Sunday, July 12, 2026
Tuesday, January 06, 2026
Sunday, April 21, 2013
GRAHAM: Boston proves "homeland battlefield," Constitution obsolete
Photo: Google Images
RELATED COLUMNS
No, Eric Holder, Obama can't murder us with drones
The Smith-Amash amendment and NDAA: A loss and a win for liberty
AUSTIN, April 20, 2013 - The always patriotic U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham says the Boston bombing “is Exhibit A of why the homeland is the battlefield.” In an interview with the Washington Post:
“It’s a battlefield because the terrorists think it is.” Referring to Boston, he observed, “Here is what we’re up against,” and added, “It sure would be nice to have a drone up there [to track the suspect.]” He also slammed the president’s policy of “leading from behind and criminalizing war.”
On Twitter, Graham suggested the Obama administration arbitrarily toss the court system and Constitution for “intelligence gathering purposes.” According to Graham, accused bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19, should be held as an enemy combatant. This legal status has been mostly reserved for al Qaeda captured abroad or foreigners, such as those held without charge for the last decade in Guantanamo Bay’s military facility.
Senator Graham is a known proponent of military-style detention for American suspects merely accused of terrorism. During debates regarding indefinite detainment provisions in 2011, which effectively invalidated the Bill of Rights, he notoriously bellowed that Americans accused of a terrorist-related crime should be denied Due Process. “When they say I want a lawyer you say, “Shut up! You don’t get a lawyer”.
He was also a most vocal critic of Senator Rand Paul’s 13-hour filibuster designed to demand answers regarding the Obama administration’s domestic drone program. When the tide of public opinion turned against him, he stopped vocally defending the “homeland battlefield” ideology, but Graham never lets a crisis go to waste.
These statements are a lame attempt to justify the further militarization of the American justice system. While most Americans are content with disregarding this typical chickenhawk rhetoric, this narrative becomes increasingly more dangerous.
All Americans should be wary when congressional leaders like Graham attempt to justify 12th century-style military custody.
As journalist Tom Mullen rightly observed, “The Bill of Rights was already on life support before this tragedy. Before the dust settled after 9/11, the 4th Amendment had been nullified by the Patriot Act. The 5th and 6th Amendments were similarly abolished with the Military Commission Act of 2006 and the 2012 NDAA resolution, which contained a clause allowing the president to arrest and indefinitely detain American citizens on American soil without due process of law.”
How much further can we move to invalidate our entire legal process? If we are at war with radical individuals and America is a battlefield, then why pretend we have laws? Why didn’t we just call in a few Apaches and dispatch the suspects promptly, as we do in war? Why bother with arrest and detainment, evidence or trial?
Because the United States is not at “war” with its own citizens that commit acts of terror for an ideology any more than we were at war with the Columbine shooters and various other domestic terrorists. They should be captured or killed in accordance with law, tried and convicted if guilty. They should be exonerated if they are innocent. That is the American way.
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is an American citizen accused of a terrible crime, and current evidence suggest he is likely guilty. While there are legitimate arguments regarding whether he should be Mirandized, he doesn’t lose his right to trial, evidence and appeal because he’s been accused of a crime, no matter how egregious. He should not be treated as an enemy combatant and released to military custody as Graham advocates.
Let’s remember the definition of freedom. Let’s remember that the United States has based its worldwide reputation on protecting freedom, which is rooted in respect for the rule of law. We have taken up the banner of liberty and protected human rights around the world, both by example and with blood.
Did our nation’s warriors sacrifice their lives so that politicians could undermine liberty by declaring the “homeland” a “battlefield”? Can the United States government be at war with its own people? If the “War on Terror” cannot be won without destroying the Constitution, then have we not already lost?
Perhaps Senator Lindsey Graham speaks so loosely of “war” at every turn because he’s never seen “war” from his lush digs in corporate royalty land. Without due process, there is nothing protecting the innocent from mistakes made by bureaucrats. When the law is manipulated for one suspect, it is much easier to bend it for us all. If you disagree with him, perhaps he should hear from you.
Source: http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/citizen-warrior/2013/apr/20/boston-graham-says-bombing-proves-homeland-battlef/#ixzz2R86Mfsfw
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
ID Card for Workers Is at Center of Immigration Plan
Getty ImagesCustoms and Border Protection agent Jesus Gomez checks a passport at the vehicle crossing at the San Ysidro Port of Entry in California.
Lawmakers working to craft a new comprehensive immigration bill have settled on a way to prevent employers from hiring illegal immigrants: a national biometric identification card all American workers would eventually be required to obtain.
Under the potentially controversial plan still taking shape in the Senate, all legal U.S. workers, including citizens and immigrants, would be issued an ID card with embedded information, such as fingerprints, to tie the card to the worker.
The ID card plan is one of several steps advocates of an immigration overhaul are taking to address concerns that have defeated similar bills in the past.
The uphill effort to pass a bill is being led by Sens. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) and Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), who plan to meet with President Barack Obama as soon as this week to update him on their work. An administration official said the White House had no position on the biometric card.
"It's the nub of solving the immigration dilemma politically speaking," Mr. Schumer said in an interview. The card, he said, would directly answer concerns that after legislation is signed, another wave of illegal immigrants would arrive. "If you say they can't get a job when they come here, you'll stop it."
The biggest objections to the biometric cards may come from privacy advocates, who fear they would become de facto national ID cards that enable the government to track citizens.
"It is fundamentally a massive invasion of people's privacy," said Chris Calabrese, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "We're not only talking about fingerprinting every American, treating ordinary Americans like criminals in order to work. We're also talking about a card that would quickly spread from work to voting to travel to pretty much every aspect of American life that requires identification."
Mr. Graham says he respects those concerns but disagrees. "We've all got Social Security cards," he said. "They're just easily tampered with. Make them tamper-proof. That's all I'm saying."
U.S. employers now have the option of using an online system called E-Verify to check whether potential employees are in the U.S. legally. Many Republicans have pressed to make the system mandatory. But others, including Mr. Schumer, complain that the existing system is ineffective.
Last year, White House aides said they expected to push immigration legislation in 2010. But with health care and unemployment dominating his attention, the president has given little indication the issue is a priority.
Rather, Mr. Obama has said he wanted to see bipartisan support in Congress first. So far, Mr. Graham is the only Republican to voice interest publicly, and he wants at least one other GOP co-sponsor to launch the effort.
An immigration overhaul has long proven a complicated political task. The Latino community is pressing for action and will be angry if it is put off again. But many Americans oppose any measure that resembles amnesty for people who came here illegally.
Under the legislation envisioned by Messrs. Graham and Schumer, the estimated 10.8 million people living illegally in the U.S. would be offered a path to citizenship, though they would have to register, pay taxes, pay a fine and wait in line. A guest-worker program would let a set number of new foreigners come to the U.S. legally to work.
Most European countries require citizens and foreigners to carry ID cards. The U.K. had been a holdout, but in the early 2000s it considered national cards as a way to stop identify fraud, protect against terrorism and help stop illegal foreign workers. Amid worries about the cost and complaints that the cards infringe on personal privacy, the government said it would make them voluntary for British citizens. They are required for foreign workers and students, and so far about 130,000 cards have been issued.
Mr. Schumer first suggested a biometric-based employer-verification system last summer. Since then, the idea has gained currency and is now a centerpiece of the legislation being developed, aides said.
A person familiar with the legislative planning said the biometric data would likely be either fingerprints or a scan of the veins in the top of the hand. It would be required of all workers, including teenagers, but would be phased in, with current workers needing to obtain the card only when they next changed jobs, the person said.
The card requirement also would be phased in among employers, beginning with industries that typically rely on illegal-immigrant labor.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce doesn't have a position on the proposal, but it is concerned that employers would find it expensive and complicated to properly check the biometrics.
Mr. Schumer said employers would be able to buy a scanner to check the IDs for as much as $800. Small employers, he said, could take their applicants to a government office to like the Department of Motor Vehicles and have their hands scanned there.
—Alistair MacDonald contributed to this article.
Write to Laura Meckler at laura.meckler@wsj.com .