Graham: Boston proves "homeland battefield" , Constitution obsolete

Joined
Jun 24, 2012
Messages
39,797
Reputation
-160
Daps
65,110
Reppin
NULL
It's just a matter of time folks....


GRAHAM: Boston proves "homeland battlefield," Constitution obsolete | Washington Times Communities

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.

Read more: GRAHAM: Boston proves "homeland battlefield," Constitution obsolete | Washington Times Communities
Follow us: @wtcommunities on Twitter
 

bewitched

Pro
Joined
May 7, 2012
Messages
723
Reputation
-40
Daps
1,566
As an American citizen, he has the right to be tried in court of law with legal representation. One minute, politicians are crying that Obama's administration is disregarding the Constitution, now it can be violated. What, the I'm pretty sure our court system is equipped to convict and punish a terrorist if found guilty.
 
Joined
Jun 24, 2012
Messages
39,797
Reputation
-160
Daps
65,110
Reppin
NULL
As an American citizen, he has the right to be tried in court of law with legal representation. One minute, politicians are crying that Obama's administration is disregarding the Constitution, now it can be violated. What, the I'm pretty sure our court system is equipped to convict and punish a terrorist if found guilty.

According to some the laws on the books, the politicians have made themselves free of all convictions.
 

Shogun

Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
25,511
Reputation
5,966
Daps
63,073
Reppin
Knicks
At times we forget WHY we have certain rights. If these accounts are true, if it was an order and not a request, it is a blatant violation of the third amendment.

Isnt the quartering act regarding soldiers living with/in civilian houses?

do these "accounts" suggest their intent was to live there, or were they using the house to aid them in apprehending the suspect?
 

USSInsiders

Banned
Joined
May 29, 2012
Messages
21,302
Reputation
2,405
Daps
31,299
Reppin
NULL
At times we forget WHY we have certain rights. If these accounts are true, if it was an order and not a request, it is a blatant violation of the third amendment.

At gunpoint too.

As an American citizen, he has the right to be tried in court of law with legal representation. One minute, politicians are crying that Obama's administration is disregarding the Constitution, now it can be violated. What, the I'm pretty sure our court system is equipped to convict and punish a terrorist if found guilty.

Isnt the quartering act regarding soldiers living with/in civilian houses?

do these "accounts" suggest their intent was to live there, or were they using the house to aid them in apprehending the suspect?

:ohword: Move along citizens, there is no need to be alarmed. These measures are to protect you from the imminent threat of Islamic radicals. As if we needed to be reminded, ever since 9/11 our country is a battlefield, and if we show the terorrists we're incapable doing whatever is possible to win the War on Terror then they know we're weak.

The government has your interests and mine as top priority when considering this legislation. There is no need to be alarmed.

What's more important, constitutional rights or your individual safety? The government is here to protect us and keep us informed, they are not oppressive and wouldn't do something that might harm us. :what:
 

Jutt

All Star
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
6,482
Reputation
790
Daps
8,500
Reppin
Boston
Isnt the quartering act regarding soldiers living with/in civilian houses?

do these "accounts" suggest their intent was to live there, or were they using the house to aid them in apprehending the suspect?

Thats the key. People are complaining about possible quartering, but if dude hadnt gotten caught, they'd complain that nobody did "enough"
 
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
69,207
Reputation
11,433
Daps
241,956
Reppin
206 & 734
Isnt the quartering act regarding soldiers living with/in civilian houses?

do these "accounts" suggest their intent was to live there, or were they using the house to aid them in apprehending the suspect?

The scope or spirit of the right has never been really tested in court


"No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

In Engblom v. Carey, 677 F. 2d 957 (2d Cir. 1982), on remand 572 F. Supp. 44 (S.D.N.Y. 1982), aff'd. per curiam 724 F.2d 28 (2d Cir. 1983).

Engblom grew out of a "statewide strike of correction officers, when they were evicted from their facility-residences ... and members of the National Guard were housed in their residences without their consent." The district court initially granted summary judgment for the defendants in a suit brought by the officers claiming a deprivation of their rights under the Third Amendment. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals, however, reversed on the ground that it could not "say that as a matter of law appellants were not entitled to the protection of the Third Amendment." 677 F.2d at 964. On remand, however, the District Court held that because the officers' Third Amendment rights had not been clearly established at the time of the strike, the defendants were protected from suit by a qualified immunity, and this decision was upheld by the Second Circuit.

I personally believe that in regards to this past situation, the tenure of a soldiers' quartering in your home should not matter, whatsoever. The spirit of the law should apply here. All other amendments have been interpreted much looser than this standard.

Nobody in america should be forced to leave their home at the order of a soldier. If a request is made and you feel compelled, then by all means, be their host.
 
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
69,207
Reputation
11,433
Daps
241,956
Reppin
206 & 734
Thats the key. People are complaining about possible quartering, but if dude hadnt gotten caught, they'd complain that nobody did "enough"

Dont get me wrong, i was speaking in theory..., if someone was bombing downtown seattle and the millitary knocked on my door because they believed that they could gain a tactical advantage, i would most likely grant them access if i could keep my firearm on my person, and remain present.

But you can not order me to do so. And if they did this was blatantly flying in the face of the third amendment.
 

the next guy

Superstar
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
39,498
Reputation
1,543
Daps
37,674
Reppin
NULL
Dont get me wrong, i was speaking in theory..., if someone was bombing downtown seattle and the millitary knocked on my door because they believed that they could gain a tactical advantage, i would most likely grant them access if i could keep my firearm on my person, and remain present.

But you can not order me to do so. And if they did this was blatantly flying in the face of the third amendment.

They let them in. They all stayed inside. The reality is that while your hunch may be right, Boston let the military and State/FBI do that, because they were wimpy and scared. No one should be able to go up in your house for any reason.
 

the next guy

Superstar
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
39,498
Reputation
1,543
Daps
37,674
Reppin
NULL
This is why people were calling boston soft.... this was uncessary. I hope people remember this "terrorist" killed less people then Holmes, Seung-Hui Cho, Lanza, Klebold and Harris.
 

Jutt

All Star
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
6,482
Reputation
790
Daps
8,500
Reppin
Boston
Dont get me wrong, i was speaking in theory..., if someone was bombing downtown seattle and the millitary knocked on my door because they believed that they could gain a tactical advantage, i would most likely grant them access if i could keep my firearm on my person, and remain present.

But you can not order me to do so. And if they did this was blatantly flying in the face of the third amendment.

I feel the same. Its all about approach. I'd raise hell if they came bashing down my door without my permission and decided to set up shop. They arent gonna order me to do anything on my property that im not comfortable with, like you said, relinquishing my firearm.


shyt like this you someone has to look at the bigger picture.
 
Top