Sens. Joe Lieberman and Scott Brown propose stripping citizenship of suspected terrorists - Polidicks

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/world/07rights.html[/url] [release]WASHINGTON — Proposed legislation that would allow the government to revoke American citizenship from people suspected of allying themselves with terrorists set off a legal and political debate Thursday that scrambled some of the usual partisan lines on civil-liberties issues. The Terrorist Expatriation Act, co-sponsored by Senators Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, and Scott Brown, Republican of Massachusetts, would allow the State Department to revoke the citizenship of people who provide support to terrorist groups like Al Qaeda or who attack the United States or its allies. Some Democrats expressed openness to the idea, while several Senate Republicans expressed concern. Mr. Brown, who endorsed aggressive tactics against terrorism suspects in his campaign for the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy’s seat, said the bill was not about politics. “It reflects the changing nature of war and recent events,” Mr. Brown said Thursday. “War has moved into a new dimension. Individuals who pick up arms — this is what I believe — have effectively denounced their citizenship, and this legislation simply memorializes that effort. So somebody who wants to burn their passport, well, let’s help them along.” Identical legislation is also being introduced in the House by two Pennsylvania congressmen, Jason Altmire, a Democrat, and Charlie Dent, a Republican. The lawmakers said at a news conference that revoking citizenship would block terrorism suspects from using American passports to re-enter the United States and make them eligible for prosecution before a military commission instead of a civilian court. Citing with approval news reports that President Obama has signed a secret order authorizing the targeted killing of a radical Yemeni-American cleric, Anwar Al-Awlaki, Mr. Lieberman argued that if that policy was legal — and he said he believed it was — then stripping people of citizenship for joining terrorist organizations should also be acceptable. Several major Democratic officials spoke positively about the proposal, including Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Noting that the State Department already had the authority to rescind the citizenship of people who declare allegiance to a foreign state, she said the administration would take “a hard look” at extending those powers to cover terrorism suspects. “United States citizenship is a privilege,” she said. “It is not a right. People who are serving foreign powers — or in this case, foreign terrorists — are clearly in violation, in my personal opinion, of that oath which they swore when they became citizens.” Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she supported the “spirit” of the measure, although she urged caution and said that the details of the proposal, like what would trigger a loss of citizenship, still needed to be fleshed out. Several Republican officials, though, were skeptical of the idea. Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader, questioned the constitutionality of the proposal. “If they are a U.S. citizen, until they are convicted of some crime, I don’t see how you would attempt to take their citizenship away,” Mr. Boehner said. “That would be pretty difficult under the U.S. Constitution.” The proposal would amend an existing, although rarely used, program run by the State Department. It dates to a law enacted by Congress in 1940 that allowed the stripping of citizenship for activities like voting in another country’s elections or joining the army of a nation that is at war with the United States. People who lose their citizenship can contest the decision in court. The Supreme Court later narrowed the program’s scope, declaring that the Constitution did not allow the government to take away people’s citizenship against their will. The proposal does not alter the requirement of evidence of voluntariness. That means that if the proposal passed, the State Department would have to cite evidence that a person not only joined Al Qaeda, but also intended to relinquish his citizenship, and the advantages it conveys, to rescind it. Several legal scholars disagreed about the legality and effectiveness of the proposal. Kevin R. Johnson, the dean of the law school at the University of California, Davis, argued that it was “of dubious constitutionality” because merely joining or donating to a terrorist group fell short of unequivocal evidence that someone intended to relinquish his citizenship. Peter H. Schuck, a Yale University law professor, said the Supreme Court might allow Congress to declare that joining Al Qaeda created a presumption that an American intended to relinquish his citizenship, so long as the program allowed the person to rebut that view. Mr. Lieberman portrayed the proposal as a reaction to increasing involvement in Islamic terrorism by United States citizens, including Faisal Shahzad, the Pakistani-American man who was arrested in connection with the failed attempt to set off a car bomb in Times Square last Saturday. Mr. Shahzad was granted American citizenship last year. However, Mr. Lieberman emphasized, the measure would apply only to people who commit such acts in the future. Senate aides said that it would apply only to acts undertaken overseas.[/release] Joe Lieberman has officially jumped the shark.

...This can not go through. This is too vague, gives too much power, and is too fucking abusable. There is no way this is even reasonable. Anyone can be a terrorist in a vague enough generalization, you don't even have miranda rights if you're not a US citizen as far as the government is concerned.

oh, true republicans, how i miss you so [img]http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/2009/1101090518_400.jpg[/img] instead of you, we have hypocrites wanting to increase governmental power.

This is absurd, has the concept of "Innocent until proven Guilty" just been thrown out the window?

Lankist says: Eat a dick, Lieberman.

The Nazis stripped Jews of their citizenship, before the final stages of the holocaust. Take that as you will, also, :godwin:

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;21787426]oh, true republicans, how i miss you so [img]http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/2009/1101090518_400.jpg[/img] instead of you, we have hypocrites wanting to increase governmental power.[/QUOTE] Barry Goldwater was a badass motherfucker and a real conservative. [IMG]http://imgur.com/hzvBw.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=JDK721v2;21787444]Lankist says: Eat a dick, Lieberman.[/QUOTE] Except Lankist is chillin' his heels in the RC for Racism. :P

[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;21787475]Except Lankist is chillin' his heels in the RC for Racism. :P[/QUOTE] He told me to post that.

[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;21787475]Except Lankist is chillin' his heels in the RC for Racism. :P[/QUOTE] He shouldn't be fucking perma'd for that post. It's idiotic how one of the better posters here was perma'd for a joke by Greeman of all the fucking mods.

Sounds like Mccarthyism all over again, kinda.

Also, do note that Lieberman is the guy in the Senate who wants to desperately ban all video games. Not violent games, not adult games, [B][I]ALL OF THEM[/I][/B]. [editline]11:29PM[/editline] [QUOTE=JDK721v2;21787491]He told me to post that.[/QUOTE] Doesn't count unless he says it himself. :colbert:

[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;21787518]Also, do note that Lieberman is the guy in the Senate who wants to desperately ban all video games. Not violent games, not adult games, [B][I]ALL OF THEM[/I][/B]. [editline]11:29PM[/editline] Doesn't count unless he says it himself. :colbert:[/QUOTE] Lieberman is the worst senator. Period. Ever. He's retarded.

oh jeez Lieberman has fallen far

This is a terrible idea. Aren't the Democrats supposed to promote rights? Fuck Brown, Clinton, Pelosi, and Lieberman.

[QUOTE=JDK721v2;21787609]This is a terrible idea. Aren't the Democrats supposed to promote rights? Fuck Brown, Clinton, Pelosi, and Lieberman.[/QUOTE] Isn't Lieberman a conservative or something? To be fair, I can't keep track of his idiotic views and how all over the place they are.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;21787662]Isn't Lieberman a conservative or something? To be fair, I can't keep track of his idiotic views and how all over the place they are.[/QUOTE] hes a dumbass turncoat we need rahmbo to put this idiot in his place [img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_qnMXtmqEp5o/SasEOwqqr7I/AAAAAAAAAuM/NZpuHy3BOco/s400/Rahmbo.jpg[/img]

What? No, this is stupid. Just blacklist the suspected ones, and give the ones who commit the acts the death penalty. Why bother taking away their citizenship if we're not sure they even did it?

[QUOTE=Xystus234;21787756]What? No, this is stupid. Just blacklist the suspected ones, and give the ones who commit the acts the death penalty. Why bother taking away their citizenship if we're not sure they even did it?[/QUOTE] usa, raping the eighth amendment and human bill of rights like a catholic on a little boy

To set the record straight, Lieberman's a Democrat.

[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;21787859]To set the record straight, Lieberman's a Democrat.[/QUOTE] Before you edited your post, you said he was the only Independent in the Senate. You forgot Bernie Sanders.

[QUOTE=PrismatexV8;21787879]Before you edited your post, you said he was the only Independent in the Senate. You forgot Bernie Sanders.[/QUOTE] According to Wikipedia, he's registered as a Democrat, but the Article says he's an Independent. I'm officially confused now. :raise:

Oh, Lieberman, you so crazy.

[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;21787889]According to Wikipedia, he's registered as a Democrat, but the Article says he's an Independent. I'm officially confused now. :raise:[/QUOTE] It says he's an Independent Democrat. I don't give a fuck what he says though. He's changed his position on issues so many times now that he has no credibility and this proposal is retarded.

[QUOTE=JDK721v2;21787933]It says he's an Independent Democrat. I don't give a fuck what he says though. He's changed his position on issues so many times now that he has no credibility and this proposal is retarded.[/QUOTE] I think MadmanAndre was talking about Bernie Sanders.

[QUOTE=PrismatexV8;21787977]I think MadmanAndre was talking about Bernie Sanders.[/QUOTE] Naw it was joe [editline]10:20PM[/editline] :10bux: it was joe

[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;21787859]To set the record straight, Lieberman's a Democrat.[/QUOTE] He was a Democrat, then had a few arguments with his party, and so when he ran for reelection, they decided to run someone else in his seat for the Democratic ticket. In response, he ran independently, and still one. As for this bill, I don't see how this can even be constitutional. This is disgusting and will leave to an overly abusive attack on our rights. Rights are inalienable. You don't lose them when you lose citizenship, dipshit Lieberman and Brown.

postal 2= LEIBERMODE

uh,[quote=Universal fucking Declaration of Human Rights]Article 15 1. Everyone has the right to a nationality. 2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality. [/quote]

Individual, you are convicted of multi anti-civil violations. Implicit citizenship revoked.[b] Status, malignant.[/b]