a committee hold for any reason except a reason predefined by the group.

I am really concerned that this will end up not applying across the board because these people will oppose the nominees of a Democrat based on the very thing that they do not want analyzed about their nominees, ideology. I would recommended that no candidate sign this because it takes away their right to make an informed decision.
(hat tip: RedState)

Graham serves in Afghanistan

Lindsey is the only member of the National Guard or Reserves who serves in the U.S. Senate. He recently returned from a tour of duty in Afghanistan where he helped to train Afghan lawyers and judges.

Graham helps train Afghan Lawyers

A Question of Values

America was born of a noble idea of some very intelligent men. Americans are born into a tradition and taught a set of values that they celebrate on Independence Day. Our values are liberty, justice, and rule of law. We praise these values, but lately we seem to have forgotten them in the fight with the terrorists. Terrorists work to change values by violence rather than peaceful means. We work to change things by peaceful means and only use the military when necessary. We are told that this is a different kind of war with new rules and therefore our paradigm must shift.

How does the fight effect our values? What is the role of fear in this change? How do we maintian our traditional values while fighting an enemy that knows no bounds? These questions and many others are difficult to answer. However, we would do best if we were to remeber the words of Benjamin Franklin: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Since the above quote refers to liberty, I sahll start there. Our essential liberties were hard won by James Madison in the crafting of a Bill of Rights. The first ten amendments to the Constituion are known as the Bill of Rights. Since its framing some of these essential rights have been determined to cover women and minorities. However, the essential liberty we seem to have little value for today is framed in the Fourth Amendment which provides for the security of our persons, houses, papers, and effects, from unreasonable search and seizure. This essential liberty was confirmed to include the privacy of phone calls in 1967 when the U.S. Supreme Court decided Katz v United States. Since this landmark decision laws have extended the protected zone to include other electronic communications, through the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Laws such as Title III and FISA direct police and intelligence agencies to get a warrant in order toinvade the privacy of someone’s electronic communications.

Change the War Crimes Act, I Think Not

The administration has insisted that they were not breaking the law or ignoring international standards in its treatment of detainees, however, a draft revision of the War Crimes Act may shed light into their actual desire to change a law in order to protect against prosecution for lawbreaking that has already occurred.Today’s Washington Post reports on the administration’s proposed amendments to the War Crimes Act, which specify the categories of illegal activities that are absolutely banned while leaving flexibility so great that CIA officials and others operating under orders of the President or a political appointee immunity from prosecution as well as giving the appointee immunity from prosecution. However, the military officials, who are immune under the War Crimes Act, would be prosecutable for the Conduct under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Our military personnel can be charged with an offense under the general article if their offense is not covered by a specified article.

This attempt by the administration to propose very narrow definitions of war crimes comes on the heels of a request for Congress to define war crimes reproted in the New York Times. The administration did not give them a fair chance to do their work. This proposal will preoccupy and cotrol debate because it is the first and gives staunch supports of the President like John Cornyn and Jeff Sessions suggestions to work with in handling the most difficult issue of our time.

According to my interpretations of the reports these amendments would effectively make the McCain provisions of the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA) ineffectual. The McCain provision was approved by the Senate 90-9 and also by an overwhelming house majority.