Friday, April 19, 2013

Lindsey Graham

From David A. Graham at The Atlantic:
Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, sent these two fascinating tweets this afternoon:
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. 
Crooks & Liars reports a later tweet:
Is he seriously suggesting that the Administration should be spending time contemplating whether to micromanage the police on the scene concerning Miranda rights?

A later tweety reponse to Graham:
Personally, I can think of no bigger F-up that the police could do than fail to "Mirandize" the "second bomber." Luckily for us all, the Watertown and Boston Police and the FBI are professionals and – unlike Lindsey Graham – know what they're doing. I'd be shocked if the guy was out of the boat before he got his rights read to him.

Lindsey Graham is considered a Very Serious Person by the Meet the Press crowd.


Okay, so I'm a dumb-ass. I've never claimed differently. From the Friday night NY Times:
A federal law enforcement official said he would not be read his Miranda rights, because the authorities would be invoking the public safety exception in order to question him extensively about other potential explosive devices or accomplices and to try to gain intelligence.
I'm so embarrassed.


Virginia Ted said...

I think this is one of those issues about which reasonable people can disagree. But we hardly ever hear reasonable people discussing their different opinions. I'd like some guidance. Should we treat this guy as a domestic criminal entitled to his Miranda rights, or as an enemy combatant, and thus, essentially, a POW? I don't claim to know the legalities of this under U.S. law. Looking for guidance on TV, in the service of "fair and balanced" coverage, I encounter interviews dominated by shouts and interruptions and talk-overs, whether on Fox or CNN or MSNBC. The only civilized debates--you know the kind, in which one person talks while the other person must listen, and then the other person talks and so on--can be heard and seen regularly only on the Newshour on PBS. Does anybody some other place?

Chip said...

I agree with Ted. Very complex matter as far as the law goes. Perhaps that is a good thing. At least we don't have laws like Pakistan that dictate death for blasphemers. I saw an interview with the father of these guys yesterday. He claimed they were framed. Shortly after the interview he was taken away by Russian authorities. Never a good thing.