May 6, 2010

Lindsey Graham as I already noted is terribly worried about the constitutional rights of gun owners but when it comes to someone being arrested that's accused of an act of terrorism, not so much. The one area I'd say I probably agree with him on is that there are all kinds of people on that watch list that don't belong on there. I remember reading about Ted Kennedy finding his name on it when Bush was still running the show and have watched lots of segments where everyone that shares a common name is winding up there.

After getting to watch some of the reair of that Senate hearing, Graham's statements were worse than the media reported. If only he had as much concern for someone accused of terrorism as he is for those targeted by this watch list. Somehow Graham doesn't seem capable of making the same rationalizations when it comes to someone who has been charged and not yet convicted of terrorism and the need for the rule of law in case they happen to be innocent and the respect for our Constitution when it comes to terrorism cases as he makes for gun owners. Apparently the Constitution only matters for Graham when it's an issue he can score political points on.

Graham: There is no constitutional right to get on an airplane without being screened that I know of and you know when the founders sat down and wrote the Constitution they didn’t consider flying. And I don’t believe that the Constitution protects any of us from being able to get on an airplane without being screened and here’s the big elephant in the room.

What if all the secondary screening happens to be 99% Muslim males? And that’s where we’re headed with this thing.

Lieberman: Only if they’re on the terrorism watch list.

Graham: But here’s the issue about profiling. We’re at war. And we’ve got to realize the profile of the enemy and you don’t want to focus on law abiding American Muslims who are serving in the military unjustifiably. So as you said to Mayor Bloomberg this is not about a religion.

There are plenty of people in this country of the Muslim faith who are fighting and dying for this country. So we’ve got to watch what we’re doing and what we’re saying here. But Sen. Lieberman, Joe… we’re talking about a Second Amendment right. And some of the people pushing this idea are also pushing the idea of banning hand guns.

And I don’t think banning handguns makes me safer because every criminal who wants a gun seems to be able to get one. And I don’t believe taking this concept of gun ownership and denying it, not after you’ve been convicted in a lawful court of a felony, where you get your day in court with a lawyer and a jury, I think you’re going to far here because there’s a huge difference between losing your gun rights based on a felony charge that was proven by a court of law and appealed and the conviction on the books and being on some list that is as best suspect and if everybody’s that dangerous that’s on the list, those that tried to buy a gun, nobody can tell me how many are being prosecuted.

So I’ve got a lot of concerns that this is not going in the right direction because we’re dealing with a Constitutional right and I am very concerned about our gaps in our defenses, but maybe I’m not making a good argument here to you. But it makes perfect sense to me that losing the ability to own a gun which is a Constitutional right, using this list the way it’s constructed is unnerving at best.

Can you help us out?

For 18 years we have been exposing Washington lies and untangling media deceit, but now Facebook is drowning us in an ocean of right wing lies. Please give a one-time or recurring donation, or buy a year's subscription for an ad-free experience. Thank you.


We welcome relevant, respectful comments. Any comments that are sexist or in any other way deemed hateful by our staff will be deleted and constitute grounds for a ban from posting on the site. Please refer to our Terms of Service for information on our posting policy.