Wes Hickman (202) 224-5972 or Kevin Bishop (864) 250-1417

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) made the following statement on testimony before the House Armed Services Committee made by generals and admirals from the United States Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. The military leaders were testifying about the structure and procedure of tribunals to try terror suspects. “The concerns expressed by the generals and admirals about how we should conduct the trials of terrorists are very serious. I hope Members of Congress will agree.” ##### Statements from Military Leaders before the House Armed Services Committee September 7, 2006 Brigadier General James C. Walker, U.S. Marine Corps, Staff Judge Advocate * “I am not aware of any situation in the world where there is a system of jurisprudence that is recognized by civilized people where an individual can be tried and convicted without seeing the evidence against him. And I don't think that the United States needs to become the first in that scenario.” * “I personally remain concerned about any process which would permit the introduction of evidence against an accused outside of his presence. I simply believe the right to see the evidence against you and to be present when evidence is presented are fundamental to a full and fair trial and are also part of those judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized people.” * “…..I concur with my colleagues that if we get to a point where the sole evidence against an accused is classified, he must be able to see that evidence. That's just essentially one of those elements of a full and fair trial.” * “We must maintain our nation's ability to deal with terrorists and with unlawful enemy combatants, but at the same time we must also provide those judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized people.” * “While we seek that balance, we also must remember the concept of reciprocity: What we do and how we treat these individuals can, in the future, have a direct impact on our service men and women overseas.” Major General Scott Black, United States Army, Judge Advocate General * “I can't imagine any military judge believing that an accused has had a full and fair hearing if all the government's evidence that was introduced was all classified and the accused was not able to see any of it.” * “The Hamdan decision has reinforced our need to ensure military commissions are reflective of American values such as due process and the rule of law.” * “Our task has been to balance the utility of the military commissions with these values that are foundational to our democratic society.” * “I am concerned, one, that the package does not contain a provision that would prohibit the admission of evidence outside of the presence of the accused when that evidence is the sole evidence admitted to establish a material fact, if you follow. If it's the only piece of evidence that's necessary to convict, then I remain concerned about excluding the accused.” Major General Charles Dunlap, United States Air Force, Deputy Judge Advocate General * “A process fully compliant with Common Article 3 will enhance our standing internationally and empower our allies to embrace the legal reasoning and architecture behind the prosecution of military commission cases. Doing so is plainly in our war fighting interest.” * “But my bottom line, my personal opinion, sir, is that we cannot have a process whereby the finder of fact -- not the judge deciding, but the finder of fact -- gets evidence that the accused never sees and never has the opportunity to defend against…” Rear Admiral Bruce MacDonald, United State Navy, Judge Advocate General * “…there are some issues, particularly the use of classified evidence, where I would stand by the approach to that taken by the Uniform Code of Military Justice.” * “With respect to coerced statements, it would be my position that I would recommend that the committee look at not allowing coerced statements; that statements that are obtained under torture are excluded under the current commission rules. However, statements obtained through coercion, if they meet a reliability and probative test, are admitted. * “I would recommend that the committee look to the Detainee Treatment Act and the cruel and inhuman and degrading treatment standard and apply that standard as well to statements that may or may not be coerced. And I would leave that determination to the military judge in charge of the commission to balance those competing interests.”

Wes Hickman (202) 224-5972 or Kevin Bishop (864) 250-1417

Lindsey Graham Interviewed on Fox News Channel
Speakers:
U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina)
Jon Scott, Fox News Channel
SCOTT:
The president drew cheers yesterday when he named some of the suspected terrorists who have been held at Guantanamo Bay -- transferred to Guantanamo Bay now to await trial. The president also announced a plan that calls, in part, for evidence to be withheld from defendants. Senator Lindsey Graham says he fears that would set a dangerous precedent the rest of the world would follow. He is among three Republican senators offering a revised proposal, one that guarantees that terrorist suspects get to see every bit of evidence gathered against them. Senator Graham joins us now. Senator, how big are your differences with the White House on this issue? GRAHAM:
Really not that big. And there's a lot of confusion about this. There's two circumstances involving classified information. The defense can request classified information from the prosecution to prepare their case. I support the military lawyer's position here, the active duty lawyers, who say the government should not have to give to the defense classified information not relevant to the case and the judge can exclude any classified information the judge believes would harm national security. What they're talking about that's new and different, that I think is a bad idea, is for the government to give to the jury classified information about innocence or guilt, and the accused never know -- never see what the jury sees, and he would be convicted not knowing what the evidence against him or her was. That could come back to haunt us. That's not necessary. I've talked to the prosecutors at Guantanamo Bay. They don't need that. And, to me, that is a bridge too far. You say "no" to classified information to terrorists that would hurt national security, but if you're going to put somebody in jail, they need to confront the evidence against them. And that is what I stand for. That's what the military lawyers stand for. And that's the way we've been doing it for 200 years. SCOTT:
But, for instance, you say if it's relevant to their case they should be allowed to see it. Let's say some undercover informant who is, you know -- is sort of becoming a traitor to his own organization, reveals some information. That would have to be revealed to these suspects, wouldn't it? GRAHAM:
No, no, no, no. The military rules of evidence cover this very situation. A confidential informant does not have to be disclosed in the prosecution of the case if it would create serious risk or injury to the informant or it would compromise national security. The terrorists could ask for satellite positioning. The judge would review their request and would say national security interest overcome your need to know about satellites. We're not going to give the terrorists the information to harm this nation. The judge will decide what's relevant and what's not. That's the way we do it in our military legal system. On the other hand, if we create a legal system, where the accused goes to jail never knowing what the evidence against him was, what the jury looked at, then that would be a departure that's unnecessary, that would hurt our guys if they are tried in a foreign land. That's what the military lawyers say; it makes sense to me. SCOTT:
The critics of the administration have said that it has used torture in obtaining information from some of these people. Are you concerned that some of these people have been tortured? GRAHAM:
No. I understand very well what the Department of Defense has come out with in terms of the Army Field Manual. The Army Field Manual is a model for the world. The interrogation techniques that we have at Gitmo, I think, are the way to go. The way Gitmo is being run as a jail is probably the best-run jail in the world. The American government doesn't torture people. Tortured evidence is unreliable. We do have aggressive interrogation techniques that fit within the rule of law. So I look forward to working with the administration to authorize a military commission that can bring these guys to trial. We've got some of the nastiest people in the world down there for four years. None of them have been going to trial. The Supreme Court struck down the military commissions. I want to get them reauthorized, put these guys in trial. It want interrogation techniques that are effective that will protect us, that live within our value system, and we can do that working together, and we should have done it two years ago. SCOTT:
All right. Senator Lindsey Graham, thank you. GRAHAM:
Thank you.

Wes Hickman (202-224-5972) or Kevin Bishop (864-250-1417)

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today made the following statement on release of the new Army Field Manual and President Bush’s proposal for military tribunals. On Army Field Manual: “I’m extremely pleased with the Army Field Manual. In my opinion it is a model for the international community when it comes to detaining and interrogating unlawful enemy combatants. It’s clear the Bush Administration listened to and responded to the input from the Congress, military officials and legal scholars. The revised Army Field Manual exceeded my expectations. I appreciate and applaud the Administration for their work on this issue.” On Military Tribunals: “The next challenge we face is the establishment of military commissions to try terror suspects. We need to ensure the commissions can withstand judicial scrutiny, hold terrorists accountable for their actions, and make the American people proud of our justice system. “It is imperative Congress and the President work together to authorize military commissions and allow trials to move forward. I hope we can complete this by the end of September as it is in our national interest to conduct these trials without further delay. It is also important the military commissions comply with the Supreme Court’s Hamdan decision and be modeled, where applicable, after the military court martial system. There will need to be some modifications made as the needs of the commission are different from a court martial. “I believe what differences we may have between the current Bush Administration proposal and the Senate Armed Services Committee draft proposal can be overcome and that agreement will soon be reached. I look forward to being part of that process and am pleased with the working relationship I have formed with the Administration on this issue. “I do not think we can afford to again cut legal corners that will result in federal court rejection of our work product. I’m hopeful that spirit will prevail among all the parties. If we approach commissions with the same attitude we had on the Army Field Manual, we will have a successful outcome. “One area of contention we must address is how classified information can be used in a military commission. “I strongly support the government’s ability to withhold classified information vital to our national security from accused terrorists. The military justice system already has legal procedures in place dealing with the admissibility of classified information. Military lawyers have experience in protecting classified information and our national security. We can and should use their advice and experience on how to deal with classified information in creating the commission system. The Senate proposal contains important national security safeguards to protect classified information and relies on the advice and counsel of JAGs from the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. “I believe it would be a mistake to allow the jury to see classified evidence the accused never sees. After many consultations with military legal officers (JAGs) in the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines, I do not believe it is necessary to have a trial where the accused cannot see the evidence against them. I fear that creating such a procedure would not be well-received by the courts. The military legal officers (JAGs) serving in uniform have also expressed concern that this could establish a precedent that could be used against our own troops. I share this concern.” #####

Wes Hickman (202-224-5972) or Kevin Bishop (864-250-1417)

WASHINGTON- U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint today announced the Georgetown County United Way will receive a $2,650,870 grant to support early childhood reading. The funds will be used by United Way of Georgetown County along with coalition partners First Steps of Georgetown and Williamsburg Counties, Little Smurfs Child Care Center, and the Georgetown and Williamsburg School Districts to implement the Building Literacy Opportunities for Coastal Kindergartens (BLOCK) program. BLOCK helps provide enhanced learning opportunities for students in rural, poverty-stricken areas of coastal South Carolina. The program seeks to improve students’ oral language, alphabet knowledge, phonological awareness, and print awareness skills. The grant was awarded by the U.S. Department of Education. ####