Drones

Lindsey Graham Urges Colleagues to Support Targeted Killing, Protect Obama From "Libertarians and the Left"

|

Baby-faced statist and United States Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) told reporters today that his colleagues in Congress need to get behind Obama's targeted killing program, and protect the president from "libertarians and the left." Politico reports:  

"Every member of Congress needs to get on board," Graham said. "It's not fair to the president to let him, leave him out there alone quite frankly. He's getting hit from libertarians and the left.

"I think the middle of America understands why you would want a drone program to go after a person like Anwar al-Awlaki," Graham added.

"The process of being targeted I think is legal, quite frankly laborious and should reside in the commander in chief to determine who an enemy combatant is and what kind of force to use." 

"If this ever goes to court I guarantee you it will be a slam dunk support of what the administration is doing. I think one of the highlights of President Obama's first time and the beginning of his second term is the way he's been able to use drones against terrorists."

It's odd that Graham would mention this "going to court," as the leaked DOJ white paper that everybody's talking about explicitly says, "[T]here exists no appropriate judicial forum to evaluate these constitutional questions." Oh well! Graham will put his money where his mouth is by introducing a resolution next week commending Obama's murder of a 16-year-old boy.

Advertisement

NEXT: Maryland Considers Allowing Cell Phone Tracking Without Warrant

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Let us put aside our petty partisan differences and unite against our common enemy – the Constitution!

    1. That would have been a winning alt text.

    2. What WTF said

    3. Magna Carta is fortuitous collateral damage.

  2. The pride of South Carolina!

  3. Ah yes, yet another example why politicians should be declared outlaw and be deprived the protections of civilized society.

  4. It’s nice that we’re now publicly and regularly hated. And that a libertarianish senator (Paul, that is) is getting so much press.

    1. I assume (hope) Graham won’t be endorsing young Dr. Paul in 2016. But Graham might be enough of an asshole to do that.

    2. Although it was nice of him to distinguish us from “the left”, rather than lump us in with them.

      1. That is better than the left usually does when we’re lumped in with the right.

    3. What’s that Gandhi quote about being hated?

      1. “Haters gone hate”?

      2. First they’re going to hate you, then they’re going to lie about you, then they’re going to steal your stuff, then they’re going to beat you with sticks.

        Something like that, anyway.

        1. You’re version is much more reflective of reality.

    4. He’s getting hit from libertarians and the left.

      On the bright side, at least we’re condemned as distinct individuals instead of an undifferentiated ominous mass like “The Left”.

  5. Sandi took a dump in Lindsey’s mouth once.

    1. No, that was as real live shit she shat.

  6. I encourage Lindsey’s colleagues to tar and feather him and put him on trial for treason.

    His punishment if convicted? A drone strike, when he least expects it.

    1. I’d settle for just riding him out of the Capitol on a rail.

      1. How about riding a drone down like Slim Pickens in Dr. Strangelove?

        1. Only whilst tarred and feathered.

    2. Convicted? You think people should be tried and convicted before being drone-struck? What are you, some kind of terrorist-lover?

      1. But of course. I am Libertarian. That automatically means I am a racist, sexist, want to the terrorists to win, and I hate the childinz.

        1. You magnificent bastard!

        2. You know, this whole meme that libertarians hate children simply isn’t true. Who else has the small, nimble fingers required to make fine Persian rugs for me to decorate my floor with and walk around barefoot on, at least on those rare days when I give my indoor sedan chair porters an hour or two off.

          1. They also make fine monocle polishers. You just have to duct tape their little mouths shut and lock them in the broom closet, until their next 16 hour shift begins.

            1. they also taste delicious. You wouldn’t catch me saying “I hate in-n-out burgers”, now would you? So it is with children.

        3. . I am Libertarian. That automatically means I am a racist, sexist, want to the terrorists to win, and I hate the childinz

          you forgot dope smoking, butt-chugging athiest trannsexual who hates america

  7. This is the most cowardly.. man?.. in congress.

    Rand should kick his ass on the senate floor, except it wouldn’t be nice to strike such a non-manly… man?… RP should just ask one of the ladies to kick Lindsey’s ass, that would be more appropriate.

    1. Naah, then there’s be comparisons to the beating of Sumner.

      I propose painting him as the Jesse Jackson Jr of the Republican Party and mocking him for riding his daddy’s coat-tails. If it was done pervasively enough I think he might have a nice little nervous breakdown. Which would be awesome, because politicians deserve to be humiliated.

      1. How did he ride his dad’s coattails? His dad ran a liquor store and died when he was 22.

      1. Gross!

        Now that I have thought it over a little more, as to what should be the fate of Lindsey, I think I have it.

        Since he is such a gun-ho military advocate, we send him to the front lines in Mali. Let’s see how much of a hero he really is.

        Matter of fact, we need a new amendment to the Constitution that anyone who votes to send ground troops into combat, gets their ass on the front lines. Age, sex, don’t matter, you want to fight, then put your ass on the line right along with the young folks that you have put in harms way.

    2. Rand should beat him with a hickory cane and then flee to Texas to start a new Republic.

  8. Killing our anti-liberty, violent Islamists enemies who just happen to be American is a perfectly legitimate thing to do.

    Can’t be captured and following the applicable rules of war… I say more power to our government.

    1. Hey guys! I heard that there’s this guy named Lyle who is a anti-liberty, violent Islamist. Let’s kill him! Who’s with me?

      1. Such an attack would be legal, it would be ethical, and it would be wise.

        While you’re at it, be sure to rape and murder his wife and children. That would also be legal, ethical, and wise.

        1. Let’s just tie him to the drone that we use to take out Lindsey Graham. That way, he can be a hero and feel powerful, like the government. Rules of war, ya know.

          1. Nothing says small government and rule of law more than a President killing anyone anywhere at anytime and never having to answer as to why or prove that person a threat.

            LET FREEDOM RING!

            1. Uh, at this point I think you guys are being trolled.

              1. Lyle is right on the Poe’s Law edge. I mean, we know people are this stupid and belligerent and that they post here, but is Lyle really a sub-grade moron with a thick, sturdy warboner that demands to be lubed with filthy A-rab blood, or is he just doing a damn fine imitation of a sub-grade moron with a thick, sturdy warboner that demands to be lubed with filthy A-rab blood?

                It’s a conundrum that demands to not be cared about.

                1. Sockpuppet. No one has produced a literate homo sapiens sapiens named Lyle in over 100 years.

                  1. How DARE you slur Lyle Wagonner?

                  2. Lyle Waggoner? Lyle Lovett? Lyle Alzado?

                    1. Homo sapiens sapiens, dipshits

        2. While you’re at it, be sure to rape and murder his wife and children. That would also be legal, ethical, and wise.

          Only if you got a memo to back it up, pal.

          1. The intern’s out for the day, but fuck it, I’ll write it myself!

      2. Wait, we have to have our Due Process first, do you double dog swear you put him therough the disposition matrix?

        1. Not that we would know whether you did. So I guess we’ll just have to trust you.

        2. I already have. I can’t tell you all the bad things he’s been a part of, because that would compromise my sourced and endanger tarranal security. But he is a pretty bad dude, and the world will be better off without him.

          Only people who support islamists and secretly want them to win will oppose my surgical strike to save lives by taking Lyle out.

          1. “The defense rests.”

            “SAW OFF HIS TWEETER!”

          2. Sounds good enough to me, but you have to pinkie swear first.

      3. You’re more than welcome to try man! 🙂

    2. Applicable rules of war… wait, you mean there’s a declaration of war?

      1. There doesn’t have to be a declaration of war man. Maybe we should go back to that, but that’s not what the law really is today.

        1. Teh law sez we haz the rights to kill bad gais.

          1. Teh law is what Lincoln used. 😉

            1. And that’s supposed to convince us? You REALLY don’t know where you are, do you?

              1. I know exactly where I am man. 🙂

                1. And yet you still expect “[Blank] did it!” to be a good argument. You’re a special sort of stupid, Lyle.

                  1. Man, the argument isn’t that “blank did it”, but “blank did it and it was Constitutional”.

                    Educate yourself friend.

                    1. Except part of the argument against it is that it ISN’T Constitutional. Just saying “Yes it was, Lincoln did it” isn’t an argument. I mean you really, REALLY have to be a special kind of stupid to respond to the argument that it isn’t Constitutional by saying “Well yes it is, [blank] did it!” as if your statement by itself settles the matter.

                    2. So putting the Union back together was unconstitutional? Is that your argument to world Darius?

                    3. *Strawman alert

    3. MUST DESTROY THE CONSTITUTION TO SAVE IT

    4. “Killing our anti-liberty, violent Islamists enemies”

      And the president doesn’t need to prove that person is a violent Islamist enemy?

      “Can’t be captured and following the applicable rules of war”

      And does the government not have to prove he can’t be captured? These strikes aren’t in a war zone where we have troops operating. We’re taking out guys living in houses thousands of miles from any American forces

  9. How soon do we get drone strikes against people actually within the US itself?

    I don’t think it will happen before 2025, but I tend to be optimistic.

    1. Expect them to start showing up in “The War On ‘Drugs'”.

      I expect we’ll see this sort of thing start in Central and South America and slowly work its way up north into Mexico.

      Once there it won’t take much more to bring the “war” to those dastardly drug dealers *inside* the US.

      1. Already been used in the war on farmers.

    2. First drone strike on American soil, 2018, El Paso, Texas.

      He almost got away from the drones tracking him in Mexico, and we couldn’t have that.

      1. And we have precedent, what with that sniper killing that truckload of future Democratic voters from a helicopter a few months back.

    3. Never unless some white supremacists take over a city or something.

      1. This is a joke, right?

        1. Not really. Maybe it’ll be some brown supremacists or something.

          Drones won’t be used to kill people in the U.S. under any reading of how Obama is framing the rules on drones, except in an extreme situation of armed violence by some group of people.

          The only way I see it happening is if some armed group takes over an area and tries to defend it, and it becomes impractical to capture these people.

          It would be a Waco situation or Ruby Ridge situation, at its worse. The government was on those people regardless of drones though.

          1. Even if Obama is such a paragon that he only kills the Unrighteous, there will be another occupant of the Oval Office by January 21, 2017.

            Do you imagine that the President of that day will feel bound by a memorandum drafted for his predecessor? Do you not think he might have his own lawyers who can further twist the meaning of words to expand the power of the POTUS?

            Of course, if you really had spent any time on this site, you would realize that the US government actions at Waco and Ruby Ridge are not looked on favorably here.

            1. The law can definitely be abused by future Presidents. But lets not throw the baby out with the bath water. It’s like trying to ban assault weapons because of one jackass’ actions.

              1. What baby? Giving the president the power to kill someone as long as he deems them a terrorist is a terrible thing. No ifs ands or buts. One jackass with this power can do a lot more damage than someone with an “assault weapon”

          2. It would be a Waco situation or Ruby Ridge situation,

            right.

            basically “people sitting around at home doing nothing” I feel so much safer now.

    4. I commented on this in Shikha Dalmia’s piece on immigration – we should bring in more immigrants so we have MOAR BROWN PEOPLE TO DRONE.

      America! Fuck yeah!

    5. Factor in the inert concrete warheads the Israelis use periodically when thinning the herd in Gaza, and I suspect we could see it much earlier than 2025.

    6. I think it already has.

  10. Lindsey is at least smart enough to know who his real enemies are. Good for him, I guess.

  11. Did they break all of Graham’s teeth out on his first day in Congress, so he could praise the President all night without getting tired?

  12. I love it when they volunteer to put themselves against the wall.

  13. Hopefully this idiot get ejected by a primary challenger in 2014. Doubtful, but it’s happened before.

    1. I will vote for his primary opponent like I have every time he’s been up for election.

  14. That’s some fine company you bloodthristitarians are keeping.

    1. Please SF, the correct nomenclature is Foreign Explosionists.

      1. Intersplosionventionalists?

        1. Xenoplodes.

          1. Speaking of EXPLOSIONS?… Dual wielding Unkempt Harolds with the Gunzerker is the best time you’ll have outside a Guatemalan hooker-junket.

            1. I barely have enough time to play my Siren, but if I start another character it’ll be a Gunzerker.

              1. I was thinking the sniper.

                1. Zer0 isn’t very effective against bosses where you can’t hide to maxmize your sniping ability. I’d recommend the Commando or the Mechromancer.

  15. He’s getting hit from libertarians and the left.

    Wait, the last three words in that sentence don’t make any sense.

    1. I think he believes Obama and his supporters are on the right. I’m not sure he’s wrong.

  16. I think he just imagines that wonderful day when President Graham can ease back into a leather chair with a scotch on the rocks and decide who to kill this week.

    1. The missiles are flying. Hallelujah, Hallelujah!

      1. FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP

        “CAN YOU KEEP IT THE FUCK DOWN IN THERE, LINDSEY? WE’RE TRYING TO WATCH THE GAME IN HERE!”

      2. Hugh, you put your god damn hand on that scanning screen, or I’ll hack it off and put it on for you!

  17. There’s more than one reason why Lindsey Graham is leading the list of incumbent Senators most likely to be primaried by conservative Republicans.

    1. and this isn’t one of them

    2. Lose a primary? Please, the South Carolina warboner hasn’t gone down since they fired on Ft. Sumter.

  18. What a cunt stain. In terms of reps/sens from other states (I pretty much hate ALL of “my” reps/sens from MI),Graham’s right up there with “Tippy the Turtle” McConnell, Feinstein, Boxer, Waxman, Schumer, Boner….I mean Top. Men. territory.

    You’re in the elite group “I can’t stand to hear him/her speak so I turn off the sound when they’re on TV/radio.” Congrats, you fucking shit stain!

  19. “The process of being targeted I think is legal, quite frankly laborious and should reside in the commander in chief to determine who an enemy combatant is and what kind of force to use.”

    The power to kill, outside of a constitutional war (Yay War on Nouns!), without checks by the legislature or judiciary. What could possibly go wrong?

    Under my benevolent dictatorship, Lindsay Graham will be declared an enemy combatant based on my legal and laborious process (which will also be secret) and sentenced to be boiled alive on the steps of the Capitol because that is the force I have determined is necessary to punish this enemy of the Fatherland…I mean Homeland.

  20. How the hell does this loathsome toad keep getting elected?

    1. By definition, half of all voters have less than 100 IQ.

      1. “I done voted for that Lindsey lady. She shore sounds purty.”

        1. Is that the accent you use with Epi in the bedroom, Warty?

    2. Conservative South Carolinians tend to be devoid of agape, despite their smug endorsement of the Christian virtues. I think they secretly suspect that white South Carolinians are actually the chosen people. Especially those from the lowcountry, Charleston being the “holy city” and all that. I was raised there and I know those a-holes.

      I wonder what Tim Scott would say about the drone wars and Obama’s kill list. I’d like to think he would withhold endorsement if asked, at the very least.

      1. He’s probably going to be crucified for supporting immigration, if it’s any comfort.

      2. Charleston is a pretty great town though.

    3. Just like any of the other loathsome toads in Congress. The power of incumbency.

  21. Does anyone know if there’s anything to the rumor that Lindsey Graham keeps his skin moist by bathing in the blood of children after sodomizing the corpse of Joseph Stalin?

    I’m just asking since it seems like that would create a clear conflict of interest. Innocuous question, is all that is…

  22. Libertarians are, like, totally THE WORST.

    Also, this:

    Let us put aside our petty partisan differences and unite against our common enemy – the Constitution!

    was most excellent, sir.

  23. “The 5th Amendment does not apply if the Administration says so.”
    –Lindsey Graham

  24. “I think the middle of America understands why you would want a drone program to go after a person like Anwar al-Awlaki,” Graham added.

    We can at least have a respectful conversation about whether you want a drone program to go after a person like that. But having a drone program that goes after a 16-year old child is reprehensible. That killing alone is ample reason to scrap the whole program and impeach the President, no matter what good the rest of the program has done.

    1. “If we can change the law to save even one person, we have an obligation to try.”

      1. “If impeaching the President will save even one life. . . .”

        Its sad, really, that my plan to become a reclusive billionaire funding snarky nation-wide ad campaigns mocking politicians went astray . . .

  25. This is where R’s get so caught up in defending the policies of the Bush administration, that they work themselves around to a position that is not only contrary to their stated principles, but also inimical to their political interests.

    You would think they would at least learn to be as hypocritical as the liberals.

    1. As far as “conservatives” like Graham and Bolton are concerned, more power to the executive is in their interests. They know they’re getting it back eventually and they want a taste.

  26. It would be great if DeMint got bored at Heritage and drove this guy out in a primary challenge.

  27. When does the reason.com comment threads get it’s own show? You guys are priceless; I haven’t been able to stop laughing.

    1. This ^ On almost every article

  28. Lindsey Graham Urges Colleagues to Support Targeted Killing, Protect Obama From….the Left

    (Blinks stupidly)

    What did he just say?

    Pardon me, but was there some outpouring of liberal rage at Obama’s drone program *i missed somewhere*? Or was there just some snark on Twitter??

  29. Seriously though…

    The founding fathers should be rolling in their graves so hard that we have an 8.0 earthquake nationwide

    (1776)…”We hold these truths to be self-evident…

    (2013)…”that whomever gets elected can personally execute anyone they want – including American citizens – and not only that? They don’t even have to tell you *why*, bitch. FUCK YOU, THATS WHY!

  30. FUCK that Goober Graham. He is a traitor through and through.

  31. This just in on the “shit we already knew” category: Lindsey Graham is a tool.

    He’s just a slightly less hypocritical tool than so many others in Washington since at least he’s consistent on this.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.