Lindsey Graham

The Bush administration has had prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay for years now who have not been prosecuted. They are held under the law of war.

That is absolutely correct. Let's talk about indefinite detention and what it means. When someone is captured as a member of al-Qaida--the Bush administration has had people at Guantanamo Bay for years. They are being held under the law of…

Right. But here is the point we are going to make. Some of us believe that presentment to a court and a Miranda warning may not be the best way to go, in terms of gathering intelligence. Under military custody for intelligence gathering…

OK. Fair enough. But does the Senator agree with me that you cannot indefinitely hold someone under domestic criminal law without presenting them to court or reading them Miranda rights?

OK. What if we have the very same person who made it out of Afghanistan and makes it to America. I think most people would want us to gather intelligence to find out what is coming next. Would the Senator agree with me, if you put someone…

That is contract. If I might continue the conversation for a minute, if you don't mind. Would the Senator agree with me that if we all of a sudden required our soldiers to read Miranda warnings to an al-Qaida operative caught in…

The Senator is absolutely right. The flexibility of whether to Mirandize somebody exists. I don't know what is the best way. I do believe the best start is to take the Christmas Day Bomber off the plane and interrogate him in terms of what…

Right. Mr. McCAIN. Why does he think that would not be acceptable if there were a case where an individual would be held by civilian authorities rather than military authorities?

Yes. Mr. McCAIN. I am a little puzzled. Maybe the Senator from South Carolina has a response to this. Perhaps Chairman Levin does. We did give a national security waiver, which is very generous, in that the President just has to certify…

He should come to the United States and be tried by military commissions.

I asked Admiral Mullen, your predecessor, what is the risk of an Arab-Kurdish conflict over the oil reserves around Kirkuk in terms of a conflict if we are not present. He said it was high.

If it were up to the Kurds, there would be 50,000 American troops in Kurdistan.

If neighboring countries see that Iraq is weak and incapable of protecting its border and internal security, then definitely there will be interference.

No American politician, Republican or Democrat, would accept a follow-on force without legal protections.

Can you tell the people back here that the likelihood of their friends and family being killed is going up greatly if there are no American forces up there policing that problem?

The likelihood of Iraq becoming a successful, stable state is dramatically improved.

I completely concur with the idea that American troops should not be left behind in Iraq without legal protections.

I think it is no accident that the troops are coming home 2 months before this election in Afghanistan.

Would it be a political problem for President Obama to announce this year that we are going to keep 15,000 people in Iraq past 2012?

If an American soldier were accused of rape anywhere in Iraq, I do not think they would get a fair trial.

I do not know who does the negotiation for the United States, but if I had three people saying those things, I thought I could get it over the finish line.

Well, I think they are wrong a lot, but I think they are right on this.

I couldn't agree with you more.

I think you need to be in the room with some weight behind you, not just an invitation.

Do you agree with me the only thing older than the Marine Corps when it comes to defending America is the citizen soldier?