Lindsey Graham: Sure, I’d support censoring your mail if it was necessary to counterterrorism

posted at 5:11 pm on June 11, 2013 by Allahpundit

Let me repeat what I said last week after he clapped the NSA on the back for collecting Americans’ phone records: It’s not just the fact that he endorses ideas like this, it’s the ease with which he does it. There appears to be none of the usual angst you see from other pols about security/liberty trade-offs when he talks counterterrorism. He’s almost entirely on one side of that topic in much the same way Ron Paul is, but even if you think Paul’s naive about security risks, at least he’s on the side of personal freedom. You get the sense with Graham that if Obama convinced him that Al Qaeda could be defeated only through martial law, he’d head straight to the Senate floor to make the case.

Libertarianism has no greater asset than this guy.

“In World War II, the mentality of the public was that our whole way of life was at risk, we’re all in. We censored the mail. When you wrote a letter overseas, it got censored. When a letter was written back from the battlefield to home, they looked at what was in the letter to make sure they were not tipping off the enemy,” Graham, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told reporters on Capitol Hill. “If I thought censoring the mail was necessary, I would suggest it, but I don’t think it is.”…

“The First Amendment right to speak is sacrosanct, but it has limits,” Graham added. “In World War II, our population understood that what we say in letters could be used against [us by] our enemies. It was designed to protect us and ensure that we would have First Amendment rights because under the Japanese and Nazi regime, they weren’t that big into the First Amendment. We don’t need to censor the mail, but we do need to find out what the enemy’s up to.”

If he really does believe the First Amendment is sacrosanct, he does so very grudgingly.

Here’s the thing: It’s not just the fact that he’s proposing World War II security protocols for something like the war on terror that’ll last decades, with periods of greater and lesser danger to the mainland. It’s that we all know there’ll never come a point where Graham sees fit to declare the war “over.” On the contrary, he’d almost certainly be indignant at the suggestion. Even if the U.S. military spent the next decade whittling AQ and its affiliates down to nothing, Graham would point to outfits like Hezbollah and Lashkar e-Taiba and nukes in Iran or Pakistan as reasons to keep mail-censoring going or even to expand it. Look at the way he frames the calculus on mail-censoring: It’s not a matter of privacy rights versus security interests, it’s a matter simply of whether censorship is necessary — yet — to protect those security interests. It isn’t, so congrats. The government doesn’t get to read your mail. Yet.

What he’s really proposing is a permanent, gradually but perpetually expanding surveillance state. I think maybe that’s why he seems so unconflicted about this — he’s already accepted the end state, so why sweat the individual incremental steps?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

McVain s/b in a creche and this moron s/b made to wipe his butt, ’til the end.

Schadenfreude on June 11, 2013 at 5:13 PM

South Carolina Republicans, what is your f*cking problem?

Mark1971 on June 11, 2013 at 5:14 PM

Remember: d-cRAT extremist lindsey grahamnesty (aka, AMNESTY-JOHN McRINO’s ventriloquism dummy) is up for re-election in Nov. 2014.

TeaPartyNation on June 11, 2013 at 5:15 PM

Here’s the thing: It’s not just the fact that he’s proposing World War II security protocols for something like the war on terror that’ll last decades

“If I thought censoring the mail was necessary, I would suggest it, but I don’t think it is.”…

…Want to try that again, AP?

Stoic Patriot on June 11, 2013 at 5:15 PM

I will contribute to anyone running against him.

aniptofar on June 11, 2013 at 5:15 PM

In World War II, we also had internment campus for people of Japanese descent. Is he going to propose the same treatment for Muslims?

Shump on June 11, 2013 at 5:15 PM

Just go in whole hog, you effin douchebags. Forget Snowden, these losers are the real traitors.

All those dead men who fought off the British, all those barefoot guys at the end of their endurance who crossed over at Trenton to spark some life back into our army when everyone thought it was a lost cause, only for it all to come to this.

Man, what a disaster we’re handing off to the next generation.

Bishop on June 11, 2013 at 5:16 PM

There is no opposition party to the Democrats.

So why vote?

beatcanvas on June 11, 2013 at 5:17 PM

Didn’t Lincoln suspend habeas corpus during the Civil War?

Is that next, Miss Lindsay?

Wethal on June 11, 2013 at 5:18 PM

Here’s hoping someone can primary this scumbag.

txhsmom on June 11, 2013 at 5:19 PM

Mark Sanford, your time for redemption is nigh…

JohnGalt23 on June 11, 2013 at 5:19 PM

Man, what a disaster we’re handing off to the next generation.

Bishop on June 11, 2013 at 5:16 PM

Yep. And ain’t no one gonna do anything about it and watch it unfold quietly on the evening news and bellyache occasionally on blogs.

beatcanvas on June 11, 2013 at 5:19 PM

…Want to try that again, AP?

Stoic Patriot on June 11, 2013 at 5:15 PM

Want to read the headline again? I didn’t say he wanted to censor the mail — at least right now. I said he’s comfortable proposing ideas used in World War II. He proposed reading Americans’ mail *if it was necessary*. It isn’t — right now.

Allahpundit on June 11, 2013 at 5:20 PM

So, what has the government got on Lindsey? I’m sure we can all guess.

S. Weasel on June 11, 2013 at 5:20 PM

In World War II, we also had internment campus for people of Japanese descent. Is he going to propose the same treatment for Muslims?

Shump on June 11, 2013 at 5:15 PM

You beat me to it. Also, does he miss the difference here? In WWII, they looked at mail, censored out parts if they felt it pertained to the war effort, and then passed the mail along (or destroyed it). They didn’t keep all the mail in a big government building, just waiting for the day where they could use it to convince a judge that some American was colluding with the enemy.

As the Founders knew, people aren’t angels. If you’ve got data laying around, you can misuse it. Worse, you can manipulate it, maybe even assign message content to the wrong people to make your case against them stronger. And humans (including NSA employees) will always eventually give in to temptation.

hawksruleva on June 11, 2013 at 5:21 PM

Be aware of this.

And this – the post office takes pics of everything, front and back.

Schadenfreude on June 11, 2013 at 5:21 PM

Cripe

cmsinaz on June 11, 2013 at 5:22 PM

Want to read the headline again? I didn’t say he wanted to censor the mail — at least right now. I said he’s comfortable proposing ideas used in World War II. He proposed reading Americans’ mail *if it was necessary*. It isn’t — right now.

Allahpundit on June 11, 2013 at 5:20 PM

Proposing an idea like WW2 security protocols would mean actually putting it forward for consideration in being implemented in public policy. Graham isn’t doing that.

Stoic Patriot on June 11, 2013 at 5:23 PM

So Lindsay Graham is actually more liberty-minded in thinking PRISM unnecessary than some Hot Air commenters, such as bluegill and crosspatch?

Congratulations, guys. That’s one hell of an “honor”.

MadisonConservative on June 11, 2013 at 5:24 PM

The voters of SC know what they must do. The question is, will they do it?

echosyst on June 11, 2013 at 5:24 PM

I am MORE afraid of Graham than I am of Al Quieda.

Freddy on June 11, 2013 at 5:24 PM

Proposing an idea like WW2 security protocols would mean actually putting it forward for consideration in being implemented in public policy. Graham isn’t doing that.

Stoic Patriot on June 11, 2013 at 5:23 PM

He doesn’t need to. It’s already implemented. That’s the point of the entire debate.

MadisonConservative on June 11, 2013 at 5:24 PM

Be aware of this.

And this – the post office takes pics of everything, front and back.

Schadenfreude on June 11, 2013 at 5:21 PM

Shouldn’t we be more worried about This and This?

kcewa on June 11, 2013 at 5:25 PM

In World War II, we also had internment campus for people of Japanese descent. Is he going to propose the same treatment for Muslims?

Shump on June 11, 2013 at 5:15 PM

Seriously, why not? Why are we continuing to pretend that Muslisms are NOT the sworn enemy of all things al-harb (that is, non-muslim)? We don’t need to read mail or spy on Americans. The “war on terror” is and always has been a pretext by politically correct pu$$ies who refuse to call a spade a spade.

gryphon202 on June 11, 2013 at 5:25 PM

If this guy can’t get primaried out of office, then the IRS didn’t need to go to all that trouble to suppress the Tea Party.

Doughboy on June 11, 2013 at 5:26 PM

It’s that we all know there’ll never come a point where Graham sees fit to declare the war “over.” …….

What he’s really proposing is a permanent, gradually but perpetually expanding surveillance state.

Oceania was at war with Eurasia; therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia.

-George Orwell

iurockhead on June 11, 2013 at 5:27 PM

In World War II…

It’s kinda a red flag when he uses WW2 as the standard for balance between state power and individual rights. Although I could probably be talked into internment camps for statist Senators.

forest on June 11, 2013 at 5:27 PM

South Carolina Republicans, what is your f*cking problem?

Mark1971 on June 11, 2013 at 5:14 PM

There’s no credible opposition to Graham, unfortunately, which is the real problem. Any candidate that runs against Graham would need to be exceptional and would need to run against both the Democrats and the MSM and they would also need to run against the Republicans at the same time (and expect continued Republican opposition in the even of winning any primary).

Unfortunately, exceptional people like Cruz who are willing to endure this kind of treatment and also can win are a very rare breed, and there’s only so many of them.

Doomberg on June 11, 2013 at 5:28 PM

This guy has to go. I’m thinking Kelly Ayotte should be one and done as she seems to be joined at the hip with the “Gruesome Twosome” (Miss Lucy and Senator Senile). You can see her in the background.

bw222 on June 11, 2013 at 5:28 PM

You are a terrorist, Lindsey Graham.

VorDaj on June 11, 2013 at 5:29 PM

Remember, first and foremost, he is a lawyer! While he was an Air Force Officer, he was a member of the Judge Advocate General Corps!(for Barack Obama, that’s pronounced like, core!) Which means his job was being a lawyer. So, he’s not a normal human from the git go!

tomshup on June 11, 2013 at 5:29 PM

Proposing an idea like WW2 security protocols would mean actually putting it forward for consideration in being implemented in public policy. Graham isn’t doing that.

He is proposing it, contingent only upon its necessity. He’s telling you flat out here he thinks it’s an idea worthy of enacting if/when the need for it arises. He has no qualms about it in terms of liberty or privacy.

Allahpundit on June 11, 2013 at 5:29 PM

Truth, Snowden and the Surveillance State

Islam rises alongside our collectivist Superstate. Mosques prolierate in this country, sharia advances, the superstate flexes, freedom of speech constricts, policing becomes more thuggish, the superstate stockpiles bullets, crowd control becomes more restrictive, fear grows, privacy is extinct, the superstate imposes, requires, invades, provides, rewards, punishes, socializes medicine, targets individuals, covers up everything, ramps up the IRS for your “health,” tracks your electronic life, your phone calls, your travel, your mail.

Snowden strikes, grabs our attention about what we should have known was happening.

It was a gigantic act of courage, it has struck me so far, seemingly from idealism, seemingly to unmask the machine secretly grinding away any remaining semblance of the American republic. Then again, as others have noted, this is a young man who seems to consider himself a citizen of the world. Then again, given that he is a creature of his time, how could he not? What school system in America teaches youngsters pride in the founding of this country?

Is Snowden real? Was he duped? Is he dead? We don’t know. Is he a hero? I think so, but if it turns out he is working for China or takes refuge in Russia — both totalitarian enemies of liberty — then I will think again.

What I do know for sure is that Edward Snowden has thrown down the gauntlet.

The heroism is up to us.

VorDaj on June 11, 2013 at 5:30 PM

There’s another thing Graham forgets, assuming he knows about it: All mail was photographed and reduced in size to move the most possible on ships and sometimes planes. I forget what it was called (I bet RWM knows and she’s younger than me), but my dad used to have some of the letters in that format that he wrote to my mom. So censorship was easy, and necessary at the time.

Somehow, I’m not surprised any more a Pub would say things like this. Of course, the mail of Graham and of his colleagues would NEVER be opened and looked at.

I’m at the point where I think our own government is a bigger threat to us than al Quaeda.

Liam on June 11, 2013 at 5:30 PM

So is there anyone primarying Graham in SC yet? And if no? Why not? Even in communist China they don’t censor all the mail.

Raquel Pinkbullet on June 11, 2013 at 5:31 PM

Maybe Grahmnesty will support Military/Police squatting inside his house too…

workingclass artist on June 11, 2013 at 5:31 PM

Hey, guys? How about we deal with the real problem which is ISLAM?!

Having Nidal Hasan in our military at all, ever, knowing that he was a devout Muslim, is as stupid as having a Nazi officer in our ranks would have been in WWII. Get real!

gryphon202 on June 11, 2013 at 5:31 PM

PRISM — and the Enemies of This State

This is exactly what has happened.

What we are left with is a rigid set of official lies and government propaganda.

1) “Profiling” is worse than terrorism
2) Terrorism is generic, unpredictable
3) Islamic movements such as MB are evolving toward Jeffersonian democracy; give them time and money
4) “Islamophobia” must be eradicated — like the plague.

Adhering to this ideology, “naturally” Uncle Sam must see every American as a suspect. “Naturally,” 100 million Verizon customers “must” have their phone records “mined,” or “stockpiled” or whatever verb best describes this meta-government, mass computerized intrusion that is so very, very ripe for politicized targeting and widespread abuse. “Naturally,” the now-infamous PRISM program permits, as Jed Babbin writes at the American Spectator, “the FBI or NSA to have its own equipment on-site at [various Internet companies] and that equipment is apparently enabled to penetrate and access the “SIGADs” in question without any further interaction with the Internet company.” “Naturally,” there must be still more and deeper state supervision of Americans to fend off the enemies of this ideological state, whoever they might be. The undifferentiated paranoia this reflects is distinctly Soviet.

The post-9/11 hyperstate, then, isn’t acting to pre-empt jihad terrorism or vectors of sharia aimed at our Constitution; it is acting to implement its own perverse ideology — an ideology influenced if not entirely fostered by an Islamic deception operation. Pure and unscathed even by what the Michael Haydens of the intel world likely consider the odd attack, this ideology becomes more important to our leaders than anything else. Such leaders include Michael Hayden, FBI Director Mueller, JCC Gen. Dempsey, not to mention Presidents Bush and Obama. Their ideology — that Islam has nothing to do with this latest historical cycle of jihad we are living through — has become more important to them than public safety, facts, liberty itself.

Is it really such a leap to see how opponents of the ideology become enemies of this state?

VorDaj on June 11, 2013 at 5:31 PM

I’m at the point where I think our own government is a bigger threat to us than al Quaeda.

Liam on June 11, 2013 at 5:30 PM

Our own government is aiding and abetting Al Qaeda.

gryphon202 on June 11, 2013 at 5:32 PM

Relax, everyone, even if such a thing were implemented there would be oversight from the House and Sena….wait…uh…let me work this out first.

Bishop on June 11, 2013 at 5:32 PM

He is proposing it, contingent only upon its necessity. He’s telling you flat out here he thinks it’s an idea worthy of enacting if/when the need for it arises. He has no qualms about it in terms of liberty or privacy.

Allahpundit on June 11, 2013 at 5:29 PM

So by your understanding, if I were to say that it could be necessary to reimplement Japanese internment camps if the Japanese turn hostile towards us, that constitutes a proposal to reestablish said camps?

I tend to think of proposals as being suggested changes to make to policy, not merely the discussion of contingencies.

Stoic Patriot on June 11, 2013 at 5:33 PM

In World War II, we also had internment campus for people of Japanese descent. Is he going to propose the same treatment for Muslims?

Shump on June 11, 2013 at 5:15 PM
Seriously, why not? Why are we continuing to pretend that Muslisms are NOT the sworn enemy of all things al-harb (that is, non-muslim)? We don’t need to read mail or spy on Americans. The “war on terror” is and always has been a pretext by politically correct pu$$ies who refuse to call a spade a spade.

gryphon202 on June 11, 2013 at 5:25 PM

Whoa! You just caused me to burst out laughing! Bravo Zulu!

tomshup on June 11, 2013 at 5:33 PM

Welcome to our comfy Gulag…formerly known as the United States of America.

workingclass artist on June 11, 2013 at 5:33 PM

Relax, everyone, even if such a thing were implemented there would be oversight from the House and Sena….wait…uh…let me work this out first.

Bishop on June 11, 2013 at 5:32 PM

God Allah forbid we should actually religiously racially profile Muslims!/

gryphon202 on June 11, 2013 at 5:34 PM

If Senator Graham had ANY interest in preventing terrorism in the United States, he would be in favor of ENFORCING OUR CURRENT LAWS AGAINST ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION!

Since Lindsey Graham supports Amnesty for ILLEGAL aliens, he has ZERO credibility with me.

Lindsey Graham is running for re-election in South Carolina in 2014. Who is running against him in the Republican Primary and what are his/her positions on ILLEGAL immigration?

wren on June 11, 2013 at 5:34 PM

The problem with primary-ing Graham is that his base (the Greenville-Spartanburg area) are BIG GOVERNMENT social conservatives–the dreaded “compassionate conservative”.

SouthernGent on June 11, 2013 at 5:34 PM

What he’s really proposing is a permanent, gradually but perpetually expanding surveillance state. I think maybe that’s why he seems so unconflicted about this — he’s already accepted the end state, so why sweat the individual incremental steps?

The infrastructure exists. isn’t it really a question of who’s going to be doing the surveilling?

kcewa on June 11, 2013 at 5:34 PM

Seriously, why not? Why are we continuing to pretend that Muslisms are NOT the sworn enemy of all things al-harb (that is, non-muslim)? We don’t need to read mail or spy on Americans. The “war on terror” is and always has been a pretext by politically correct pu$$ies who refuse to call a spade a spade.

gryphon202 on June 11, 2013 at 5:25 PM

The same Muslims who voted 88% for Bush in 2000, and 64% in 2004? Come on this is the kind of talk that will make the GOP the party of old white men.

Raquel Pinkbullet on June 11, 2013 at 5:34 PM

Define ” Terrorism” Ms Linseed

burrata on June 11, 2013 at 5:35 PM

So, what has the government got on Lindsey? I’m sure we can all guess.

S. Weasel on June 11, 2013 at 5:20 PM

Oh , he just loves children…

the_nile on June 11, 2013 at 5:36 PM

we live in a state of wealth based on the 200 years of the American experiment…but the wealth has dulled us, just like the trust fund babies. We have small men as our leaders, with small ideas.

They are fickle to the fads of the decade..global warming, war on terror,, compassionate conservatism…slogans in place of ideas

Cooke, NRO

Virtually everybody in America can recite Benjamin Franklin’s hyper-famous quotation about “liberty” and “safety” — and virtually everybody does. So allow me to join the ranks: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Sadly, this quote is now so often deployed that it has come effectively to demonstrate George Orwell’s perspicacious observation that familiar sayings “spread by imitation” are commonly recited without much thought. This is troubling, for Franklin’s words carry with them a difficult, incommodious, but vital implication: that liberty is an imperative, and its price is discomfort, danger, and even, to borrow from Patrick Henry, death. Lest you wonder how serious Franklin was about abstractions, in the sentence before the famous line, he contended that “Massachusetts must suffer all the Hazards and Mischiefs of War, rather than admit the Alteration of their Charters and Laws by Parliament.”

but, now everyone worships their bling and their power

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/350609/liberty-tentacular-state-charles-c-w-cooke/page/0/1

r keller on June 11, 2013 at 5:36 PM

Proposing an idea like WW2 security protocols would mean actually putting it forward for consideration in being implemented in public policy. Graham isn’t doing that.

Stoic Patriot on June 11, 2013 at 5:23 PM

Why are you sticking up for this douche nozzle? This is the same idiot who can’t seem to figure out if bloggers have the same 1st Amendment protections as those with the title journalist. Graham is way too quick to pick “security” over liberty. Congress has not declared war, and most correspondence that crosses borders nowadays is between private citizens.

NotCoach on June 11, 2013 at 5:36 PM

The same Muslims who voted 88% for Bush in 2000, and 64% in 2004? Come on this is the kind of talk that will make the GOP the party of old white men.

Raquel Pinkbullet on June 11, 2013 at 5:34 PM

The same old irrelevant white men who voted for Romney in ’12, huh? I guess denial ain’t just a river in Egypt.

gryphon202 on June 11, 2013 at 5:36 PM

The problem with primary-ing Graham is that his base (the Greenville-Spartanburg area) are BIG GOVERNMENT social conservatives–the dreaded “compassionate conservative”.

SouthernGent on June 11, 2013 at 5:34 PM

There has to be someone in SC, that can appease soc-cons while also being an actual conservative. Is the bench that thin?

Raquel Pinkbullet on June 11, 2013 at 5:37 PM

Party of three?

mjbrooks3 on June 11, 2013 at 5:37 PM

Why are you sticking up for this douche nozzle? This is the same idiot who can’t seem to figure out if bloggers have the same 1st Amendment protections as those with the title journalist. Graham is way too quick to pick “security” over liberty. Congress has not declared war, and most correspondence that crosses borders nowadays is between private citizens.

NotCoach on June 11, 2013 at 5:36 PM

Look, I didn’t like Graham’s support of Obama’s judges, and I don’t like his squishiness on climate change or immigration, but I also think it’s important to accurately characterize someone’s position, and not overstate what is actually being said.

Stoic Patriot on June 11, 2013 at 5:38 PM

Why are you sticking up for this douche nozzle? This is the same idiot who can’t seem to figure out if bloggers have the same 1st Amendment protections as those with the title journalist. Graham is way too quick to pick “security” over liberty. Congress has not declared war, and most correspondence that crosses borders nowadays is between private citizens.

NotCoach on June 11, 2013 at 5:36 PM

I seem to recall a certain wise man saying that those who would trade essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither. Well, with people like Graham cracker in charge, we will have neither liberty nor security and we’ll get exactly what we deserve.

gryphon202 on June 11, 2013 at 5:38 PM

Man, what a disaster we’re handing off to the next generation.

Bishop on June 11, 2013 at 5:16 PM

Who’s handing off? The next generation stole the family car, loaded it up with Obama’s choom gang and drove it into the ditch.

rhombus on June 11, 2013 at 5:38 PM

The next generation stole the family car, loaded it up with Obama’s choom gang and drove it into the ditch.

rhombus on June 11, 2013 at 5:38 PM

No they didn’t. MY fluking generation did. (I’m 55)

Liam on June 11, 2013 at 5:39 PM

This NSA Scandal is really exposing the politicos isn’t it?

R & D is rapidly becoming irrelevant.

workingclass artist on June 11, 2013 at 5:39 PM

Just go in whole hog, you effin douchebags. Forget Snowden, these losers are the real traitors.

All those dead men who fought off the British, all those barefoot guys at the end of their endurance who crossed over at Trenton to spark some life back into our army when everyone thought it was a lost cause, only for it all to come to this.

Man, what a disaster we’re handing off to the next generation.

Bishop on June 11, 2013 at 5:16 PM

Yep. They took an oath to uphold the constitution – did Snowden?

kim roy on June 11, 2013 at 5:40 PM

Jeez, the dudes an out and out fascist. No qualms at all.

tommy71 on June 11, 2013 at 5:40 PM

So, what has the government got on Lindsey? I’m sure we can all guess.

S. Weasel on June 11, 2013 at 5:20 PM

Oh , he just loves children…

the_nile on June 11, 2013 at 5:36 PM

Hopefully not to death…

Liam on June 11, 2013 at 5:40 PM

I seem to recall a certain wise man saying that those who would trade essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither. Well, with people like Graham cracker in charge, we will have neither liberty nor security and we’ll get exactly what we deserve.

gryphon202 on June 11, 2013 at 5:38 PM

That’s why I had security in scare quotes.

Scare quotes are quotation marks placed around a word or phrase to imply that it may not signify its apparent meaning or that it is not necessarily the way the quoting person would express its concept.

NotCoach on June 11, 2013 at 5:40 PM

The same old irrelevant white men who voted for Romney in ’12, huh? I guess denial ain’t just a river in Egypt.

gryphon202 on June 11, 2013 at 5:36 PM

Considering that Asians, a natural conservative demographic voted for Obama at 72% is quite disconcerting actually.

You are a caricature of the “Republican voter” the Obama campaign created.

Raquel Pinkbullet on June 11, 2013 at 5:40 PM

Someone in South Carolina PRIMARY this authoritarian. Let him get his totalitarian-temptation freak flag on somewhere other than the United States Senate.

‘Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.’

– George Washington, 7 January 1790

‘Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.’

– Patrick Henry, 5 June 1788

‘[W]hat country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that [the] people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms…The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.’

– Thomas Jefferson, letter to Col. William S. Smith, 1787

‘ A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares about more than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.’

– John Stuart Mill, writing on the Civil War, 1862

‘Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficient…The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.’

– Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis

‘Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.’

– Daniel Webster

‘The Constitution is not neutral. It was designed to take the government off the backs of the people.’

– Justice William O. Douglas

‘ Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others?

– Thomas Jefferson, inaugural address, 1801

‘Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.’

– Senator Barry Goldwater

‘Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences.’

– C. S. Lewis

‘This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it.’

– Abraham Lincoln, 4 April 1861

‘The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it always to be kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then.’

– Thomas Jefferson, letter to Abigail Adams, 1787

Resist We Much on June 11, 2013 at 5:40 PM

Shaking head

gophergirl on June 11, 2013 at 5:41 PM

The next generation stole the family car, loaded it up with Obama’s choom gang and drove it into the ditch.

rhombus on June 11, 2013 at 5:38 PM

No they didn’t. MY fluking generation did. (I’m 55)

Liam on June 11, 2013 at 5:39 PM

To be fair, sure yours did, but the next one is just standing there looking helpless wondering what to do about said car in ditch and hoping the government shows up to “make it all right”.

kim roy on June 11, 2013 at 5:41 PM

You are a caricature of the “Republican voter” the Obama campaign created.

Raquel Pinkbullet on June 11, 2013 at 5:40 PM

Your caricaturization of me as a party loyalist couldn’t be farther from the truth, considering how cute it seems to me that you think the Republican party still has any conservativism left in it.

gryphon202 on June 11, 2013 at 5:42 PM

He is proposing it, contingent only upon its necessity. He’s telling you flat out here he thinks it’s an idea worthy of enacting if/when the need for it arises. He has no qualms about it in terms of liberty or privacy.

Allahpundit on June 11, 2013 at 5:29 PM

Exactly. That some can’t figure this out boggles the mind.

oryguncon on June 11, 2013 at 5:42 PM

So by your understanding, if I were to say that it could be necessary to reimplement Japanese internment camps if the Japanese turn hostile towards us, that constitutes a proposal to reestablish said camps?

If Obama said he’d be willing to intern conservatives in camps if it became necessary, is that no biggie on grounds that he hasn’t said it’s necessary yet? He’d be proposing it in principle; all that remains is for his contingency to be satisfied.

Allahpundit on June 11, 2013 at 5:43 PM

No they didn’t. MY fluking generation did. (I’m 55)

Liam on June 11, 2013 at 5:39 PM

Your/our generation also elected Reagan in our younger days. Blame social security on your grandparents and medicare on your parents. I didn’t vote for ObamaCare, the kids did.

rhombus on June 11, 2013 at 5:43 PM

So, what has the government got on Lindsey? I’m sure we can all guess.

S. Weasel on June 11, 2013 at 5:20 PM

Unfortunately that may be exactly what is going on. The fact is that our politicians are some of the biggest scumbags in America and the NSA probably has all kinds of dirt on them and the SCOTUS. For all we know that’s why Justice Roberts inexplicably switched his vote on Obamacare at the last minute.

FloatingRock on June 11, 2013 at 5:43 PM

You get the sense with Graham that if Obama convinced him that Al Qaeda could be defeated only through martial law, he’d head straight to the Senate floor to make the case.

Obama, McCain, Rubio, and Graham supported al Qaeda in Libya and are supporting al Qaeda in Syria!

VorDaj on June 11, 2013 at 5:44 PM

Your caricaturization of me as a party loyalist couldn’t be farther from the truth, considering how cute it seems to me that you think the Republican party still has any conservativism left in it.

gryphon202 on June 11, 2013 at 5:42 PM

That’s not what I said or IMPLIED. I said you were a caricature of a “Republican voter” the Obama campaign created. And yes the Republican party is now no different than the Dem party. But that is irrelevant.

Raquel Pinkbullet on June 11, 2013 at 5:46 PM

If you are living in the kind of ultra-tolerant ultra-inclusive society that Graham supports by calling you a bigot if you require secure borders and legal occupants, then you must support the extreme big brother policies that Graham supports. See the problem?

He’s right, though. If you are going to have Graham policies that create the problem, then you will need Graham policies to even have a chance of catching some of the problems that he created.

A better idea is “How do we get back to a society where we can have privacy again?”. Only the “bigot” has the solution for that. You live among groups and individuals that you can trust at least to some degree.

They’ll call you “Hitler”…or “Israel”…of course.

Buddahpundit on June 11, 2013 at 5:46 PM

Get F**ked, Miss Lindsey!
Effing, bird-slurping traitor!

annoyinglittletwerp on June 11, 2013 at 5:46 PM

To be fair, sure yours did, but the next one is just standing there looking helpless wondering what to do about said car in ditch and hoping the government shows up to “make it all right”.

kim roy on June 11, 2013 at 5:41 PM

I don’t blame the next generation quite as much as maybe I should, because so many of them had crappy Baby-Boomer parents. But you are right as well — there comes a time to get into your own head, cut the umbilical cord and/or break training. The sad thing I find is that the Baby Boomers and their kids never lived up to their own values.

This is called ‘progress’ by the Left.

Liam on June 11, 2013 at 5:46 PM

Who’s handing off? The next generation stole the family car, loaded it up with Obama’s choom gang and drove it into the ditch.

rhombus on June 11, 2013 at 5:38 PM

My little kids did all that, the ones who are still in school and playing with toys?

They’re do deeply screwed that they might as well volunteer for the one-way mission to Mars, at least they would see some incredible sights. All that’s waiting for them here is a decaying nation run by a self-appointed ruling class who couldn’t ring a doorbell without managing to somehow break their own leg.

Bishop on June 11, 2013 at 5:47 PM

What country am I in??!! Wha-What happened??!!

ThePrez on June 11, 2013 at 5:48 PM

So by your understanding, if I were to say that it could be necessary to reimplement Japanese internment camps if the Japanese turn hostile towards us, that constitutes a proposal to reestablish said camps?

So by your understanding, if I were to say that it could be necessary to reimplement slavery if the blacks turn hostile towards us, that constitutes a proposal to reestablish said slavery?

VorDaj on June 11, 2013 at 5:49 PM

Stoic Patriot on June 11, 2013 at 5:23 PM

Why are you sticking up for this douche nozzle?

NotCoach on June 11, 2013 at 5:36 PM

That’s an easily answerable question that you will find amongst the following:

They should install surveillance cameras in every home also. If you’re not doing anything wrong you have nothing to fear.

Armin Tamzarian on June 6, 2013 at 7:10 PM

True, you have nothing to fear. Whether or not they should considering the financial cost and annoyance to the public given the routine visits that would come with maintenance, etc, is another matter.

Stoic Patriot on June 6, 2013 at 7:14 PM

Got that? You have nothing to fear about a government watching you have sex with your spouse or partner. Nothing. The government SHOULD have this information./ For what purpose, I have no idea.

Coming from someone, who sees no problem with installing surveillance equipment in every home in the country because ‘if it will save one life,’ we should do it, I don’t think that I am comfortable with what you could possibly define as an ‘injury.’

Resist We Much on June 6, 2013 at 9:45 PM

I pointed out that surveillance equipment in every home would represent a huge financial cost and would also require routine maintenance for the equipment. Because of that, it would also mean a very visible presence, in which case people would know not to commit any egregious acts there, but would instead shift to other un-monitored areas, thereby rendering it ineffective. With passive surveillance like electronic surveillance, you never become aware (save for an expose by the media) as to what and when collection is occurring, so the criminal element cannot anticipate if or when they will be caught. That’s why it’s effective.

Stoic Patriot on June 6, 2013 at 9:59 PM

How Orwellian of you? You are more concerned about ‘egregious acts’ being committed in one’s home than you are of the idea of the government actually monitoring you within your own home. ‘Egregious acts’ are in the eye of the beholder. What if a pro-life group meets at a home and, heaven forfend, the government disapproves of the content of their prayer? Oh, my!

Resist We Much on June 6, 2013 at 10:33 PM<

Yes I am. Murder, assault, and rape that occurs in the home concerns me a lot more than monitoring.

Stoic Patriot on June 6, 2013 at 11:01 PM

The fact remains that you would have no problem with the government monitoring people in their own homes. That’s Orwellian, unconstitutional, and downright creepy.

And as for “freedom,” that’s a whole other discussion. Like privacy, though, it’s not one of those terms that I romanticize nearly to the degree that most other Americans do.

Stoic Confused “Patriot“ on June 10, 2013 at 10:04 PM

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/06/breaking-fbi-nsa-massively-collecting-data-from-9-internet-companies/comment-page-3/#comments

Resist We Much on June 11, 2013 at 5:49 PM

Who’s handing off? The next generation stole the family car, loaded it up with Obama’s choom gang and drove it into the ditch.

rhombus on June 11, 2013 at 5:38 PM

The “generation” that allowed the LEFT to take over academia and the media and Hollywood doomed America.

Raquel Pinkbullet on June 11, 2013 at 5:49 PM

…..Graham, just, stop talking! I find myself despising you more, every time you open your mouth.

WolvenOne on June 11, 2013 at 5:49 PM

Lindsay Graham should not enjoy one second of his life outside DC.

tom daschle concerned on June 11, 2013 at 5:49 PM

Once again, I ask SC voters, how in the effing he!! do you keep re-electing this man when you also elected Jim DeMint!?!?!??!

I honestly don’t get it…

ladyingray on June 11, 2013 at 5:51 PM

If Obama said he’d be willing to intern conservatives in camps if it became necessary, is that no biggie on grounds that he hasn’t said it’s necessary yet? He’d be proposing it in principle; all that remains is for his contingency to be satisfied.

Allahpundit on June 11, 2013 at 5:43 PM

It would certainly prompt questions and outrage about why it’s a topic of conversation when there’s no evidence of a concerted effort by conservatives to engage in acts of violence or sabotage. Looking over the article, though, Graham is speaking in generalities about national security without mentioning any specific group to target.

I think targeting is the key aspect in the example you bring up. There are naturally going to be different reactions if we talk about targeting Muslims (which would garner support due to past behavior by members of that aggregate), conservatives (which would generate outrage since violence hasn’t been shown to be habitual and it would come off as an ulterior motive for accomplishing his political ends), or other groups (say the elderly, which would generate mixed sentiments of befuddlement, amusement, and concern about the sanity of our representatives).

Stoic Patriot on June 11, 2013 at 5:53 PM

Woah, PBS Newshour firing everyone and going to non-Obamacare freelancers?

John the Libertarian on June 11, 2013 at 5:53 PM

The terrorists have won – America has lost.

jake-the-goose on June 11, 2013 at 5:53 PM

“Stoic Patriot” certainly deserves the grand prize for most misnamed commenter, hands down.

VorDaj on June 11, 2013 at 5:54 PM

Be careful what you write on a postcard…the Post Office photographs both sides of every letter or postcard…

albill on June 11, 2013 at 5:54 PM

Resist We Much on June 11, 2013 at 5:49 PM

Yep. I said, and stand by all of that.

Stoic Patriot on June 11, 2013 at 5:54 PM

Most interesting…

‘George W Obama’ Is Rehabilitating ‘Bushitler’

For the first time since 2005, Bush has a higher favourable than unfavourable rating. And, if that’s not enough, he also has higher favourable ratings than Obama.

Is ‘Hopenchange’ now only seen as just a fraud masking the ‘Bushitler’ underneath? Or, perhaps, more Americans are merely looking at Bush through the PRISM of Obama, who has continued and expanded many of the former’s policies and programmes and has failed to fulfill his campaign promises on the economy?

Dunno, but interesting polls still…

Resist We Much on June 11, 2013 at 5:55 PM

No more Reps and Dems. Only statists and anti-statists. Lindsey is a statist.

Red Cloud on June 11, 2013 at 5:55 PM

What are the criteria to say the terrorists have won?

albill on June 11, 2013 at 5:55 PM

Yep. I said, and stand by all of that.

Stoic Patriot on June 11, 2013 at 5:54 PM

We KNOW that you do, Hot Air’s resident Whig.

Resist We Much on June 11, 2013 at 5:55 PM

“Stoic Patriot” certainly deserves the grand prize for most misnamed commenter, hands down.

VorDaj on June 11, 2013 at 5:54 PM

He’s willing to accept the chains as long as he gets his choice of color.

Bishop on June 11, 2013 at 5:56 PM

We KNOW that you do, Hot Air’s resident Whig.

Resist We Much on June 11, 2013 at 5:55 PM

You’re really obsessed with the Whigs.

Stoic Patriot on June 11, 2013 at 5:56 PM

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/06/breaking-fbi-nsa-massively-collecting-data-from-9-internet-companies/comment-page-3/#comments

Resist We Much on June 11, 2013 at 5:49 PM

It’s true, there are fascists on both sides of the isle. That’s why I think that it’s important that we have a popular 3rd party president in ’16 that can unite all of the supporters of freedom and liberty from all the parties against the supporters of fascism and tyranny from both parties. Actually, ideally there will be a single freedom candidate and the fascists will split their votes between the D and R, as usual.

FloatingRock on June 11, 2013 at 5:56 PM

Comment pages: 1 2