Shorter Lindsey Graham: Constitution? What Constitution?

Shorter Lindsey Graham: Constitution? What Constitution?

The South Carolina senator wants Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, an American citizen, to be held as an enemy combatant.
David A. Graham Apr 19 2013, 4:53 PM ET

Lindsey Graham ✔ @GrahamBlog If captured, I hope Administration will at least consider holding the Boston suspect as enemy combatant for intelligence gathering purposes. 4:33 PM - 19 Apr 2013

Lindsey Graham ✔ @GrahamBlog The last thing we may want to do is read Boston suspect Miranda Rights telling him to "remain silent." 4:40 PM - 19 Apr 2013

This is pretty breathtaking. Graham (no relation) is suggesting that an American citizen, captured on American soil, should be deprived of basic constitutional rights.

Keep in mind that Graham isn't just an angry citizen; he's not even just a U.S. senator. He is also a trained lawyer, a colonel in Air Force Reserve, and a member of the Judge Advocate General's Corps, the legal arm of the Air Force.

In fairness, the senator is consistent. "It has been the law of the United States for decades that an American citizen on our soil who collaborates with the enemy has committed an act of war and will be held under the law of war, not domestic criminal law," he said in 2011. But that was in the context of Americans collaborating with al-Qaeda, a link that hasn't been drawn here. Graham also lamented to the Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin that there wasn't a drone tracking the suspect.

As a citizen of the USA, and as horrible as the action was we must remember the following things and hopefully the authorities will do such:

No matter how horrible the crime, or the act, the suspect if he is a citizen of the USA, is still a citizen of the USA. We should not consider removing rights, no matter what and adhere to the rule of law. To remove those rights, opens a door that puts all of us in danger, of losing the very freedoms that we all hold so dearly. This is to include the very Miranda rights to ensure that his rights are protected. No matter if he is guilty or innocent, until he is proven guilty in a court of law, he is innocent, until the trial has occurred. By removing those rights, by declaring him an enemy combatant, only would give validity to those in the country that would advocate violence against the government, and could be a spark that starts a wild fire across the country.

No, we treat him like any other criminal, see to his wounds, read him his rights, and follow the law, ensure that he gets a fair and just trial in a court of law. Anything else would be UnAmerican.

He won't have his miranda rights read to him for about 48 hours in the interest of public safety. Mainly, the fear that he and his brother placed more bombs in the city. The supreme court ruled that such a move is completely constitutional 30 years ago.

"Enemy combatant" is just a term some government officials like to use to imprison people without trial, American or not.

reply to post by FuZe7


Lindsay also wants the definition of the battlefield to include the United States,
he also is all good with drone strikes on foreign soil....

One has to ask, is Graham also going to be ok with drone strikes
on American soil?

Senator Graham is a disgusting human being and will be put on trial along with the others when we claim this country again. I, however, will be happy to read to him his Miranda Rights and extend to him his full constitutional protections prior to his guilty verdict being delivered by a jury of his peers. That is because I appreciate our Constitution and the Law wherever it is just. Even if he was the sole mastermind behind the whole conspiracy, we're going to give him his day in court before we hang him in the streets.

Don't know how I really feel about this:

On the one hand the bombing suspect deprived their victims of their rights

So should they be afforded the same rights they denied their victims,.

Tough call, glad one I don't have to make, but everyone no matter who they are or what they do are owed their rights, and due process.

reply to post by FuZe7

If he's covered by the AUMF, he's an enemy combatant. Lacking uniform or other insignia, and for various other reasons, he would be an illegal combatant. In either case, citizenship does not make him immune from being a combatant, and never did. (Washington was prepared to annihilate a number of citizens during the Whiskey Rebellion.)

Like all combatants who are hors de combat, he would be subject to being locked away until the government decides the combat is over. Like all US citizens, he retains access to the US judicial system, including the ability to challenge his designation as a combatant and habeas corpus. The Constitution guarantees due process, but the government generally gets to decide exactly what process is due in any given situation. If you go around blowing people up when the government has war powers, you will find not much process is due.

The Constitution cannot be suspended for convenience. I would rather lose any intelligence from this individual than have his rights trampled. While I applaud senator Graham for his recent vote to defend the second amendment on S.649, he can't have it both ways. The Constitution must be upheld, even when inconvenient, for the document to have any real meaning.

never trust a man named Lindsey

reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli

I say bring it. With the full force of the rights of habeas corpus that are enshrined in our Constitution. That is chicken poop how they have held non-American "combatants" in freaking Guantanamo for over a decade without filing charges. There are others that have been deemed innocent and have orders to be released yet they still sit there out in the Caribbean Ocean. Bull Puckey!!!!!!!!!!! Then they are having "military trials" that are going on right now where each and ever freaking Constitutional right that these men have to privileged communications with their defense lawyers have been thwarted. It is a disgrace!!!!!!!!!!!

It is bad enough when you have the power of the state prosecuting you. They have the upper hand. A defendant that is in custody, first of all, has such a disadvantage. And now they want to still freaking cheat and listen in on lawyer-client conversations??? Jack confidential communications between lawyers that are defending these poor men??? Make the defense lawyers use DOD computers for their work product.

It is a freaking travesty.

Are you gonna stand by and let the rule of law be decimated?????? What are you???

We are supposed to be a nation of laws.

How can you ascribe for the rights of one set and not another.

reply to post by Acanthus

Senator Graham is a disgusting human being and will be put on trial along with the others when we claim this country again.

So, let's extrapolate this line of thought here.

Graham says something stupid, controversial, and asinine and your response is to put him on trial in some kangaroo court. After, what? A bloody civil war you start for your idea of "freedom" which will by your sentence above will only be granted to those that YOU deem fit and deserving of it.

I, however, will be happy to read to him his Miranda Rights and extend to him his full constitutional protections prior to his guilty verdict being delivered by a jury of his peers.

"Tried" in a court where the only verdict will be guilty.

That is because I appreciate our Constitution and the Law wherever it is just.

Not in every situation, just in those situations where YOU feel it's just.

Even if he was the sole mastermind behind the whole conspiracy, we're going to give him his day in court before we hang him in the streets.

Oh good, a lynching, is everyone going to wear pointy hats and bed sheets at this "hanging" of yours?

Freedom indeed..

reply to post by neo96


I understand perfectly how you feel. I'm so angry about what this guy and his brother did, their actions over the past few days pretty well confirm their guilt however, his Constitutional rights should not be denied until he is found guilty in a court of law by a jury of his peers.

The NDAA allows for this piece of scum to be named an enemy combatant, that is the law of the land now and we don't seem to have much power currently to change that. We cannot allow our hatred nor our knowledge that he's guilty to cloud our knowledge that the NDAA is wrong. Silence on this would equal consent.

I don't think the government is ready for the controversy that will arise if they don't put him on trial. I think he will be Mirandized very soon.

The US threw out the term Enemy Combatant in 2009.
It is no longer recognized. Are these senators aware of that?

These are US citizens who are alleged to have committed crimes on US soil with no evidence suggesting they were operating on behalf of any external force - correct?
What evidence exists suggesting otherwise?

In fact, with the FBI having been aware of them for some time, it appears they have good reason to fear trying them in a proper court of law with a jury of their peers, will they lock them away and throw away the key?