I’ve long known that Joe Lieberman and I see the world very differently, but I had no idea that we live in fundamentally incompatible worlds. Â His solution to those pesky Constitutional rights enjoyed by citizens? Â Strip ’em of citizenship! Â The man – after how many decades in public office? – doesn’t appear to understand even the basics, when it comes to the Constitution. Â I’m honestly shocked.
Update: Greg Sargeant says that Lieberman may actually be able to find others to publicly support this. Â That is a line that, if crossed, makes the supporter someone who is a literal threat to Americans. Â It is a completely and utterly unacceptable proposal, and any Senator or Representative who supports it should be drummed out of office.
James Young
Apparently, it meant precious little to Faisal Shahzad, too.
MB
No, he certainly wasn’t as committed as Timothy McVeigh.
Hey, wow. Turns out that completely irrelevant comments *don’t* really add much. Who knew?
James Young
Don’t quite get how my comment was “completely irrelevant,” since Faisal Shahzad is the subject of Lieberman’s ill-advised comments.
But if you want to point out that Timothy McVeigh is “completely irrelevant,” you’re only restating the obvious.
A more interesting question might be whether Shabzad CAN be stripped of his citizenship, and what the process for that, and its timing is. Certainly, historically, criminals have been stripped of their citizenship, though I don’t pretend to know any details about the process, or whether it even still exists. I presume that, if it is still possible, such a process applies to naturalized citizens (i.e., those who exercised a choice) but is more difficult or impossible for natural-born citizens.
MB
Lieberman is talking about Teh Terrorists again. I suppose that McVeigh doesn’t qualify, though. Hmm, I wonder what differentiates him . . .
~
Unless you’re talking about the Nazis that were stripped (on the theory that they’d committed a fraud in their naturalization applications), this would be news to me. Do tell.
Warren
I just heard on the radio this morning that the Obama (happy, MB?) adminitration(!?) is looking to work with Congress on “limiting constitutional rights for those accused of terroristic acts, including US citizens.” Please tell me it was just very early in the morning and I was having a bad dream.
MB
Unfortunately and probably not. Holder and Obama are pretty appalling, on this front. Don’t know what specific item the story was about, though. TPM had a good piece over the weekend re: a “public safety exception” to immediate reading of Miranda rights, and how Holder’s driving that further than anyone else has.
Warren
Grrrrr. I have no problem with not reading a suspect his Miranda rights for a “public safety exception,” but that means that what he does say before being read those rights cannot be used in court against him. That is a trade-off that must be weighed by the arresting authorities. That does NOT mean the suspect does not have those rights, only that the arresting authority believes that the benefit of the information so gathered in larger than the risk that they will not get a conviction.
But saying that a person does not have his Fifth Amendment rights because of the nature of the accusation is abhorrent.
MB
Absolutely agreed.
I’m not a criminal attorney, but I’d like to think I’ve spent more time than most thinking through the various balancing acts and choices that have been made in sorting out the Constitution. And yet I am nothing short of stunned at what, in the past 9 years, has turned out to be arguable territory, in the view of some.*
*Some who should really fucking know better. Which most definitely includes Obama and Holder.