Lindsey Graham and I actually agree on something. No, really. He feels we go too far to consider stripping an American citizen of his 2nd Amendment rights simply because he appears on the “no-fly†list. Makes sense to me.
The “no-fly†list isn’t even composed of suspected terrorists, much less proven terrorists. The “no-fly†list was swept together from disparate, even irrelevant, sources in an unrestrained orgy of hearsay and guilt by association that puts Nixon’s infamous “enemies list†to shame. Got a string of arrests on your record, with or without convictions? You could be on the no-fly list. Delivered a university lecture critical of the Bush administration’s treatment of prisoners? You could be on the no-fly list. Marched in a peace protest? You could be on the no-fly list. Got a name similar to someone who has done any of these things? You could be on the no-fly list. Are you an eminent Democratic senator, whose very name has been synonymous with American politics for generations? No-fly list, definitely. To deny an American citizen his most fundamental rights on a list thrown together in a post-9/11 panic would be an act of criminal, nay, treasonous sabotage to the highest law of the land.
Which is why Senator Graham and I part company beyond that point.
See, I also think that depriving an American citizen of any of his fundamental rights in this manner would be unconscionable. Senator Graham does not. He explicitly asserts that suspected terrorists should not be read their Miranda rights, deemed mandatory to secure one’s 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination. More generally, Senator Graham sees nothing wrong with the no-fly list as such, although its very existence violates the 1st Amerndment right to peaceable assembly, the 4th Amendment prohibitions of unreasonable search and seizure, and 5th Amendment guarantees of due process, neatly sidestepping as it does 6th Amendment restrictions designed to make due process meaningful. Unlike Senator Graham, I believe in preserving all the Constitution, specifically including but not limited to the entire bill of rights. That includes rights to gun ownership, though I am personally uncomfortable with the widespread availability of handguns, and especially unregistered pistols, in this country. I would like to see stricter gun laws in this country, and stricter enforcement of those we have, but I recognize the fundamental right to own handguns nevertheless, because it is spelled out in the law and because an argument could be made for their necessity to preserving our freedoms more generally.
Senator Graham, by contrast, believes only in preserving those portions of the Constitution he does not find personally inconvenient, and those only to the degree and for the duration he does not find them inconvenient, and only for those Americans of whom Senator Graham, personally, approves. The rest of you? Graham believes in protecting you neither from tyranny within, nor from enemies without. Guns, hell yeah. He’ll protect American guns. American people, never.
Post a Comment