In response to the criticism by Mark Steyn and Andrew Stuttaford about his weekend comments on free speech and Koran burning, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) called me this afternoon to flesh out his thoughts on the matter.
Here is the transcript:
NRO: Some of my National Review colleagues are being pretty rough on you today. What is your response to some of the outrage on the right about your comments regarding free speech?
GRAHAM: General Petraeus sent a statement out to all news organizations yesterday, urging our government to [condemn] Koran burning. Free speech probably allows that, but I don’t like that. I don’t like burning the flag under the idea of free speech. That bothers me; I have been one of the chief sponsors of legislation against burning the flag. I don’t like the idea that these people picket funerals of slain servicemen. If I had my way, that wouldn’t be free speech. So there are a lot of things under the guise of free speech that I think are harmful and hateful.
Advertisement
When General Petraeus wants us to say something because our troops are at risk, I’m glad to help. I don’t believe that killing someone is an appropriate reaction to burning the Koran, the Bible, or anything else, like I said Sunday; but those who believe that free speech allows you to burn the flag, I disagree. Those who want free speech to allow you to go to a funeral and picket a family, and giving more misery to their lives than they have already suffered, I disagree. And if I could do something about behavior that puts our troops at risk, I would. But in this case, you probably can’t. It’s not about the Koran; it’s about putting our troops at risk. And I think all of us owe the troops the support we’re capable of giving.
Any time an American acts in a way that puts our troops at risk, I feel the need to speak out. I don’t have any hesitation telling the Karzai government that they should not put someone in jail for converting to Christianity. I think that is an absurd law, and we have pushed back against that. I don’t have a problem condemning somebody who burns the Koran or any other religious teaching, particularly when it puts our troops at risk. If we don’t realize that we have thousands of American soldiers in Muslim countries, and that what we do and say here influences their security, then we are just disconnected from the world as it is.
NRO: But don’t you understand the concerns about a U.S. senator determining the limits of free speech?
GRAHAM: Not really. Nobody said anything to me when I said that you can’t burn the flag. People say that is free speech, but I don’t agree. What I was saying is, if I could hold people accountable, I would. But I know that we can’t. I just don’t like the idea of free speech being used as a reason to put our troops at risk. They’ve got enough problems already. I really believe that responsibility ought to be part of free speech. You can’t yell “fire” in a theater. There are a lot of things that you can’t do under the guise of free speech. I just hate it when somebody here, some crazy person, acts in a way that puts our troops in jeopardy. I really feel the need to condemn that. To me, that is not a responsible use of free speech.
NRO: Couldn’t any kind of speech be interpreted as something that could put the troops at risk? Something the president says? Something a U.S. senator says? You could point to any speech and blame it for something.
GRAHAM: Well, that’s what I’m saying. I agree with that. We live in a free-speech society. But when Harry Reid said that the war was lost in Iraq, I didn’t like it. But he has the right to say it. I just want us to be responsible and realize that we are at war. I guess that is my point.
NRO: So you don’t want to do anything legally to limit speech. You’re making a political point.
GRAHAM: Right. I want to push back and say, “be responsible.” But I would vote for a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning, okay.
Obviously, Graham was worried by the criticism if he reached out and then gave an extensive interview. But I believe Steyn was right and Graham was wrong. Lindsey Graham seems like a wuss to me.
The way Graham keeps emphasizing that he wishes he could hold people responsible for their constitutionally protected free speech leads me to one conclusion: he's not a big fan of free speech.
He says, "It’s pretty hard for us to stand up for freedom of religion in Islamic counties when you can’t stand up for it here."
And yet he's all for standing AGAINST freedom of religion, insofar as that means dramatic expressions of criticism against a religious text that endorses the oppression and violent persecution of those who practice other faiths.
He is consistently inconsistent. Certainly the NYT leaks from earlier in the Iraq War and the Wikileaks deluge put our troops at more risk than some preacher in Florida - and there are laws against disclosure of classified information if we will only prosecute.
But it is ridiculous to maintain we need to curtail free speech at home to protect our troops from foreign civilians. Our enemies already hate us, and the rabid animals who riot and murder at the thought of a burnt Koran or cartoon of their prophet are our enemies, make no mistake about it.
If the whole population of the area hates us, we must define a clear national interest in being there or else get out. The barbarians certainly aren't worth giving up our freedoms.
Sen. Graham would have been better off saying nothing rather than give this interview. He has only solidified my thinking that he simply finds the US Constitution an inconvenience. (Earth to Sen. Graham: you are a senator only because of the Constitution.) As I said on Mark Steyn's site: We should not abet the infantile rage of Muslims. Let me say further, Kharzai apparently had a hand in this. We should simply get rid of him and get some strong-man who is secular and pro-American. We should not act the dhimis in Afghansistan and we should certainly not act the dhimis in our own country.
Graham confirms in his response that Steyn is absolutely correct in all particulars. We should have a Constitutional amendment banning Lindsey Graham, but that would be a bill of attainder, hence, a contradiction of the Constitution, just like the amendments Graham would like to have on limiting freedom of speech.
So in short, Sen Graham is opposed to burning the koran because it makes our enemies cry.
To me, we should do more of it. Further, we officially give notice that we will do it twice daily until our enemies quit hiding behind their women and come out and fight us.
After we defeat them, we point out that Allah favored us, and those who worshiped the false idol, the koran, were defeated.
Pure Gibberish. His first act is for the government to restrict another freedom and then he seeks cover when called out on it by pointing to flag burning and the General. Cowardice at best
Perhaps we should step back and ponder why we are always seeking moral equivalence. Book burning by idiots and death by savages is not the same.
So if we can't burn the Koran, certainly we can't burn the KJ Bible. And if we can't burn the KJB, we can't burn Dianetics. And if we can't burn Dianetics... And if we can't burn books we can't spit on them, right? And if we can't spit on them, then we can't criticize them, right? Right Lindsey? Are you gonna make these distinctions for us?
"General Petraeus sent a statement out to all news organizations yesterday, urging our government to ban Koran burning. Free speech probably allows that..."
Which law school did Graham supposed attend...?
Is this clown kidding...?!?!
How in the world does anyone even vaguely familiar with the Constitution, landmark Constitutional Rulings, or the Constitutional protections of "actions" (flag burning as the obvious example) which represent speech come out with an asinine statement such as Graham just through out there?
"I have been one of the chief sponsors of legislation against burning the flag."
Again... which law school was it Graham attended where they failed to explain to him that a mere "law" - as in statute - does not and can not trump Constitutional Rights and responsibilities?
Seriously, folks... I've always known Graham isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer... but this goes beyond embarrassing - even for him!
"I don’t believe that killing someone is an appropriate reaction to burning the Koran, the Bible, or anything else, like I said Sunday; but..."
BUT...??? BUT...?!?! How'bout... PERIOD - as in, "I don't believe that killing someone is an appropriate reaction to burning the Koran... PERIOD."
Seriously, folks... I honestly don't know what to think. Early Alzheimer's perhaps?
Honestly, folks... I'm not even going to bother to read the rest of the interview. The ignorance on display just so far is about all I can safely stomach in one sitting.
1) i disagree with the senator that the american flag is the one symbol that holds us together.
2) it seems just a tad silly to think that our soldiers on the afghanistand and iraq fronts are being placed in harm's way by someone burning the koran. i think sending them to the front was a much more egregious example of putting them in harm's way.
@joe: We're not at war with L. Ron Hubbard, King Henry, or anyone else. When ideologues start using common sense... we'll then, they wouldn't be ideologues anymore now, would they?
The notion of prohibiting American citizens from expressing themselves, because otherwise it might upset some foreign power, is not only appeasement, it's surrender!
If we want to reduce the risk to our troops, let them kill the enemy!
Ther's a lot of carping here, but in general, does it not make sense to discourage behavior which leads to the deaths of innocents? I mean, I like to burn a Koran or two as much as the next guy does, but do I need to prove my courage (because it is indeed very courageous of Mr. Jones to do this) at risk to others?
One has to respect Senator Graham for calling NRO and speaking about this. It shows that he takes his critics seriously and that he respects this forum.
The problem with Graham is, he’s a politician. Most politicians are only capable of focusing on the politically correct issue of the day for short term political gain. They almost never look at the big picture and make determinations for the long term interest of our nation. Thus we get diatribes across the political spectrum about the inanities of our fellow citizens.
The politicians believe our enemies are astutely capitalizing our indiscretions to attack us therefore we must stop any indiscretion. We’re a country of over 300 million, there will always be some yahoo engaging in buffoonery and our enemy knows it.
They are our enemy, we are at war, they are going to attack us anyway!
This ‘mob’ wasn’t a spontaneous response against the pastor; it was a calculated premeditated attack. Just one more battle (this one unfortunately lost) in the continued war upon the western world. That is the big picture; the enemy will always have a reason to attack us. If instead of fighting back we merely fight among ourselves and if our leaders cannot understand the aims and motives of our enemy...the war is likely lost already.
Follow
