Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

May 5, 2010

LIEBERMAN'S TENUOUS UNDERSTANDING OF DUE PROCESS.... Faisal Shahzad, the apparent terrorist behind Saturday's failed car-bombing in Times Square, is an American citizen who committed a crime on American soil. As such, it hardly comes as a surprise that he's being subjected to the American criminal-justice system.

Joe Lieberman has a plan to change all of that.

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) is planning to introduce a bill that would allow the government to take away citizenship from Americans who join foreign terrorist organizations.

The proposal would amend current law that bars American citizens from fighting for foreign armies at the price of losing their citizenship.

"I think it's time for us to look at whether we want to amend that law to apply it to American citizens who choose to become affiliated with foreign terrorist organizations, whether they should not also be deprived automatically of their citizenship and therefore be deprived of rights that come with that citizenship when they are apprehended and charged with a terrorist act," Lieberman, who helms the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said on Fox News.

Note, Lieberman wasn't just popping off on Fox News; he's actually moving forward with this as a legislative proposal. Indeed, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) has expressed GOP support for the effort.

I'm at a loss as to understand how this could possibly work. If an American citizen is accused of terrorist associations, he/she would lose citizenship status before a conviction? In Lieberman's vision, the defendant is punished and then gets due process? What if authorities make a mistake and accuse someone who's innocent? Would officials eventually give citizenship back with an "Oops, Our Bad" card?

Senator, Yale Law School called. It wants your diploma back.

Steve Benen 8:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (52)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

I'm pretty sure even the existing law is unconstitutional; Afroyim v. Rusk did rule that U.S. citizens can only be deprived of citizenship if they show specific intent to renounce their citizenship.

Posted by: Ron Mexico on May 5, 2010 at 8:37 AM | PERMALINK

In Lieberman's vision, the defendant is punished and then gets due process?

Not exactly. Remember, this gang believes that only citizens have Constitutional rights (ignoring that the Constitutional prohibitions are on the government, without regard to whom the government is acting on).

What Lieberman is really saying is the unconvicted suspect is punished, and then is no longer entitled to due process.

Even better, huh?

You see, Steve, sometimes to protect these cherished freedoms of ours, we have to give up these freedoms of ours. or something like that.

Posted by: zeitgeist on May 5, 2010 at 8:39 AM | PERMALINK

Senility has set in. I think the Connecticut bar should investigate whether Lieberman is too senile to practice law anymore, and if so, revoke his license to practice law.

Posted by: anon on May 5, 2010 at 8:39 AM | PERMALINK

Lieberman went to law school? Did he take a class in Constitutional Law? You sure it was Yale?

His proposal sounds like something that might be advanced by a tenured member of the faculty of the law school out in Berkley.

Posted by: Ron Byers on May 5, 2010 at 8:41 AM | PERMALINK

Would spying for another country come under the umbrella of "fighting for foreign armies"? And so should Americans accused of spying be stripped of their citizenship and tried in military courts?

What if that country is Israel, Sen. Lieberman?


Posted by: SteveT on May 5, 2010 at 8:42 AM | PERMALINK

Senators have lived on Mount Olympus for so long that they believe a mere wave of the arm and saying "Make it so," is their Divine Right.

-and cross one at your peril. Examples: Zell Miller challenging Chris Matthews to a duel. Or, more recently, during the Sestak/Specter debate, ol' Arlen was so outraged that he muttered the words "fisticuffs" at the end of an acrimonious exchange!

ROTFLMAO. . .

Posted by: DAY on May 5, 2010 at 8:45 AM | PERMALINK

I have a bad feeling about how this is going to go down. I think we should all be prepared for a disappointing lack of opposition from Dem's. Election year, and all.

Posted by: Anon on May 5, 2010 at 8:45 AM | PERMALINK

But... what if they aren't 'naturalised' citizens?

Posted by: Kathy K. on May 5, 2010 at 8:46 AM | PERMALINK

Lieberman's proposal seems to hang on one politically charged premise: Citizenship status aside, a soon-to-be-charged "terrorist" is an unsympathetic character.

That's all it takes these days. So Constitution be damned, polls probably would find 60 percent agreeing with Lieberman. To see the spectacle is to hear the flutter of batwings.

Posted by: Jerry Elsea on May 5, 2010 at 8:49 AM | PERMALINK

In singling out people "affiliated" with terrorist organizations, Lieberman could start with U.S. Rep. Peter King (R - NY), who was a longtime shill for the IRA, viewed as a terrorist organization by the United States, British and Irish governments, and its American front Noraid.

Also, the reason the law against serving in foreign armies (I believe it is so old that actually specifies the armies of a foreign "prince") is seldom enforced is because the foreign army Americans are most likely to serve in is the Israeli Army.

It goes without saying that the Israeli army not considered unfriendly to the United States, but technically, the thousands of Americans who have served in it could be stripped of their citizenship, as per Lieberman. The loophole in this case seems to be that Israel is one of the countries in which Americans reside that has a draft, so even volunteers can plead conscription and have their "transgression" ignored.

The other foreign Army that recruited a lot of Americans was the British one. My uncle ran off to Canada to join the Royal Canadian Air Force in World War II, not content to wait until the U.S. was attacked. He flew Halifax heavy bombers and not only was he never charged with anything, but when the U.S. entered the war, he was promoted -- from a sergeant in the RAF to a lieutenant in the USAAF (although he continued to fly for the RAF and wore British battledress). Which made for a little better treatment in the Nazi POW camp where he spent two years.

Posted by: Edward Furey on May 5, 2010 at 8:49 AM | PERMALINK

Someone please tell me why Joe Liarman still has his HS seat? Get that McCarthyist quisling the hell outta there!

Posted by: johnnymags on May 5, 2010 at 8:49 AM | PERMALINK

Anon,

We should thank our lucky stars the Founders realized that we need a cool deliberative body to balance the hotheaded publicity seekers. Thank God Nancy Pelosi sets the calendar in the House. Those cable news loving Senators can be pursuaded to vote for anything.

Just remember "Country First." You Betcha. Oy.

Posted by: Ron Byers on May 5, 2010 at 8:53 AM | PERMALINK

We're moving into the world of Alice in Wonderland here -

'No, no!' said the Queen. 'Sentence first - verdict afterwards.'

'Stuff and nonsense!' said Alice loudly. 'The idea of having the sentence first!'

'Hold your tongue!' said the Queen, turning purple.

'I won't!' said Alice.

'Off with her head!' the Queen shouted at the top of her voice. Nobody moved.

'Who cares for you?' said Alice, (she had grown to her full size by this time.) 'You're nothing but a pack of cards!'

That Lieberman is such a card!

Posted by: Eeyore on May 5, 2010 at 8:54 AM | PERMALINK

"say it ain't so..."

Posted by: KurtRex1453 on May 5, 2010 at 9:00 AM | PERMALINK

Lieberman has supported the terrorism of Israel... so, by his standard, he should lose his US Citizenship... How about he's put him on a boat and let him float around for the rest of his sad little life, like The Man Without A Country. I'm for that!

Posted by: Hasburgh on May 5, 2010 at 9:03 AM | PERMALINK

Seriously, I expect this kind of insanity from people like McCain, who isn't a lawyer and who has no idea what he's talking about re Miranda rights, but Lieberman is a freaking lawyer.

Even Glenn Beck isn't this crazy.

Posted by: Allan Snyder on May 5, 2010 at 9:09 AM | PERMALINK

It's actually quite simple. The new process will be known as an "Administrative Constitutional Waiver".

A district judge, upon reviewing affidavit and/or anonymous confidential informant statement, will sign the Waiver, checking the appropriate boxes to indicate whether the Fourth, Fifth, and/or Sixth Amendments should be waived in the interest of National Security and Judicial Efficiency.

Posted by: Anselm on May 5, 2010 at 9:24 AM | PERMALINK

I remember when I was with some church friends and they would pass the hat for the IRA.

I told them that I would never contribute and they looked at me like I was nuts.

Should we all lose our citizenship too?

Posted by: neil wilson on May 5, 2010 at 9:25 AM | PERMALINK

Hey....the process under the Bush Administration was always, "If we have you in our prison, you are guilty." Look how well that has worked out with all those Guantanamo non-prosecutions.

Posted by: dweb on May 5, 2010 at 9:26 AM | PERMALINK

It will begin with people with some associations, then it will be muslems, and just behind them other minorities. What the matter with the Liebermans, Joe and Yvette, (aka as Avigdor) which make them forget their lessons of jewish history?

Posted by: Yoni on May 5, 2010 at 9:27 AM | PERMALINK

Lieberman is crazier than McCain.

Discuss.

Posted by: Mudge on May 5, 2010 at 9:36 AM | PERMALINK

Even if Joe changes his mind and says, ok his citizenship should be revoked after he gets convicted, what would that change?

If the guy is convicted and gets life in prison, he cannot vote? Which he couldn't do from prison anyway?

Posted by: Ohioan on May 5, 2010 at 9:40 AM | PERMALINK

OK, so what this means is that the police get to torture someone who's suspected of terrorism, because they're not a citizen... Oh, wait. The Supreme Court has said you can't torture people even if they're not citizens? Darn.

I think we're going to discover the Lieberman has a secret contract with Comedy Central.

Posted by: paul on May 5, 2010 at 9:49 AM | PERMALINK

Sounds like something Joe McCarthy would propose. For some membership in the Democratic party equates to membership is a "foreign terrorist organization."

Posted by: Clem on May 5, 2010 at 9:50 AM | PERMALINK

Actually, the renunciation of citizenship issue is a little more complicated.

During WW2, the US stripped citizenship from a guy who didn't give it up, on the grounds that he was a Nazi. So there's a kind of precedent involving the explicit affiliation with a foreign country with which we were formally at war. What's not clear is how far you can stretch that when you're not talking about Nazis and war with Germany, which implicates the whole 'war on terrorism' or 'law enforcement' dynamic.

The Afroyim case was part of a series of court decisions that systematically dismantled what Congress had enacted to be "expatriating acts", which included not only voting in another country's elections, but serving in another nation's armed forces or government, etc. (BTW -- my favorite in the list of Congressionally-mandated expatriating acts was that American women who married foreigners -- but not men -- gave up their citizenship: late 20s through WW2.)

The most critical (and unresolved) court case was Meir Kahane, the founder of the JDL. He was a US citizen who took up Israeli citizenship, and then ran for the Knesset. IIRC, he won, but the Knesset (having gotten to know the guy) re-wrote the law so that nobody holding dual citizenship could serve in the Knesset. So Kahane formally renounced his US citizenship. (There's a form.)

Then he lost his re-election to the Knesset. When he returned to the US, the State Department tried to take his US passport. He refused. They said -- but you gave up your US citizenship: we have your form!

He said, oh, I only did that because I was trying to get re-elected to the Knesset. I do not choose to give up my US citizenship, and you can't take it away from me.

Citing Afroyim, the first court sided with Kahane. The exasperated State Department appealed, and is confident they would have won -- but Kahane was assassinated before the appeal was decided. So it remains in a kind of Constitutional limbo: anybody want to speculate what Roberts and Scalia would do?

There was a bit of concern about all this during the Bush administration, which seemed to take the view that US citizens had expatriated themselves by joining terrorist organizations: it remains a bit ambiguous today, e.g., Anwar al-Awlaki.

Posted by: theAmericanist on May 5, 2010 at 9:56 AM | PERMALINK

You know, I was just thinking about Virginia's new AG, and I realize that I was wrong to imply that an attorney can't be completely nuts and ignorant of the constitution--or just completely nuts.

Americanist--this isn't about renunciation of citizenship, this is about stripping someone of their citizenship before they're even convicted of anything which might be an "expatriating act".

Posted by: Allan Snyder on May 5, 2010 at 10:07 AM | PERMALINK

I believe the law prohibiting serving in foreign armies specifically excludes Israel. The Senator from Jerusalem probably knows that.

To even discuss such a proposal turns the entire basis of civil rights, equal protection, and democracy on its head. Even the lynch mobs of the old west had a greater sense of due process - give 'em a fair trial and then hang 'em - then does this entitled and deranged supposed lawyer from Connecticut. If Lieberman had become VP under a Gore presidency he would have been as bad as Cheney. Forget it, that's not possible.

Such a law would destroy what little is left of the Constitution after the depredations of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld, and would create an instant police state. The government decides what a terrorist affiliation is, can then strip presumably anyone, natural born or naturalized, of citizenship and subject them to an extra-judicial process of its own design. Dictators everywhere are familiar with such methods, and no doubt applauding.

What an awful statement this makes about Lieberman. He needs to cash in his dual citizenship with Israel and go to his waiting reward in Tel Aviv.

Posted by: rrk1 on May 5, 2010 at 10:18 AM | PERMALINK

If an American citizen is accused of terrorist associations, he/she would lose citizenship status before a conviction?

Well, no, obviously. I haven't studied his proposal in detail, but presumably it would create a mechanism for stripping a U.S. citizen of citizenship once the government learns of his/her affiliation with a terrorist organization (it would have to be some sort of civil proceeding), regardless of whether that individual is charged with committing an act of terrorism.

In the event the government only learns of one's affiliation with a terrorist group after he/she is charged - a separate civil proceeding re citizenship, prior to the adjudication of criminal charges, isn't likely to implicate due process concerns, since the burden of proof in a civil proceeding is lower. I'm not a criminal defense lawyer but, procedurally, this is probably proper. You're talking about two entirely separate proceedings.

Next time, Steve...talk to a lawyer before you accuse others of having a "tenuous" grasp on a subject you clearly have no grasp of whatsoever.

Posted by: lawman on May 5, 2010 at 10:29 AM | PERMALINK

Ok, Joe. You can now reinsert your nose back into McCain's arse.

Posted by: ComradeAnon on May 5, 2010 at 10:42 AM | PERMALINK

Whoa..hold on there LAWMAN. The entire reason this has even been brought UP by Leiberman is because he didn't want to look as stupid as McCain in whining about the suspects Miranda rights. This law IS designed to take away 'due process'. Do you REALLY think that if this law passed, that 'they' would give 'the enemy' due process in civil court and THEN strip them of citizenship? Were you paying attention AT ALL during the early aughts when they arrested American citizens (ie PORTLAND OREGON), did NOT give them due process, held them indefinitely and THEN tried to strip them of citizenship BEFORE constitutional lawyers told them to shove it where the sun don't shine. ONLY then did they back off. Please. In Joe's mind, this is just a formality passing this...

Posted by: SYSPROG on May 5, 2010 at 10:52 AM | PERMALINK

I think there's some precedent for revoking *naturalized* citizenship for someone who lied on their application. That old Polish dude (name escapes me) that has been accused of being a concentration camp guard...currently on trial in e.europe, I think.

But someone born in the US gets their citizenship from the US constitution (14th adm), so ipso facto, stripping them of such citizenship is unconstitutional.

But still, McCain, not born in the US, could be stripped of citizenship. We'd have to see the application form, long version vault paper original, to be sure if is parents shaded the truth at all.

Posted by: Snarki, child of Loki on May 5, 2010 at 10:54 AM | PERMALINK

Since an apprehended terrorist is no longer a danger to society, then what is the point of Lieberman's bill?

To mock the Constitution?

Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither, aye?

Posted by: Ugly Moe on May 5, 2010 at 11:01 AM | PERMALINK

IIRC, it's not a civil proceeding; it's an executive action. The Bush folks wanted Patriot II to create a "presumption" that if a US citizen joined a terrorist organization, that meant they had given up their citizenship -- and they would have to sue to get it back.

The real source for the Constitutional state of all this is Gordon, Mailman, and Yale-Loehrer, which publishes a massive compendium of US immigration law. In 2003, I corresponded with Stanley Mailman about it, and here is his reply, in part (for which I hope he will forgive me):

"As I understand Afroyim and its progeny, constitutional
citizenship, that is, citizenship acquired by birth or naturalization in the U.S., can only by lost by doing one of the acts prescribed by Congress , voluntarily and with the intention of giving it up. As I remember, there was some speculation after Afroyim on whether such an act as treason lay outside that formula. But I think the issue was resolved in favor of seeing expatriation as a right of the individual (as first expressed here in the Act of 1868), Congress's role being confined to setting the terms for its exercise."

But the broader question is a 1980 case, Terrazas, which held in part: "As we have indicated, neither the Citizenship Clause nor Afroyim places suits such as this wholly beyond the accepted power of Congress to prescribe rules of evidence in federal courts. We also conclude that the presumption of voluntariness provided in 1481 (c) is not otherwise constitutionally infirm. "

Posted by: theAmericanist on May 5, 2010 at 11:04 AM | PERMALINK

This is all part of the broader, convoluted conservative meme that only US citizens are entitled to due process.

Posted by: doubtful on May 5, 2010 at 11:10 AM | PERMALINK

Thanks for the info, Americanist!

Posted by: Ron Mexico on May 5, 2010 at 11:14 AM | PERMALINK

Why bother with all these intermediate steps, Senator Lieberman? Let's just get right to your ultimate goal. Any American who does not pledge loyalty to Israel loses citizenship.

Posted by: Anonny on May 5, 2010 at 11:33 AM | PERMALINK

Once again the American people are being subjected to hurried actions under the broad heading of security due to some hyped "crisis" scenerio, as the Right continues to ride the dangerous and chaotic nature of US politics.

After the continual demonstration of the last administration's unconscionable ability to prance with combat boots over well-established US domestic and international laws, a law like this could be a dangerous tool for the next majority of "Party Over Country" hard-core weak-minded persons whose talking points demonstrate little more than nonsence, and who act accordingly.

"The inevitable logic of the liberal position is to be for treason." -- Ann Coulter, P. 292 of her book Treason.

An older but valid article pertaining to the Bush administrations use of laws. http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/64110/everything_hitler_did_was_within_the.html?cat=17


Posted by: Skip on May 5, 2010 at 11:56 AM | PERMALINK

"I think it's time for us to look at whether we want to amend that law to apply it to American citizens who choose to become affiliated with foreign terrorist organizations, whether they should not also be deprived automatically of their citizenship and therefore be deprived of rights that come with that citizenship when they are apprehended and charged with a terrorist act,"

Are we going to apply that to every American who expressed support of Meir Kahane and his (designated by the U.S. AND Israeli governments as) terrorist Kach organization?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kach_and_Kahane_Chai

Because that would remove American citizenship from a sizable chunk of AIPAC and maybe put Lieberman's own eligibility for office in question.

Posted by: Bruce Webb on May 5, 2010 at 11:58 AM | PERMALINK

Lieberman is a very stupid man.

Posted by: HC Carey on May 5, 2010 at 12:28 PM | PERMALINK

I think there's some precedent for revoking *naturalized* citizenship for someone who lied on their application. That old Polish dude (name escapes me) [...] -- Snarki, child of Loki, @10:54

Demjaniuk and he wasn't Polish, though he operated in a death camp situated on Polish territory. He was Ukrainian, which is an important distinction to Poles, who'd been at loggerheads with Ukrainians for centuries.

But your main point stands; rescission for prior fraud is not a concept limited to health. If you lie on your citizenship application form and are found out, your citizenship can be gone in a puff of smoke faster than you can say "I forgot". insurance.

Posted by: exlibra on May 5, 2010 at 12:32 PM | PERMALINK

Eeyore - I'm feeling you and 'm going to read Alice in Wonderland. Hooray for bittorrent!

"We the people..."

U.S. Constitution delineates the power the people have allowed the government to enjoy. This includes the power to make laws, which are therefore constitutional, regardless of moral merit or consistency. The executor of said law will apply it however convenient. If the prosecutor can lock you up longer by calling you a terrorist, she will (and she has). It'd be unwise to rely on such a system.

We must go back to the barbershop/hair dresser, church, rec center, libraries, rallies, fields, markets, jobs, jails, schools, and yes even politicians, and work with each other to make things better instead of abdicating our power. Building by building - block by block. We must have the courage to talk with one another, rather than ignoring each other. We must unite and empathize with each other. We must listen. And we sure as hell better stop falling for the intellectually weak notion of terrorism. I make you afraid so I'm wrong? That's a weak rationalization from a weak person. But since weak people make the laws and carry them out, it is real and it can hurt you. You might be thinking terrorist laws and language would only be applied to legitimately horrendous acts, but there's nothing to keep it from being applied for something petty or out of spite. It is too dangerous.

If i cynically point out the insecurity driving the police officer, lawyer, or congressman, it doesn't change the pain they cause (or could choose to alleviate). A war on terror, a war on poverty, a war on drugs, are all intellectually ridiculous because even though there's enough of a concern with all these things for a reasonable person to go along with, an ambiguous "war" with no clear objective leaves the executor of the war to do what she finds convenient, unbound to actually solve the problem, and likely to do the exact opposite! The only "War On..." worth having is a war on war; all others are projections of fear.

My people, my people, be not afraid. Be free. Stop looking for permission from someone morally beneath you, or above for that mater. Obey the law within reason, but judge not the man who has chosen not to obey. Besides, how can you play a game when you don't know the rules or the ramifications of breaking this rule versus that one. Where's the choice? Until every person can be placed in identical circumstances and compared with each other, we have no moral basis to judge.

Instead of blaming the instigator, lets roll our sleeves up and figure out what's wrong with the system; and get to work actually fixing it. Judgment is a convenience, thus also is prison. Since this culture values convenience over actually dealing with anything, we have so many people in them. But it doesn't have to be that way. We can go back to the barbershop/hair dresser, church, rec center, libraries, rallies, fields, markets, jobs, jails, schools, and yes even politicians, and work with each other to make things better instead of abdicating our power.

One.

Posted by: Bless on May 5, 2010 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINK

Bleh. "insurance" should have gone with "health", at the end of the first sentence in the second para, not at the end of the para.

Posted by: exlibra on May 5, 2010 at 12:35 PM | PERMALINK

Did you say that there is a law that rescinds U.S. citizenship for people who fight in foreign armies?

So how does that relate to people like Rahm Emanuel? Didn't he join the Israeli army? And Jonah Goldberg, too, for that matter? Or is Israel now considered the 51st state?

Posted by: CDW on May 5, 2010 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINK

Lieberman has a law degree?

This just makes him even more fruit loops.

Posted by: Marnie on May 5, 2010 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK

It wouldn't surprise me a bit if JoJo stipulates that any terrorist act committed on behalf of Israel by an American will be Okee-Dokey and not subject to penalty.

The Ivy League has wreaked more damage on this country than any combination of foreign nations in our history.

Posted by: JW on May 5, 2010 at 2:48 PM | PERMALINK

Congress hasn't the authority to govern citizenship... nothing in Article I even suggests such authority... *sigh*

Posted by: getaclue on May 5, 2010 at 2:58 PM | PERMALINK

Joe Lieberman is a dick. He is also a small, insecure, afraid little man.

Thank you, voters of Connecticut, and thanks also to the Democratic leadership in the Senate, who didn't seize the opportunity to throw this disappointment out when they had the chance in 2006.

Posted by: David Bailey on May 5, 2010 at 3:14 PM | PERMALINK

"Or is Israel now considered the 51st state?"
Posted by: CDW on May 5, 2010 at 12:47 PM

I think it's more that certain people seem to think the US is the Israel's 7th mahoz (governmental district).

Posted by: smartalek on May 5, 2010 at 10:39 PM | PERMALINK

I agree with Senator Lieberman's proposal. People need to keep in mind that U.S. citizenship is a privilege; it is not a right. It is the greatest treasure that this country bestows upon immigrants and it is a treasure that most immigrants yearn to obtain.

The other matter that most people who have posted comments seem to not know is that the United States has long held constitutional the absolute right of the U.S. Government to revoke U.S. citizenship that is obtained illegally or by fraud and/or material misrepresentation. The law not only allows the U.S. Attorney's Office or the Secretary of Homeland Security or one of her delegates but it MANDATES that revocation proceedings be initiated against those who obtain this great right illegally or by fraud.

My expertise is in this area of the law and so I am well aware of the Government's right to take the action to revoke someone's U.S. citizenship. If someone committs acts that are unlawful such as a joining a foreign terrorist organization whether they lied about the association during the naturalizaiton process or not, that individual is not eligible to become a U.S. citizen. So, if an individual lies to obtain there U.S. citizenship it is incumbent upon the Government to make certain that the integrity of the naturalization process is protected by ensuring that the individual's U.S. citizenship is revoked.

More and more extremeist or would be terrorist violate our immmigration laws by obtaining their lawful permanent residence through fraud so that they could apply and become U.S. citizens. Why? So, that they can be a little more under the radar. Why shouldn't the Government revoke that individual's citizenship if he or she is associated with a terrorist organization or engages in a terrorist act? There need not be a conviction before taking such action. The law as it is written in the naturalization statutes constitutionally permits (and Court's have upheld this) to revoke U.S. citizenship for unlawful acts committed prior to being admitted as a U.S. citizen.

Everyone is crying foul to Sen. Liberman's proposal--what about crying foul to everyone who wakes up wanting to hurt this great country?

If you don't know the law, then refrain from making idiotic remarks.

Posted by: Patty on May 7, 2010 at 12:36 AM | PERMALINK

prior conviction, NO! post conviction? YES. THIS, HIS ACTIONS ARE WORSE THAN RENOUNCING ONES CITIZENSHIP. PRIOR, HE IS ENTITLED TO HIS RIGHTS. Hmmm... Treason. How about Senators and Congressmen/women receiving direct financial support from a foreign government? Offshore accounts could reveal a wealth of information, here. Couldn't it SOH Pelosi? Sen. Feinstein? Remember, their respective husbands, the largest importers of goods from China... They don't even need Lobbyists. These guys are married to them. Any conflict of interest there?

Posted by: jim Mack on May 7, 2010 at 2:44 AM | PERMALINK

Sen. Joe Lieberman has already endorsed McCain’s March 4th bill S.3081 that would strip Americans of Habeas corpus: Under the McCain bill, U.S. Government would need only designate an American Citizen was an “Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent” suspected of; having engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or U.S. civilians to cause their indefinite detention in military custody, without right to an attorney or trial.

Joe Lieberman’s proposed bill would make it easy to strip Americans of their Citizenship and hold them as “Unprivileged Enemy Belligerents” as U.S. Government would only have to show a U.S. Citizen or group had slight-interaction with a foreign group that touched a terrorist organization, for example Irish Americans living on the east coast of the United States contacting their alleged IRA relatives in Northern Ireland. Since many political groups intersect, even unknowingly with alleged terrorists, Lieberman’s bill would make it possible for a U.S. Government administration to do large sweeps of U.S. Citizens denying Americans Habeas corpus, to try them in military tribunals. One might want to ask who put Lieberman up to introducing this fascist bill that favors Israel. It should be noted Joe Lieberman’s March 4th endorsement of McCain’s bill S.3081, The “Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010” strips Americans of Habeas corpus; there appears to be a pattern here between McCain and Lieberman legislation. McCain’s bill S.3081 would eliminate several Constitutional protections allowing Government to arbitrarily pick up Americans on mere suspicion—with no probable cause. Your political opinions and statements made against U.S. Government could be used by Authorities to deem you a “hostile” “Enemy Belligerent” to cause your arrest and indefinite detention. S.3081 is so broadly written innocent anti-war protesters and Tea Party Groups might be arrested and detained just for attending demonstrations; Government could charge that attending demonstrations "materially supported hostilities."

McCain’s legislation S.3081 could like Lieberman’s proposed bill be used by a corrupt U.S. government administration to crush anyone that dared question government. Under McCain’s S.3081, an “individual” need only be Suspected by Government of “suspicious activity” or “supporting hostilities” to be dragged off and held indefinitely in Military Custody. Government would have the power to detain and interrogate any individual including Americans without probable cause. Government need only allege an individual kept in detention, is an Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent suspected of; having engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States; its coalition partners; or against U.S. civilians. How could one prove to Government they did not purposely do something? “Materially Supporting Hostilities” against the United States could include any person or group that spoke out or demonstrated disapproval against an agency of U.S. Government. It is foreseeable many Americans might go underground to Resist Government Tyranny. Definition for Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent: (Anyone Subject to a Military Commission)

At least under the Patriot Act, law enforcement generally needed probable cause to detain a person indefinitely. Passage of S.3081 will permit government to use “mere suspicion” to curtail an individual’s Constitutional Protections against unlawful arrest, detention and interrogation without benefit of legal counsel and trial. According to S.3081 Government is not required to provide detained individuals U.S. Miranda Warnings or even an attorney. It is problematic under McCain’s S.3081 that detained individuals in the U.S. not involved in terrorism or hostile activities, not given Miranda Warnings or allowed legal counsel will be prosecuted for ordinary crimes because of their alleged admissions while in military custody.

S.3081 if passed will frighten Americans from speaking out. S.3081 is so broadly written, it appears any “individual” who writes on the Internet or verbally express an opinion against or an entity of U.S. Government or its coalition partners might be detained on the basis he or she is an “unprivileged enemy belligerent”, “supporting hostilities against U.S. Government.” The “supporting hostilities” provisions in S.3081 are so broad Government could use “suspicion” to detain U.S. corporate executives on the premise their corporations “supported hostilities” by providing goods or services to a nation engaged in hostilities against the United States.

(Make Your Own Determination If The Analysis Herein Is Correct) See McCain’s 12-page Senate bill S.3081 at:
assets.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/politics/ARM10090.pdf

Posted by: Rwolf on May 7, 2010 at 11:34 PM | PERMALINK

An interesting concept this. I am 1 of those folks whom tend to wait for things to mature before taking action but in this case I am mindful that inaction leads to only failures so I will heed your comments and begin to do a thing about it.

Posted by: Baby Stroller on November 19, 2010 at 11:07 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly