Lieberman: Terrorists Don't Deserve Citizenship

For those who thought the Obama administration should have classified accused Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad as an "enemy combatant" and tried him before a military tribunal, instead of arresting him and charging him in federal court, his U.S. citizenship is an inconvenience. The law authorizing military tribunals for suspected terrorists does not apply to Americans (which was also true of the Bush administration's original military tribunal plan), and it is doubtful whether the Supreme Court would uphold military detention of a U.S. citizen arrested on U.S. soil (as opposed to a battleground in another country). Fox News performance artist Glenn Beck, showing his libertarian side, says:

He's a citizen of the United States, so I say we uphold the laws and the Constitution on citizens. He has all the rights under the Constitution. We don't shred the Constitution when it’s popular.

For what it's worth, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia—who in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld said that unless Congress suspends the writ of habeas corpus, the U.S. government must either try an American citizen accused of bearing arms for the Taliban or let him go—would agree. But Sen. Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn.) has a solution:

Speaking on Fox News, he noted that existing law removes citizenship from Americans fighting for enemy militaries.

"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," he said.

For Lieberman, then, there is no important difference between an enemy soldier captured on the battlefield and an American arrested in the U.S. on terrorism charges. I'd like to suggest one: Sometimes people accused of terrorism-related crimes claim to be innocent. Apparently that's not true of Shahzad, who according to press reports readily admitted leaving that Nissan Pathfinder packed with explosives in Times Square. But in a future terrorism case, a defendant might not only claim to be innocent; he might actually be innocent. That possibility is why we have trials, replete with all those pesky due process requirements, to begin with.

Under Lieberman's proposal, any American accused of links to terrorism would be presumed guilty, stripped of his citizenship, and locked in a military prison. He might get a trial before a special military tribunal, where a conviction would be easier to obtain, or he might simply be held indefinitely without charge. Even if he were tried and acquitted, he could still be held indefinitely. And the beauty of Lieberman's plan is that the government could do this to anyone, even if it did not have much in the way of evidence against him.

[The headline, by the way, is a reference to the argument that "terrorists don't deserve due process," which, like Lieberman's proposal, simply assumes that anyone accused of being a terrorist must be guilty.]

Addendum: My post was based on Lieberman's comments in the press. As Chicago Tom notes in the comments, Lieberman plans to introduce a bill that would implement his idea. The Washington Post's Greg Sargent reports that the bill would authorize the State Department to strip a terrorism suspect of his citizenship, but the suspect could contest that decision in federal court, where the burden of proof would be on the State Department "to persuade the court that [his] involvement with a terror organization is sufficient to justify taking away [his] citizen status." But unless it's easier to make that case than it would be to obtain a criminal conviction in federal court, Lieberman's proposal does not make sense as a way to avoid the requirements of due process. The bill is supposed to be introduced today, so I'll have more later.

More: According to Fox News, Lieberman's bill would not apply to someone like Shahzad, who was arrested in the U.S. It would only apply to Americans detained abroad, which makes it something of a non sequitur as a response to the attempted Times Square bombing. But according to Fox (relying on a Lieberman aide), "should a citizen like Shahzad, if found to be part of a foreign terrorist organization, as designated by the State Department, be captured overseas, the person, stripped of citizenship, could then be hauled before a military commission." If he challenged the State Department's decision in federal court, the standard of proof would be "a preponderance of the evidence," which is much easier to satisfy than the proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" required in criminal cases.

Fox reports that Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), "a military lawyer and often a hawkish ally of Lieberman's on national security," is not keen on the idea. Graham worries that taking away a defendant's citizenship would remove the possibility of a treason charge and therefore make it harder to execute him.

Still more: Go here for details about Lieberman's bill.

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.

  • ||

    Why does Jacob Sullum hate America?

  • VikingMoose||

    yeah yeah!

    "Glenn Beck, showing his libertarian side, says..."

    no. glen becking, demonstrating, "stopped clock" reckoning.

    any coincidental alignment with libertarianism by him or Palin is exactly that. a coincidence. they're about as libertarian as the dog poop scraped on the sidewalk in front of the Ambassador East.

  • Dog Poop||

    Bigot.

  • ||

    no. glen becking, demonstrating, "stopped clock" reckoning.
    Or as we like to say in the south, even a blind nut finds a squirrel once in a while.

  • Some Guy||

    I was just absolutely in shock when I saw that Glenn Beck clip on TDS. I was looking for the date stamp indicating that he was talking about some completely separate incident.

    It was like watching Sean Penn talk about Venezuelan tyranny.

  • ||

    Is that because you, like me, never watch Glenn Beck and have only heard about him?

    The general beliefs about Beck (or Palin or others) seem about as warranted as conspiracy theories about Obama.

  • ||

    I don't watch Beck. So seriously, what does he say that is so unlibertarian? He is annoying and loud, which is why I never listen to him. But, I what makes him so bad?

  • Some Guy||

    I keep this bookmarked for such comments: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6C6E6ayh4U

  • ||

    I can't get to Youtube. Sorry. Can you give me the two sentence version?

  • ||

    Beck is bad because he has favored the PATRIOT Act, the bailout, said that some people took "revolution" in "Ron Paul revolution" too seriously, and the war on terror. Libertarians should follow Rothbard and attempt to aggressively cast out anyone who deviates, though Ron Paul is okay even if he is for immigration restriction, trade barriers, etc.

  • ||

    I would imagine he did support the Patriot Act. But I wasn't aware he supported the Bailout. I thought he spent most of his air time raging about the Bailout.

    Good point about Paul and immigration. The same people who are three threads down claiming the Arizona immigration law is the new Nuremberg laws, no doubt think Paul, a big closed borders guy, is America's last and best hope.

  • Some Guy||

    But I wasn't aware he supported the Bailout. I thought he spent most of his air time raging about the Bailout.

    I don't care much what anyone believed after the bailouts, I care what they said while they were being passed.

    Lots of people I know who claimed to believe in the free market showed their true character in 2008.

  • ||

    What did he say in 2008? I don't know.

  • ||

    It's hard to say, because the video consists of a lot of quick jumps between clips, some breaking him off in mid-sentence. I assume that it's largely correct, and some of the statements seem unambiguous enough that they're probably not contradicted by context.

    Some Guys just like to divide people into Good and Evil, and anyone not perfect is inevitably Evil. I suppose I'm just glad that some of the people like that largely agree with me on the issues, rather than all of them disagreeing with me.

  • Some Guy||

    I suppose I'm just glad that some of the people like that largely agree with me on the issues, rather than all of them disagreeing with me.

    I can't think of any large issues where I agree with him in more than a very vague sense (though yes, admittedly I don't watch him and only see clips.) This is the first instance I have ever heard him say something concrete that I can fully agree with.

  • ||

    Lots of people I know who claimed to believe in the free market showed their true character in 2008.

    I must say I find your moral absolutism and phrasing rather frightening, even though I agree with you on the specific issue of the bailouts. You seem like the sort of person who would not hesitate to legislate your own view of morality, all the while convincing yourself that it was an obvious logical absolute. It is our luck that you seem to have focused your attention in a pro-liberty viewpoint, but heaven forfend you should ever change a logical premise and thus utterly change your mind on issues.

  • Some Guy||

    You seem like the sort of person who would not hesitate to legislate your own view of morality, all the while convincing yourself that it was an obvious logical absolute.

    For example?

  • Draco||

    It's rather sad that, even at this late date, some people still can't distinguish between rescuing the nation's banking system from "bailing out" failing enterprises like GM.

    Dude, if the banking system had collapsed, and the money market funds had broken the buck, it would have been Mad Max in America.

    I'm as free market as you can get, and I still understand that fact.

    Learn to draw important distinctions.

  • Draco||

    Sorry, I was responding to "Some Guy" and I meant to say "between... and", not "between... from."

  • Some Guy||

    It's rather sad that, even at this late date, some people still can't distinguish between rescuing the nation's banking system from "bailing out" failing enterprises like GM.

    The difference is that nobody is going to try to emulate GM's behavior to try to become a TBTF car company.

    I can assure you that that becoming TBTF is the absolute priority for any bank in the US.

  • Slut Bunwalla||

    I have never heard Beck voice support of the bailouts, before or after they were passed. I haven't listened to him in a while, but I did used to listen to his radio show fairly frequently. Anytime he mentioned the bailouts he was always against them.

  • ||

    Weird, because

    1) That features Napolitano and praises and separates him from Beck, when a commenter yesterday was lumping them together when bashing them in a post otherwise indistinguishable from yours.

    2) The use of the word "neocon" with no idea what it means really downgrades my trust in that video. Sorry, it discredits it.

  • Some Guy||

    Did Beck support that bailouts, yes or no?

    Does Beck support unending and optional wars, yes or no?

    Does Beck support legislated morality, yes or no?

  • ||

    Does Beck support unending and optional wars, yes or no?

    It seems to me that once you put that weasel word "optional" in there, you've ceded the right to deal in moral absolutes on the topic. Once you claim that some wars are not optional, we're just negotiating over your price. I don't see how it lets you have such absolutist moral outrage.

    Does Beck support legislated morality, yes or no?

    A fairly vague statement. Does "legislated morality" include having the government use force to uphold contracts?

  • Some Guy||

    Once you claim that some wars are not optional, we're just negotiating over your price.

    Fine, but setting that price matters.

    Does "legislated morality" include having the government use force to uphold contracts?

    No. By my terminology, it means legislating some behavior that has no negative impact on others, especially if the only basis for such a position comes from religion (i.e. sodomy laws.)

  • ||

    Hard to say entirely, since a lot of the video consists of jump cuts and taking half sentences out of context, with music pumping in the background.

    It reminds me of people doing similar things with sentences out of context that Ron Paul and others have made, so I don't really like that video.

    I have the feeling that with a more unbiased presentation I would agree with you, but presenting that video made me less, not more likely to agree with you.

  • Slut Bunwalla||

    Did Beck support that bailouts, yes or no?

    Not that I ever heard, no.

  • Anonymous||

    Did Beck support that bailouts, yes or no?

    What he has said on this matter, many times, is that yes he did, "for three days", before he realized that it wasn't about saving anything and then flipped positions. Having been a semi-regular listener at the time, I can say this is pretty much the case.

    He's new to libertarianism, and was a proponent of the paternalistic brand of conservatism so common amoung radio talkers (and religious converts, who traditionally are very gung-ho; he wasn't born Mormon) so it shouldn't be surprising that he's slow on the uptake sometimes.

  • Slut Bunwalla||

    Three days? That's long enough! Lynch 'im, boys!

  • Some Guy||

    The question I have is whether it was a true conversion or just an after-the-fact political "change of heart." As my friend put it, "The scared little kid inside me says they have to do the bailouts."

    If you can't control your scared little kid when the shit hits the fan, you'll do more harm than good.

    If we're only capitalists when the market is going up, we might as well not be at all.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Well, he has on several occasions openly wished for the military to overthrow the government and put everyone in Congress on trial.

  • Xeones||

    Yo, fuck Joe Lieberman.

  • Byron||

    My thoughts exactly.

  • ||

    Lieberman combines the worst of both major parties. He's big on spending and small on liberty.

    He's the anti-libertarian, far more despicable than Barney Frank or Lindsey Graham.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Huckabee / Lieberman '12!

  • kinnath||

    Totalitarian and Totalitarian-Lite(tm)

    What's not to like?

  • The Gobbler||

    Lieberman can play the tamborine in The Little Rockers.

  • ||

    Oh, I don't know about that; they're all pretty despicable. Please don't make us choose.

  • Zeb||

    Frank is at least right about some things in the social issues realm. Lieberman is dead wrong about everything.

  • Some Guy||

    Which of the major parties is not big on spending?

    Which of the major parties is not small on liberty?

  • ||

    D) None of the above.

  • SAT Administrator||

    It's actually E) NOTA, rather than "D)"

    And NOTA stands for None Of The Above. You have 45 minutes to complete section 1.

  • Senator Joe Lieberman||

    Your citizenship has been terminated, effective immediately.

  • ||

    God, I hate Lieberman so much. He is the synergy of the worst parts of the left and the right; he's a highly religious war-mongering civil-rights-suspending redistributionist fuckwad. Feel free to add anything I left out. Like the fact that he wanted an investigation into the price of breakfast cereals. The guy would be merely embarrassing if he wasn't such an asshole.

  • ||

    Beat me by 10 minutes Epi. Fuck you very much. ;-)

  • ||

    He joined with Hilary Clinton to want to regulate violence in video games. (Something that people love to blame on Republicans, even though actual legislation seems to be sponsored and passed more often by Democrats, and has been vetoed by Republican governors in Utah and Rhode Island, among others.)

  • ||

    ""Something that people love to blame on Republicans,""

    That do have some blame, it's not all them though. Maybe more so when the christian right was driving the boat. But Tipper Gore's Parent Music Resource Center had a big role

  • ||

    Maybe more so when the christian right was driving the boat.

    Some blame, yes, but the solid majority of the blame for anti-video game violence legislation is squarely on Democrats, at the state as well as federal level. It's not particularly close. I could try to theorize why this is, but it would take a while.

  • T||

    Because Democrats, in their current incarnation, are absolutely convinced the proles are too stupid to breathe without someone wiser telling them how. Since you dolts are too stupid to realize games involving ripping out human spines might not be appropriate for a 5 year old, we'll make sure nobody can have them.

  • Draco||

    Maybe he could head up the ticket for the new Progressive Family Values Party! (See my post from yesterday).

  • ||

    Greg Sargent had more details about Holy Joe's proposal.

    Apparently he wants the State Department to decide when Americans should be stripped of their citizenship, and they would have to go to court to convince a judge that based on your affiliation with designated terrorist organizations (designated by the State Dept., naturally) you deserve to have your citizenship stripped.

    So you still would have a trial (and maybe even parallel trials, where you are defending yourself from terrorism charges and defending your right.

    I don't really see what this would accomplish or how it gets in the way of those pesky Miranda rights unless you can somehow get someone stripped of their citizenship before you arrest them on terror charges.

  • ||

    Under Lieberman's proposal, any American accused of links to terrorism would be presumed guilty, stripped of his citizenship, and locked in a military prison. He might get a trial before a special military tribunal, where a conviction would be easier to obtain, or he might simply be held indefinitely without charge. Even if he were tried and acquitted, he could still be held indefinitely. And the beauty of Lieberman's plan is that the government could do this to anyone, even if it did not have much in the way of evidence against him.

    Not that I support Lieberman's proposal in any way, but that isn't the way it was described by Greg Sargent who had contacted Holy Joe's office.

    On a side note, why can't we strip Rahm Emmanuel of his citizenship, under current law. Didn't he serve in the Israeli Army?

  • ||

    On a side note, why can't we strip Rahm Emmanuel of his citizenship, under current law. Didn't he serve in the Israeli Army?

    Israeli Army is specifically exempted from that law, IIRC.

  • ||

    The Israeli Army and ONLY the Israeli Army. So, for example, you cannot go and fight in the British or Canadian armed forces, or for any NATO ally--you know, the people actually over int he sandbox with us right now (for better or worse).

    There is something wrong with this picture, obviously.

  • ||

    The Israeli Army and ONLY the Israeli Army.

    Totally incorrect. Any allied armed force, so long as the Dept. of State agrees when adjudicating the case.

  • ||

    Cf. here. You are incorrect.

  • ||

    Israeli Army is specifically exempted from that law, IIRC.

    Upon further research, he was a civilian volunteer for the IDF for a short time. (Which apparently anyone can do)

    Dunno if that makes any difference.

    Also, Why would certain countries be exempt?

  • ||

    I never thought of it. But I don't think it is. The law states

    (3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if
    (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or
    (B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer; or

    But you have to do it "with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality". So I guess they say Jews who join the Israeli army are not doing it with the intention to renounce their American nationality.

  • ||

    John:

    Right.

    In adjudicating loss of nationality cases, the Department has established an administrative presumption that a person serving in the armed forces of a foreign state not engaged in hostilities against the United States does not have the intention to relinquish citizenship.

    The exemption is in the law as a general rule, and the guidelines from the State Department in cases it has adjudicated cover the Israeli Army.

  • ||

    There is also the cases of mercenaries. The Flying Tigers essentially joined the Chinese Army. A few Americans joined the RAF in 1940 to fight the Germans. Those guys didn't lose their citizenship over it.

  • Kiwi Dave||

    Or the Abraham Lincoln Brigade in the Spanish Civil War.

  • ||

    Guilt or innocence, truth or falsehood--such primitive, bourgeois concepts.

  • Jerry||

    Neither do the Jews, the Gypsies and the handicapped.

  • ||

    Wouldn't a more appropriate title be "Lieberman: Accused Terrorists Don't Deserve Citizenship"?

    The title implies that he wants to strip people who have been convicted of terrorism of their citizenship rather than people accused of terrorism (or being affiliated with a terrorist group)

  • ||

    I am continuosly surprised to see how much people seem to believe the official story on this suspicous dud-bomb event.

    The guy had a real engineering degree and supposedly recieved "training" on bombs in Pakistan yet people here have no problem believing that he would take a children's alarm clock and tape it to a bucket of fireworks in order to create a time bomb?

    This whole story smells like bullshit to me. NYC had plans to roll out thousnads of new cameras...probably installed by the Chertoff group...just like the phony underpants bomber had Chertoff foaming at the mouth on TV the next day announicng that he was willing to sell us thousands of new x-ray scanner machines for all our airports.

  • ||

    Gabe, how much do you spend on tinfoil?

  • ||

    DON'T YOU SEE THE CONNECTIONS?!?

  • ||

    Actually, I think Gabe has just been sniffing too many chemtrails.

  • ||

    I've grown rather suspicious of any story rationalizing new government interventions too. However, it does not seem that having a Computer Science engineering degree is the same as being a competent electrical or mechanical engineer. He did have an MBA, though, and they certainly know a thing or two about blowing up systems in Manhattan.

  • ||

    I am continually surprised to see how much people seem to believe the official conspiracy theories propounded by professional conspiracy theorists. Clearly those people are just in it to sell their books, as well as to distract us from the real conspiracies out there.

  • Captain Kanuck||

    Gabe, good to see not every American is brainwashed like these Koch drones.

  • Clint Johnson||

    Also, I am sure they would never extend this to other "Wars on X" right? They wouldn't look at those nasty drug dealers and think to themselves how much easier their job would be if that pesky citizenship didn't get in the way? That would be as crazy as twisting tax laws to go after smugglers.

  • blueGrass||

    The G is already fond of calling those in the drug trade, even the lowly guy selling dime bags so he can smoke weed for free, narco-terrorists.

    And by the look of that horrid video released yesterday, they're already treating low level drug users as terrorists.

  • kinnath||

    Lieberman: "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,"

    When you lump terrorism into "acts of war", it becomes really easy to rationalize stripping citizens of the protections of citizenship when they are "accused" of supporting terrorist acts.

    This is fundamentally why I want to see terrorism handled by police agencies (with appropriate support of special forces outside the US) instead of being handled by the military leadership of this country.

    Every day I find a new reason to hate Joe.

  • ||

    This is fundamentally why I want to see terrorism handled by police agencies (with appropriate support of special forces outside the US) instead of being handled by the military leadership of this country.

    It's a huge mistake to lump all the criminal and the military actions together. Some terrorist actions are military.

    When you lump prisoners captured in acts of war overseas with fundamentally criminal terrorist acts (that can be investigated, evidence gathered, and a criminal trial performed), it becomes really easy to treat rationalize treating citizens and others accused of the latter the same as the former.

    The problem with putting the Gitmo prisoners et al. in the regular criminal justice system is that it's a lot more likely to poison the regular criminal justice system. We'll always have prisoners from war, and we'll be unable to guarantee the types of protections in a regular prosecution. I think it's unreasonable to assume that mixing the two populations would result in extending extra procedural protections to those captured in military operations; I think it's much more likely to do the reverse.

  • Death Panelist||

    I've been looking for a used Nissan Pathfinder. I wonder when they're going to be done with that one.

  • ||

    LOL, crooked politicians dont deserve citizenship either!

    Lou
    www.anonymous-web-surfing.cz.tc

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Lou just put every human commenter to shame.

  • Rabbit Scribe||

    LOL

  • Tony||

    I don't understand why terrorism hawks have this burning desire to elevate pathetic would-be murderers to warrior status. And to delete constitutional rights in order to grant them this honor.

  • Captain Kanuck||

    Hey Lieberman, how about those who are working against the US for the benefit of other countries? You'd better look out.

  • ¢||

    Under Lieberman's proposal

    He doesn't have a proposal. He has a thing he said on TV.

    Since he was reacting to a specific case, his non-proposal if proposed would probably be proposed for that kind of case (right?): naturalized citizens charged with "terror" (or whatever). That's a legal reaction to a tactic bad guys use (bogusly gained citizenship as a partial legal shield), and therefore a stupid idea, but...it's also already the law.

    Naturalized citizenship can be (and occasionally is) revoked in cases of applicant misrepresentation, and in "act of war"-type situations, there's probably a not honestly taken oath of citizenship involved. Plus, there's ample precedent in immigration law for an arrest or a charge to carry the same negative effects as a conviction—if the government doesn't like you as much as it likes Andrew Sullivan.

    Fuck Joe Lieberman, of course, but this is no big deal.

  • ||

    He doesn't have a proposal. He has a thing he said on TV.

    Per Greg Sargent at WaPo.com :

    Two things you should know about this: First, it isn't just some paranoid liberal nightmare. It's actually moving forward. Lieberman is going to hold a presser tomorrow to introduce the bill, I'm told, along with Rep. Jason Altmire of Pennsylvania. ....

    Second, Lieberman's office has clarified to me how the law would work: It would empower the State Department to conclude -- on its own -- that Americans are conspiring with terror groups and should be stripped of their citizenship.
  • Ska||

    I can't wait to see how it defines terrorist group.

  • ||

    Well that group up in Michigan would qualify. So, under this law they could have the State Department strip them of their citizenship and probably get it to stick even though their criminal case is shit.

    This is the worst idea I have ever heard. This really is a dangerous not shit set the stage for totalitarian rule kind of law.

  • The Gobbler||

    "Lieberman: Terrorists Don't Deserve Citizenship"

    Nor do cops:

    Outrage over deer shot by Oakland officer

    OAKLAND -- Oakland Police Chief Anthony Batts said Tuesday that he was "unhappy" that an officer shot and killed a young deer in an East Oakland backyard over the weekend and promised an internal investigation into what led to the decision to open fire.

    The deer, estimated to be about a year old, was shot in a backyard of a home on the 1700 block of 90th Avenue about 11 a.m. Saturday. The shooting was captured on video by Anthony Weems, 28, who was among many residents who were outraged Tuesday that police had killed the animal.

    The housing authority officers notified Oakland animal control and the state Department of Fish and Game, Walton said.

    But sources said that before a state game warden could arrive, Oakland police Sgt. Terrance West ordered another officer to kill the deer. The officer, whose name was not released, fired several shots, but the deer did not die immediately, so he fired several more shots, Weems said. A total of six or seven shots were fired but it was not known how many hit the deer.

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/.....1D9FV0.DTL

  • T||

    See, you have to start small on herbivores like deer. Then you can prove you're worthy of being on a SWAT team where you get to shoot at apex predators like dogs.

  • ||

    I thought the SWAT teams were the APEX predators.

  • ||

    Lieberman has lost his mind on this. You can't do this. You can't set the precedent that the government can take away your citizenship before you have been convicted of a crime. Where does that end? There would be nothing to stop some future government from essentially voiding the Constitution by summarily revoking people's citizenship. That is just too dangerous of a precedent.

    And I don't see what this even gets us. There already is a public safety exception to Miranda. If the FBI catches some guy with a bomb, they can interrogate him for the purpose of finding out if there are other bombs and such without Mirandizing him. There is clear Supreme Court precedence on this. The case, whose name I forget, involved a cop chasing a guy who had robbed a store into another grocery store. The guy had dropped a shotgun somewhere in the store. And the cop asked him "where is the shotgun?" before Mirandizing him. The Court ruled because a loaded shotgun is an immediate threat to public safety, Miranda wasn't necessary. They would no doubt rule the same way regarding the existence of a bomb or another terrorist.

    This is just insane.

  • ||

    this is not what the claimer is about the law enforcement do not have to state your rights to ask questions they just cant summit it as eventual testimony. As a citizen the fifth amendment is what these weasels are trying to suspend. I don't think I am entirely alone in saying I would rather have the threat of terrorism than the threat of totalitarianism.

  • ||

    and making it only apply overseas doesn't help. What is so magical about being over seas? Nothing in the Constitution says it only applies to government actions inside the US. Indeed, if you are interrogated by the FBI while vacationing in Europe, they still have to respect your rights. If they can take away your citizenship overseas, there is nothing to stop a future government from doing it while you are here.

  • ||

    Actually, it's irrelevant. The anointed one has already made it clear that Americans overseas can be assassinated. Who cares if the dead retain their citizenship? I mean, unless Lieberman wants to dance on their graves...

  • ||

    I initially supported him in that. But I have reconsidered. It is a real problem. Not because the asshole in Yemen doesn't need killing. He does. But you can't set the precident that the President can whack US citizens. We have to at least try to catch him. If he resists, then go ahead and shoot him. But we ought to treat citizens differently.

  • Joe Lieberman||

    "This is just insane."

    Never let a good crisis go to waste.

  • Captain Kanuck||

    ...and if you can't be a citizen if you're involved in terrorism, guess that'd get rid of most American politicians since the US govt is the largest terrorist organization on earth.

  • ||

    Given your handle, I may share citizenship with you, but you are a fucking ass.

    Go play with Mel Hurtig and the rest of the Canazis.

  • Captain Kanuck||

    Facts are facts, you don't have any.

  • The Gobbler||

    Hello Shit Facktory!

  • ||

    As opposed to your detailed, thoughtful fact filled post.

    What Aresen said.

  • Captain Kanuck||

    Sorry, it must be some other country responsible for millions of deaths over the past century in places like Vietnam, Iraq, Korea, Japan, Cambodia, Panama? Must have been Iran, sorry for the mistake.

  • ||

    I know, we just went over and bombed Japan for nothing. It is not like they attacked us or something. And of course our "terrorism" of Cambodia was so much worse than what followed. I mean what is killing off 1/4 of the population? People say that it is like it is a big deal.

    And of course we totally terrorized Korea. It wasn't like the North Koreans invaded the South or anything. And God knows it was a crime against humanity to let the South Koreans become one of the most industrialized and wealthy countries in the world and miss out on all the fun of living under the Kims.

    Seriously. How can you be this stupid? Is this what our education system has come to?

  • Draco||

    John, I'm sure you recognize this type of agitprop as being the auto-pilot regurgitation of the international Left. For the Soviet Union and the international Marxists the USA (of course) was the enemy. Their last pathetic fellow travelers still spew the same unthinking Kremlin-speak.

  • ||

    True Dago. What kills me is that the US, like any great power is guilty of a lot of sins. It is not hard to find bad things the US has done. But, it is also not hard to find good things. But I guess giving an truthful picture is just not something they can do. That would require them giving a truthful picture of what other countries have done.

  • ||

    so your saying people against murder must be communist? that is false

  • Captain Kanuck||

    Maybe you should learn to MYOB, and yeah, you're right, look to what your "educational system" has come to for your to swallow such shit.

  • ||

    I just don't give North Korea enough credit for having free healthcare. And I just don't understand that the militarist Japanese were trying to liberate the Chinese when they invaded and terrorized the country.

  • ||

    Maybe you should learn to MYOB

    Then, dear sir, why aren't you posting here criticizing Canada for its military participation in the Boer War, WWI, WWII, and the Korean War? Strange that "minding one's own business" only goes in one direction.

  • ||

    the kanuck is probably against Canada murdering Afghan children as well...if not then he is just another Kanuck...it still doesn't make it right for americans to murder Afghans.

  • Captain Kanuck||

    Canadians are such imperialists. LOL!

  • The Gobbler||

    I said HELLO, sir.

  • ||

    you think the US government doesn't use fear of violence to manipulate politics?

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    How convenient. Now, all those folks on no-fly lists whose names SOUND LIKE names of terrorists, get another round of fucking.

    Bonus: The SPLC and "fusion center" shit-lists will grow. Bonus for them, I should say... not so much for us.

  • Jim Lesczynski||

    I've often said that if you want to know the libertarian position on any issue at all, just look at Lieberman's position, and the libertarian position is the opposite. I have no doubt that he would score 0-0 on the World's Smallest Political Quiz.

  • ||

    Sounds exactly like the white noise that became the preamble for the expatriation of Jews in National Socialist Germany.

    Wonder what happens when you are a not a citizen of any country, oh yeah, fire up the ovens.

  • Arizona||

    We don't need no stinking ovens. We are an oven! But it's a dry heat.

  • ||

    Jumping Jesus on a solid gold pogo stick, Liebermann is a loathsome homunculus.

    FUCK YOU, CONNECTICUT.

  • ||

    He is just shooting his mouth off. This isn't going to go anywhere. But my God what the hell is he thinking?

  • ||

    This isn't going to go anywhere.

    There was a time when I would have believed that.

  • misterMagoo||

    It never ceases to amaze me what great lenghts you libertarian nutjobs will go to to protect someone who attempt to kill thousands of Americans. This is why libertarians will never be taken seriously nor ever be a relevant political party.

    I won't shed any tears if this guy is held indefinitely. And by the tone of Sullum's writing, it sounds like he actually wants to guy to go free after serving a prison sentence.

    Jacob Sullum hates America.

  • barfman||

    *barf*

  • ||

    Don't you guys see??? The whole point of having a Constitution and the rule of law is to be able to suspend them during those times when they are actually pertinent.

  • ||

    But according to Fox (relying on a Lieberman aide), "should a citizen like Shahzad, if found to be part of a foreign terrorist organization, as designated by the State Department, be captured overseas, the person, stripped of citizenship, could then be hauled before a military commission." If he challenged the State Department's decision in federal court, the standard of proof would be "a preponderance of the evidence," which is much easier to satisfy than the proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" required in criminal cases.

    In other words, if she weighs the same as a duck...

  • ||

    You mean, Lieberman needs a shrubbery?

  • ||

    [Dramatic chord]

  • ||

    "she turned me into a newt gingrich"

    "You do seem to be corrupt"

    "I got better"

  • ||

    "Apparently that's not true of Shahzad, who according to press reports readily admitted leaving that Nissan Pathfinder packed with explosives in Times Square"

    As long as the police say the guy confessed, I'm OK with taking away his civil rights. Not.

  • Kevin Carson||

    I think anyone suspected of being a smarmy, hand-wringing piece of shit should be stripped of his citizenship.

    Every time I see that sanctimonious moral scold I want to curb-stomp him. But I doubt you could tell the difference between his mouth afterward and before.

    Christ, I really hate that fucker.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement