The Lieberman/Brown Terror Suspect Expatriation Bill

US News • Views: 4,688

Joe Lieberman has joined forces with Scott Brown to introduce legislation that would let the government strip terror suspects of their citizenship.

Surprisingly, GOP leader John Boehner isn’t on board with this idea, but Hillary Clinton is.

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.”

What is this legislation really about, though? Is there really a pressing need to revoke the citizenship of certain types of suspects?

The reality is that the American criminal justice system has done a damned good job of dealing with terrorists, from the 1993 World Trade Center bombers to Timothy McVeigh. Hundreds of people are in prison in the US for terror-related crimes, and some have even been executed. There’s never been a high profile terrorism case in which defendants escaped justice by exploiting their rights as citizens.

The motivation for taking away the citizenship of terror suspects seems to be solely so we don’t have to worry about their pesky constitutional rights any more. And note: the bill deals with suspects, not even people who’ve been convicted of any crimes.

That slope isn’t just slippery, it’s frictionless.

Jump to bottom

326 comments
1 Obdicut  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:11:05am

I'm not comfortable with the State Department deciding something like that without a trial.

We would have stripped the citizenship of a lot of people in the '50s, with this kind of thing in place, and made our nation much weaker in the process.

Terrible idea. Massive expansion of executive branch power, too.

2 McSpiff  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:11:26am

If only there was some sort of law we could pass that deals with those who bear arms against the United States, or provide aid and comfort to its enemies in a time of war... Ah fuck it, lets just throw out the constitution instead.

Facepalm

3 Daniel Ballard  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:11:29am

I would have no problem with revoking the citizenship of any convicted terrorist. Nor any violent felon. Suspects are innocent until proven guilty. Detention or custody is appropriate but no punishment is yet appropriate.

Interesting point here
"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."

4 Mark Pennington  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:12:39am

I thought he only managed to get 3 other dopes on board the crazytrain. Hillary Clinton? Wow.

5 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:12:47am

Astoundingly, Lieberman has succeeded in going farther right than John Boehner.

6 Cato the Elder  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:13:04am

Scott "Take My Daughter...Please!" Brown doesn't know "denounce" from "renounce".

I would not, however, be opposed to a bill that stripped naturalized "citizens" of their passports and shipped them back to whatever shithole they came from - after conviction, of course.

7 SpaceJesus  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:13:31am

this is full blown pants-on-head retarded

8 Obdicut  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:13:48am

re: #4 beekiller

I thought he only managed to get 3 other dopes on board the crazytrain. Hillary Clinton? Wow.

I think this nakedly shows Clinton's tendency to approve of measures that expand executive branch power.

9 Daniel Ballard  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:13:54am

re: #1 Obdicut

Dept of State is executive right? They have the power to grant citizenship. Do they not already have the power to revoke for cause?

Would revocation be a legitimate part of a judicial act? I would say so. Like as part of the sentence after a conviction? I would think so.

10 NJDhockeyfan  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:14:40am

It's getting to the point you can't tell the left from the right anymore.

11 Obdicut  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:14:52am

re: #9 Rightwingconspirator

I don't think they do have the power to 'revoke for cause'. Can you find such power authorized by the constitution?

12 Mocking Jay  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:14:58am

re: #7 SpaceJesus

this is full blown pants-on-head retarded

And dangerous.

13 [deleted]  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:15:23am
14 SpaceJesus  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:15:46am

re: #12 JasonA

And dangerous.

I really like how our constitution just doesn't really matter anymore

15 Mocking Jay  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:16:31am

Let's really think this through for a minute: how does this help us fight terrorism? What can we do to people who aren't citizens as opposed to people who are? Hmm..

16 McSpiff  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:16:35am

re: #5 Charles

Revoking citizenship is historically a "Bad Fucking Idea". From Nazi Germany to South Africa, this is seriously bad news. Especially since all this talk is implying it would only apply to naturalized citizens, but no one seems to be explicitly saying that.

So you either end up with 2nd class citizens, or a case where you have the United States holding someone with no claim to citizenship anywhere. Unpeople. Very bad news.

17 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:16:43am

Interesting name, TEA.

18 Obdicut  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:16:49am

re: #9 Rightwingconspirator

Here's the list of reasons why you can have your naturalization revoked.

[Link: www.newcitizen.us...]

That only deals with naturalized citizens.

And it takes a federal trial:


Fortunately, it’s not as easy to take away your citizenship and Certificate of Naturalization as the law reads. Even if you were not entirely truthful or forthcoming during the naturalization process, the USCIS just can’t arbitrarily revoke your citizenship. Citizenship is one of those fundamental rights that our third branch of government (the judicial branch) takes very seriously. It appears the USCIS runs into difficulty with the federal courts when the USCIS revokes someone’s citizenship without giving the accused his or her day in court (no matter how blatant the violation of the law, see - Challenge to INS Denaturalization Procedure ).

In other words, the only way you are going to lose your US citizenship and Certificate of Naturalization is in a federal court and by a federal judge, who is appointed for life, makes good money, and is answerable to no politician or government bureaucrat no matter how on popular the judge's decision turns out to be.

19 Cannadian Club Akbar  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:16:59am

re: #8 Obdicut

I think this nakedly shows Clinton's tendency to approve of measures that expand executive branch power.

And that would change if she's not a part of it. Remember when she talked about getting rid of the electoral college after the 2000 vote? Work beacons.

20 Donna Ballard  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:17:08am

What worries me the most about this bill is that this means that the State Department can decide that if your a member of an organization that they don't like (like the NRA, lets say) that means you automatically are condemned to loose your citizenship even if the organization doesn't have anything to do with any terror organization. Charles is correct, it's not just a slippery slope, its totally and utterly frictionless! All I can do is sincerely hope there are some safe guards in the bill that keeps the State Department from arbitrarily designating any organization that has openly apposed the government as a terror organization.

21 Daniel Ballard  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:17:12am

re: #11 Obdicut

Goggle is a mess with this story. But what they issue, they may be empowered to revoke.

22 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:17:12am

re: #1 Obdicut


Terrible idea. Massive expansion of executive branch power, too.

Wonder how many people who are terribly worried that Obama is taking over everything will worry about that detail?

23 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:17:38am

This makes me extremely queasy.

24 Daniel Ballard  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:17:45am

re: #20 Dragon_Lady

It's about naturalized citizens.

25 [deleted]  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:17:45am
26 sagehen  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:18:05am

I wish Joe Lieberman would just admit out loud that he's really a Republican. It's certainly obvious enough to anyone who's been paying attention.

27 Daniel Ballard  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:18:08am

re: #18 Obdicut

Okay trial is good. Judicial.

28 Mocking Jay  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:18:25am

re: #25 MikeySDCA

Nothing. Miranda and all the rest apply to people, not to American citizens.

So what's the point of it, then?

29 Mocking Jay  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:19:26am

By the way?

Obama haters, meet me at camera three.

Do yo really want to give him this kind of power? I love the guy, and let me tell you something... I don't.

30 Obdicut  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:19:27am

re: #26 sagehen

Should Hilary Clinton likewise admit that?

There do exist highly conservative Democrats. And Lieberman, on social issues, is not that conservative.

I do think that Lieberman wants to stay in office and is doing things like this in order to do so, rather than out of a sincere belief that they will help.

31 [deleted]  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:19:49am
32 Donna Ballard  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:20:12am

re: #24 Rightwingconspirator

It's about naturalized citizens.

Oh, really? Personally I don't think they'll make that distinction! What about my best friend? She's naturalized! What happens if they decide they think shes a potential terrorist? This is badly proposed and down right terrifying!

33 JRCMYP  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:20:17am

Seriously--why do this? Do they have such a lack of confidence in our judicial system that they feel they need to strip Americans of their rights? And it's not like non-Americans aren't protected by the constitution anyway. WTF?

34 Mocking Jay  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:20:51am

re: #31 MikeySDCA

There is none.

Amazing how we lose our shit over a failed car-bombing. Did the UK come anywhere close to shit like this when the NRA was in full swing?

35 Obdicut  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:21:31am

re: #33 JRCMYP

It may be he's just doing this in order to get Obama attacked from the left for his order to kill the radical Islamist who is also an American citizen. That's the most cynical way to look at this, but it has some grounds, I think, since Lieberman specifically cited that order as being similar to this bill.

36 McSpiff  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:21:34am

Is it bad that as someone who would be a foreign alien (I think? I'm Canadian) its getting to the point where I'm feeling reluctant to travel to the United States? I just don't feel like I'd have any real judicial protection from the government anymore. Love the country, love the people but I'm not sure I really feel comfortable in traveling to country where I could face indefinite detention because some bureaucrat decided they didn't like my face..

37 _RememberTonyC  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:23:31am

I think this has the potential to effectively deter some "would be" terrorists from doing the dirty deed, and that's a "win."

Is it perfect? No. But there are some transgressions committed against us that deserve the harshest sanctions. Terrorism falls into that category.

Those who rule out any solutions that are not 100% perfect will never make any progress.

Here's a radical concept .... don't mess with, flirt with, or do business with terrorists and this will never be a problem for you. Is that harsh? Yes.

38 SixDegrees  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:23:33am

I'm not getting it. At all. So we manage to strip a suspect of citizenship. And...then what? They still have all the rights they would have had to begin with, just as any non-citizen accused of a crime within the US does. Except they presumably wouldn't be allowed to vote, or be President.

Is this the Underwear Gnomes model for combating terrorism?

39 tnguitarist  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:23:49am

What this does is keep you from even fighting. What if you just happened to be an innocent person swept up in this? This is grandstanding on Joe's part and he knows it.

40 Cato the Elder  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:24:29am

People who come here willingly and gain citizenship swear an oath of allegiance. Unless oaths are now purely pro forma, aiding and abetting enemies of the people of the United States should already be grounds for revocation of the rights they thereby obtained and deportation to their last documented country of residence or preferably of origin. No extra laws should be required for this.

People who were born here, I'm afraid we're stuck with them. Except for the likes of Adam Gadahn. Going abroad and serving a hostile foreign nation or entity is already prima facie grounds for revocation of citizenship, no matter whether you were naturalized or born in Bumwad, Arkansas.

It's actually all right there in the fine print of your passport, folks.

41 McSpiff  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:24:57am

re: #37 _RememberTonyC


This doesn't spell out any punishment. It just creates more legal limbo. Charge them with treason and hang them. Problem solved.

42 Donna Ballard  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:25:15am

re: #29 JasonA

By the way?

Obama haters, meet me at camera three.

Do yo really want to give him this kind of power? I love the guy, and let me tell you something... I don't.

I don't think this kind of power belongs to anyone in the government! Power corrupts! Absolute power corrupts absolutely! And this is the kind of thing that starts getting anyone who has a beef with the government, including those of us who are posting on line by the way, designated as terror suspects!

43 Mad Al-Jaffee  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:25:21am

re: #8 Obdicut

I think this nakedly shows Clinton's tendency to approve of measures that expand executive branch power.

Please don't use "naked" and "Clinton" in the same sentence!

44 tnguitarist  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:25:34am

If the tea people had any shred of honesty to their movement, they would be totally against this.

45 Obdicut  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:25:44am

re: #37 _RememberTonyC

Who decides what a terrorist is, though? Are you comfortable with the state department doing so?

Think about historically what could have happened with this: Martin Luther King, Jr, stripped of his citizenship. A. Philip Randolph, stripped of his citizenship. Oppenheimer stripped of his citizenship.

Why do you trust the government to use this power without abusing it?

46 sagehen  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:26:08am

re: #30 Obdicut

Should Hilary Clinton likewise admit that?

There do exist highly conservative Democrats. And Lieberman, on social issues, is not that conservative.

I do think that Lieberman wants to stay in office and is doing things like this in order to do so, rather than out of a sincere belief that they will help.

Nah. Hillary breaks from the D party line every now and then, Lieberman has been acting straight-up R for two solid years now. Speaking at the RNC, campaigning vigorously for McCain/Palin, playing keepaway with potential health care compromises ("I propose a medicare buy-in. Oh way, Anthony Weiner agreed to that suggestion so I revoke it."), etc etc etc etc.

Lieberman has become, at heart, a pro-choice Republican. He's Susan Collins with a dick.

47 Donna Ballard  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:26:11am

re: #43 Mad Al-Jaffee

Please don't use "naked" and "Clinton" in the same sentence!

Eye bleach! I need eye bleach!

48 Cato the Elder  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:26:33am

re: #40 Cato the Elder

Of course, all of this requires due process, not mere "suspicion".

In the case of Gadahn, he himself removed all doubt from the process.

49 Mocking Jay  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:26:43am

re: #37 _RememberTonyC

I think this has the potential to effectively deter some "would be" terrorists from doing the dirty deed, and that's a "win."

I try to remain civil on internet discussion forums, but this is a stupid statement. It's really dumb.

No, seriously.

I can't imagine this stopping a native born American like Tim McVeigh, nevermind a guy who's only been a citizen for one year.

50 ArchangelMichael  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:27:00am

re: #38 SixDegrees

I'm not getting it. At all. So we manage to strip a suspect of citizenship. And...then what? They still have all the rights they would have had to begin with, just as any non-citizen accused of a crime within the US does. Except they presumably wouldn't be allowed to vote, or be President.

Is this the Underwear Gnomes model for combating terrorism?

Strip Terror suspects of citizenship -> ? -> Prosecution

51 McSpiff  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:27:02am

re: #44 tnguitarist

Oddly enough Glenn beck disagrees with this. I watched a clip of him and didn't scream even a little bit. It was surreal.

52 AK-47%  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:27:06am

Solzhenitsyn was deprived of his Soviet citizenship. Jews were deprived of their German citizenship under Hitler.

I find it only fitting that we should go down thhis path: when terrorists know that they are dealing with bad guys in that league, they will think twice about messing with us.

/

53 Digital Display  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:27:55am

Breaking News..Package is found in Times square...
New Yorkers can't catch a break

54 Obdicut  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:27:57am

re: #47 Dragon_Lady

Why? I'm not gay, but he looks presentable enough.

Image: clinton.jpg

55 McSpiff  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:28:43am

re: #52 ralphieboy

Maybe we could create some sort of quasi-independent terrorist homeland... Bantustans anyone?

56 The Left  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:28:52am

re: #35 Obdicut

It may be he's just doing this in order to get Obama attacked from the left for his order to kill the radical Islamist who is also an American citizen. That's the most cynical way to look at this, but it has some grounds, I think, since Lieberman specifically cited that order as being similar to this bill.

It's a horrible bill and a horrible idea, and the civil liberties left has been all over Obama for this and similar measures. And it's mostly been ignored.
In every single case Obama has either continued or extended the Bush policies expanding the powers of the executive branch. Also eroding civil liberties.

I hated it under Bush and don't like it any better now. Listen up folks: it's never a good idea to start abrogating our liberties or tampering with the balance of powers of the branches of government.

57 Donna Ballard  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:28:55am

re: #54 Obdicut

Why? I'm not gay, but he looks presentable enough.

Image: clinton.jpg

Yeah, but that's a mental, or real, picture I just don't need!

58 Donna Ballard  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:30:19am

re: #53 HoosierHoops

Breaking News..Package is found in Times square...
New Yorkers can't catch a break

CBS is just breaking the news now...

59 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:30:24am

re: #45 Obdicut

Oppenheimer stripped of his citizenship.

If the political climate in the 1940s had been like it is today, Robert Oppenheimer would never have been chosen to lead the Manhattan Project.

60 tnguitarist  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:30:29am

re: #37 _RememberTonyC

I think this has the potential to effectively deter some "would be" terrorists from doing the dirty deed, and that's a "win".

Really? If a terrorist, especially a suicide bomber, is going to blow something up, do you really think he is concerned with losing his citizenship?

61 _RememberTonyC  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:30:59am

re: #41 McSpiff

This doesn't spell out any punishment. It just creates more legal limbo. Charge them with treason and hang them. Problem solved.

if people know how much they have to lose (their citizenship, for instance), they might think long and hard about becoming a terrorist. there was a time that people were AFRAID to break our laws, but now that we have decided we can pick and choose which laws to uphold and which to ignore, the fear of doing wrong has largely faded. This represents a chance to put some actual fear into would be terrorists.

62 McSpiff  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:31:31am

re: #59 Charles

We'd never have gotten to the moon, who would have let a former Nazi lead such an all American project!

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

63 _RememberTonyC  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:31:57am

re: #49 JasonA

I try to remain civil on internet discussion forums, but this is a stupid statement. It's really dumb.

No, seriously.

I can't imagine this stopping a native born American like Tim McVeigh, nevermind a guy who's only been a citizen for one year.


you need to live in the real world

64 Killgore Trout  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:32:02am
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.


How about the Hutaree militia? Oathkeepers and others who want to "water the tree of liberty"?

65 Spare O'Lake  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:32:07am

Suspects?
Wowsers.

66 Daniel Ballard  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:32:21am

re: #32 Dragon_Lady

Well if you read the bill I think you will see this is about naturalized citizens. As above I'm fine with this after a conviction, not mere suspicion. Of course after a terror conviction they can revoke anything they want, including their freedom.

67 _RememberTonyC  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:32:30am

re: #60 tnguitarist

Really? If a terrorist, especially a suicide bomber, is going to blow something up, do you really think he is concerned with losing his citizenship?

possibly ....

68 McSpiff  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:32:53am

re: #61 _RememberTonyC

if people know how much they have to lose (their citizenship, for instance), they might think long and hard about becoming a terrorist. there was a time that people were AFRAID to break our laws, but now that we have decided we can pick and choose which laws to uphold and which to ignore, the fear of doing wrong has largely faded. This represents a chance to put some actual fear into would be terrorists.

No it doesn't. You think someone hates America but yet the idea of losing their citizen ship scares them? No. They should be afraid they won't lose their citizenship. Charge them with treason, hang them. No need to question their citizenship.

69 AK-47%  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:32:56am

re: #61 _RememberTonyC

if people know how much they have to lose (their citizenship, for instance), they might think long and hard about becoming a terrorist. there was a time that people were AFRAID to break our laws, but now that we have decided we can pick and choose which laws to uphold and which to ignore, the fear of doing wrong has largely faded. This represents a chance to put some actual fear into would be terrorists.


I see you and I agree (#52), you just left off your sarc tag...

70 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:32:58am

re: #61 _RememberTonyC

if people know how much they have to lose (their citizenship, for instance), they might think long and hard about becoming a terrorist. there was a time that people were AFRAID to break our laws, but now that we have decided we can pick and choose which laws to uphold and which to ignore, the fear of doing wrong has largely faded. This represents a chance to put some actual fear into would be terrorists.

This is bullshit through and through.

The fear is that of our elected leaders, they are the ones reacting in fear to a failed car bombing.

71 tnguitarist  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:33:33am

re: #61 _RememberTonyC

if people know how much they have to lose (their citizenship, for instance), they might think long and hard about becoming a terrorist. there was a time that people were AFRAID to break our laws, but now that we have decided we can pick and choose which laws to uphold and which to ignore, the fear of doing wrong has largely faded. This represents a chance to put some actual fear into would be terrorists.

Losing your citizenship is much scarier than being tortured.//

72 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:33:39am

re: #14 SpaceJesus

I really like how our constitution just doesn't really matter anymore

What are you talking about!! Of course it matters!! We thump it!!

/

73 Digital Display  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:33:45am

Times square is evacuated on live tV...It is empty..Spooky...

74 lawhawk  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:33:56am

I'm more than a little uncomfortable with this proposal. In fact, I think it's unnecessary and does not address the matter truly at issue here - which is how to deal with terrorists, including those who later become naturalized citizens, who come to the US to carry out their evil agendas.

There is repeated discussion over how to deal with these terrorists once they come ashore, and that they should get military tribunals versus a law enforcement criminal trial in civilian courts. All of this is overwrought and needlessly complicated - both because the politicians want to ignore facts, score political points, and because they simply don't understand the conflict before them.

It should be a simple test as to whether terrorists get trials or tribunals.

US citizens get trials, regardless of where captured. Among the charges should be treason - after all that's what they're doing by going to war against the US and carrying out attacks against the US and its interests around the world.

Naturalized citizens get civilian trials, regardless of where captured, same as natural born citizens. They too should have treason charges against them, and if convicted, stripping citizenship is a possibility - but not before.

Foreign born terrorists captured in the US get trials - they're captured by law enforcement and should get tried and dealt with as such.

Foreign born terrorists captured overseas get tribunals; they're picked up often by foreign countries whose sense of civil rights isn't even close to our own. Some are picked up by US military forces overseas and the burden to preserve evidence for trial makes no sense on a battlefield in the heat of a battle.

Lieberman and others supporting this measure are hoping to jumpstart a discussion on how to deal with terrorists captured in the US and pushing them to tribunals, but as I've outlined above - this is a situation that would be better addressed in a much more common sense and objective standard.

75 Mocking Jay  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:33:57am

Funny how we're still absolutely fine sharing citizenship with the likes of Charles Manson, David Berkowitz, and that brain-eating guy on MSNBC's Lockup. Somehow Nadal Hassan is worse, though, since his cleric told him to kill people instead of his dog.

76 Feline Emperor of the Conservative Waste  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:33:59am

re: #10 NJDhockeyfan

It's getting to the point you can't tell the left from the right anymore.

This looks more like an authoritarian/libertarian axis item than the traditional right/left thing-a-mabob.

That Clinton supports it doesn't surprise me for that reason.

77 _RememberTonyC  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:34:08am

re: #36 McSpiff

Is it bad that as someone who would be a foreign alien (I think? I'm Canadian) its getting to the point where I'm feeling reluctant to travel to the United States? I just don't feel like I'd have any real judicial protection from the government anymore. Love the country, love the people but I'm not sure I really feel comfortable in traveling to country where I could face indefinite detention because some bureaucrat decided they didn't like my face..


oh the drama ...

78 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:34:30am

re: #16 McSpiff

Revoking citizenship is historically a "Bad Fucking Idea". From Nazi Germany to South Africa, this is seriously bad news. Especially since all this talk is implying it would only apply to naturalized citizens, but no one seems to be explicitly saying that.

So you either end up with 2nd class citizens, or a case where you have the United States holding someone with no claim to citizenship anywhere. Unpeople. Very bad news.

Jordan routinely strips Palestinian Jordanians of citizenship when they have too many, or feel like it.

79 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:34:30am

This is nothing but grandstanding by Joe Lieberman. There's no need for this bill. He's just trying to make some political capital by exploiting the Times Square bomber, who is a naturalized citizen. Cheap political gamesmanship.

80 AK-47%  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:34:53am

I think the unspoken threat here is that these persons would then be able to be shipped to Guantanamo or whatever sort of interrogaroty limbo we chose to put them through, rather than just leading a cushy life of a prison bitch.

81 Shiplord Kirel  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:35:10am

There seems to be a hell of lot of ignorance about how the Constitution works. Much of this, oddly enough, comes from people who are constantly yapping about their Constitutional rights. Consider for example the outrageous outrage over Clinton's apparent support for the UN Small Treaty. Congessman Paul Broun (R-Confederacy) sent out this crazy warning in March:

Dear fellow patriot,With willing one-world accomplices in Washington, D.C., gun-grabbers around the globe believe they have it made.In fact, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just announced the Obama Administration would be working hand in glove with the UN to pass a new “Small Arms Treaty.”
This is Congressman Paul Broun from Georgia.I’m writing you to make sure American citizens are prepared to oppose this assault on our national sovereignty and right to keep and bear arms.Disguised as legislation to help in the fight against “terrorism,” “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates,” the UN’s Small Arms Treaty is nothing more than a massive, GLOBAL gun control scheme.Ultimately, the UN’s Small Arms Treaty is designed to register, ban and CONFISCATE firearms owned by private citizens like YOU.

The National Association for Gun Rights has a Firearms Sovereignty Survey ready for you to complete, but I want you to understand just how dangerous this global gun ban is. Please bear with me for a moment.

Listen carefully, black helicopterists. A treaty is not some kind of back door to achieve results that could not be achieved by legislation. An international treaty cannot repeal a provision of the Constitution. It doesn't matter if Hildabeast pricks one of her claws and signs in blood, a treaty must still be ratified by the Senate and supported by enabling legislation. The courts would shred any such legislation in about a nano-second if it called for the general confiscation of firearms.

82 Mocking Jay  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:35:27am

re: #63 _RememberTonyC

you need to live in the real world

Oh get real. No terrorist is going to stress over losing his citizenship. Once you've killed dozens of people the ship has really sailed on that one. You'll have bigger problems to worry about.

83 The Left  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:35:29am

re: #61 _RememberTonyC

if people know how much they have to lose (their citizenship, for instance), they might think long and hard about becoming a terrorist. there was a time that people were AFRAID to break our laws, but now that we have decided we can pick and choose which laws to uphold and which to ignore, the fear of doing wrong has largely faded. This represents a chance to put some actual fear into would be terrorists.

Uh, the people who want to pick and choose which laws to uphold would be those of our elected representatives who would like to pick and choose who gets the protection of the Constitution-- and would like to eliminate pesky notions like due process.

84 NJDhockeyfan  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:35:46am

re: #79 Charles

This is nothing but grandstanding by Joe Lieberman. There's no need for this bill. He's just trying to make some political capital by exploiting the Times Square bomber, who is a naturalized citizen. Cheap political gamesmanship.

Are you surprised? Nobody does the right thing in Washington anymore. It's all about politics now.

85 Spare O'Lake  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:35:49am

re: #75 JasonA

Funny how we're still absolutely fine sharing citizenship with the likes of Charles Manson, David Berkowitz, and that brain-eating guy on MSNBC's Lockup. Somehow Nadal Hassan is worse, though, since his cleric told him to kill people instead of his dog.

Nadal Hassan is unfit to lick Manson's boots.

86 Shiplord Kirel  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:36:32am

re: #81 Shiplord Kirel

Er, Small ARMS Treaty.

PIMF again

87 tnguitarist  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:36:35am

re: #67 _RememberTonyC

possibly ...

You can't really believe that. So, someone who will not be alive after their attack will be worried that they will have their citizenship stripped. That's pretty naive.

88 lawhawk  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:36:44am

re: #59 Charles

Oppie was being watched by the OSS and US Army quite closely, but they missed several others who were actually passing along secrets to the Soviets and who harbored Communist sympathies.

Your larger point stands, and if imposed on 1940s America, the Manhattan Project would have been in serious danger because quite a few scientists were sympathetic to Communists or were involved in Communist activities.

89 Cato the Elder  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:36:52am

re: #74 lawhawk

See my #40 and follow-up below. Are we in agreement?

90 Spare O'Lake  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:37:05am

re: #79 Charles

This is nothing but grandstanding by Joe Lieberman. There's no need for this bill. He's just trying to make some political capital by exploiting the Times Square bomber, who is a naturalized citizen. Cheap political gamesmanship.

It does show a fair measure of Dem contempt for the Constitution and the presumption of innocence.

91 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:37:18am

re: #20 Dragon_Lady

What worries me the most about this bill is that this means that the State Department can decide that if your a member of an organization that they don't like (like the NRA, lets say) that means you automatically are condemned to loose your citizenship even if the organization doesn't have anything to do with any terror organization. Charles is correct, it's not just a slippery slope, its totally and utterly frictionless! All I can do is sincerely hope there are some safe guards in the bill that keeps the State Department from arbitrarily designating any organization that has openly apposed the government as a terror organization.

It did say that this would only apply to actions taken 'overseas'. So you'd have to be a naturalized citizen and then leave the U.S. to do something for the NRA.

Which is not to say that I disagree in the slightest. I sincerely hope someone talks some sense into these folks.

92 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:37:26am

re: #79 Charles

This is nothing but grandstanding by Joe Lieberman. There's no need for this bill. He's just trying to make some political capital by exploiting the Times Square bomber, who is a naturalized citizen. Cheap political gamesmanship.

And bringing the new kid on the block (Brown) along for the "get some national security cred" ride.

93 Digital Display  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:38:02am

re: #88 lawhawk

Lawhawk..There is nobody in Times Square...Package found...Check out the live feed and be safe

94 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:38:10am

re: #25 MikeySDCA

Nothing. Miranda and all the rest apply to people, not to American citizens.

Although the way some people have been talking, you'd think Miranda was some kind of magical formula.

95 Cato the Elder  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:38:14am

re: #83 iceweasel

Uh, the people who want to pick and choose which laws to uphold would be those of our elected representatives who would like to pick and choose who gets the protection of the Constitution-- and would like to eliminate pesky notions like due process.

They, and all common and uncommon criminals. Everyone feels entitled to pick and choose these days.

96 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:38:28am

re: #88 lawhawk

Oppie was being watched by the OSS and US Army quite closely, but they missed several others who were actually passing along secrets to the Soviets and who harbored Communist sympathies.

Your larger point stands, and if imposed on 1940s America, the Manhattan Project would have been in serious danger because quite a few scientists were sympathetic to Communists or were involved in Communist activities.

Absolutely -- in the 40s, large segments of America's intellectual/academic community were sympathetic to Marxism at least, if not outright communists. Yet somehow, they still managed to do some pretty amazing things for their country.

97 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:38:30am

re: #26 sagehen

I wish Joe Lieberman would just admit out loud that he's really a Republican. It's certainly obvious enough to anyone who's been paying attention.

And not my favorite kind of Republican, either.

98 The Left  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:38:32am

re: #90 Spare O'Lake

It does show a fair measure of Dem contempt for the Constitution and the presumption of innocence.

Scott Brown is a Dem?

99 NJDhockeyfan  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:38:55am

OT but important:

Explosives from torpedo found on sunken ship

Experts probing the cause of the sinking of a warship that took the lives of 46 South Korean sailors in late March have concluded that a torpedo was responsible for the naval tragedy, a government source said Friday.

It said a team of civilian and military specialists confirmed that a chemical substance used in making torpedoes has been identified from residue found on the funnel, the stern, as well as the seabed, where the broken half of the ship rested.

"Each of the chemical elements of the explosives traces was confirmed as those of the RDX, a more powerful explosive than TNT," he said

"They came to the conclusion because the RDX is used for torpedoes, not sea mines."

RDX stands for research department explosive. It is a highly explosive compound, commonly used as a main ingredient in plastic explosives.

About four alloy fragments have also been found in the salvaged wreckage and an analysis has suggested that they were made of an aluminum-magnesium alloy used to produce a torpedo's casing, the official said.

The government is expected to make public its findings around May 20 as an investigation is underway to determine the manufacturer of the torpedo and who fired it.

100 _RememberTonyC  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:38:58am

re: #83 iceweasel

Uh, the people who want to pick and choose which laws to uphold would be those of our elected representatives who would like to pick and choose who gets the protection of the Constitution-- and would like to eliminate pesky notions like due process.

That BS, Ice ... the people bashing Arizona for trying to enforce the existing immigration laws are doing just what I described because they have decided it's "racist" to enforce a law that has been on the books for decades. Spare me the leftist hypocrisy.

101 Gus  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:39:02am

The proposed legislation does not state that one would be stripped of their citizenship after being convicted but upon being suspected of terror or supporting terror. There would be no due process and this would effectively taint any potential jury pools and trial process.

John Boehner is correct when he stated, “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..." Innocent until proven guilty and that includes their citizenship.

102 Donna Ballard  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:39:16am

re: #66 Rightwingconspirator

Well if you read the bill I think you will see this is about naturalized citizens. As above I'm fine with this after a conviction, not mere suspicion. Of course after a terror conviction they can revoke anything they want, including their freedom.

The last time I looked the bills that are submitted are usually altered with all kinds of revisions and additions. Whats to stop them from altering it with a clause that makes anyone who has an association with any organization that opposes the government in anyway shape or form? And would we even know if they did add this to the bill? Come on, RWC you of all people gotta know that these guys in office love to sneak in little alterations that seem harmless but can come and bit you, me and any citizen in the country! The can and have done it before in the past and they will do it again in the future!

103 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:39:49am

re: #33 JRCMYP

Seriously--why do this? Do they have such a lack of confidence in our judicial system that they feel they need to strip Americans of their rights? And it's not like non-Americans aren't protected by the constitution anyway. WTF?

There is a terrible and rising trend that 'feels' that having to apply the rule of law to people who scare us is an undue burden, one that we can give up and still call ourselves a civilized nation.

104 Mocking Jay  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:40:15am

re: #101 Gus 802

Wait, let me see if i get this straight...

John Boehner is right?

105 tnguitarist  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:40:19am

re: #101 Gus 802

If Boehner isn't on board......

106 lawhawk  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:40:24am

re: #93 HoosierHoops

I'm located near Ground Zero, but thanks for the heads up. With so many people on the watch for suspicious stuff, I'm not surprised - and the NYPD/FDNY aren't taking chances either. Hope it turns out to be nothing but some vendor who had to go for a bathroom break and left it there...

107 Cato the Elder  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:40:49am

re: #90 Spare O'Lake

It does show a fair measure of Dem contempt for the Constitution and the presumption of innocence.

I don't see why anyone would downding you for that. It's not just pseudo-Democrat Lieberman behind this, Hillary Clinton is all tits-up for it as well.

108 lawhawk  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:41:22am

re: #96 Charles

And some of those same people helped give the Soviets data and information that helped them accelerate their own nuclear weapons program as more than a few thought that such weapons should not be in the hands of one nation alone (a sentiment that still exists among more than a few).

109 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:41:35am

re: #39 tnguitarist

What this does is keep you from even fighting. What if you just happened to be an innocent person swept up in this? This is grandstanding on Joe's part and he knows it.

What was dude's name from the Olympics bombing? Jewell?

So, if he'd been a naturalized citizen, under this they could have stripped him of his citizenship? Do you get it back if you're found innocent, or they drop the charges, or is that at State's 'discretion'?

110 Mocking Jay  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:41:38am

re: #103 SanFranciscoZionist

There is a terrible and rising trend that 'feels' that having to apply the rule of law to people who scare us is an undue burden, one that we can give up and still call ourselves a civilized nation.

That consists of Middle Eastern terrorists today.

Tomorrow?

Yeah, this idea needs to die a quick death.

111 _RememberTonyC  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:41:40am

so long folks .....

112 Spare O'Lake  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:41:51am

re: #98 iceweasel

Scott Brown is a Dem?

No, but Lieberman is...sortakinda.

113 tnguitarist  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:42:05am

As soon as a militia member lost their citizenship, the far right would lose its mind.

114 Nimed  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:42:13am

re: #29 JasonA

By the way?

Obama haters, meet me at camera three.

Do yo really want to give him this kind of power? I love the guy, and let me tell you something... I don't.

re: #56 iceweasel

It's a horrible bill and a horrible idea, and the civil liberties left has been all over Obama for this and similar measures. And it's mostly been ignored.
In every single case Obama has either continued or extended the Bush policies expanding the powers of the executive branch. Also eroding civil liberties.

I hated it under Bush and don't like it any better now. Listen up folks: it's never a good idea to start abrogating our liberties or tampering with the balance of powers of the branches of government.

I was naively counting on Republicans in Congress to oppose further expansions of Executive power. If not on principle, at least out of political opportunism. Party out of power and all that.

But it seems unlimited executive power is the one issue in which the GOP stand on principle. That's Small Government for you.

115 Gus  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:42:26am

re: #104 JasonA

Wait, let me see if i get this straight...

John Boehner is right?

Boehner has his moments. ;)

116 Obdicut  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:42:44am

re: #96 Charles

I cannot recommend enough the book American Prometheus, a biography of Oppenheimer that goes heavily into the subject of his communism and socialism.

My favorite quote from him, asked why he wouldn't leave the US for somewhere where he wouldn't be accused of being a traitor and be harassed for his former political leanings:

"Dammit, I happen to love this country."

117 Cato the Elder  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:42:46am

re: #108 lawhawk

And some of those same people helped give the Soviets data and information that helped them accelerate their own nuclear weapons program as more than a few thought that such weapons should not be in the hands of one nation alone (a sentiment that still exists among more than a few).

Some moonbats known and even related to me feel the same way about Iran vs. Israel.

118 engineer cat  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:42:52am

taking away the citizenship of terror suspects

made from only the purest 100% pander

119 Mocking Jay  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:43:09am

re: #114 Nimed

I was naively counting on Republicans in Congress to oppose further expansions of Executive power. If not on principle, at least out of political opportunism. Party out of power and all that.

But it seems unlimited executive power is the one issue in which the GOP stand on principle. That's Small Government for you.

They only want one tyrant instead of a bureaucracy full of them...

120 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:43:15am

re: #51 McSpiff

Oddly enough Glenn beck disagrees with this. I watched a clip of him and didn't scream even a little bit. It was surreal.

Beck has had a couple of eerie moments of sanity, lately.

121 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:43:26am

re: #112 Spare O'Lake

No, but Lieberman is...sortakinda.

El Wrongo!

Remember Lieberman at the RNC convention of 2008?

Memories...

122 webevintage  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:43:41am

re: #37 _RememberTonyC

I think this has the potential to effectively deter some "would be" terrorists from doing the dirty deed, and that's a "win."

How?

123 Cato the Elder  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:44:40am

re: #111 _RememberTonyC

so long folks ...

Was that a flounce?

Stand your ground.

124 Mocking Jay  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:44:45am

re: #122 webevintage

How?

Don't bother. You won't get an answer to this question that makes sense.

125 Nimed  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:44:49am

re: #79 Charles

This is nothing but grandstanding by Joe Lieberman. There's no need for this bill. He's just trying to make some political capital by exploiting the Times Square bomber, who is a naturalized citizen. Cheap political gamesmanship.

Lieberman was born to make Arlen Specter look honorable.

126 [deleted]  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:45:28am
127 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:45:44am

re: #61 _RememberTonyC

if people know how much they have to lose (their citizenship, for instance), they might think long and hard about becoming a terrorist. there was a time that people were AFRAID to break our laws, but now that we have decided we can pick and choose which laws to uphold and which to ignore, the fear of doing wrong has largely faded. This represents a chance to put some actual fear into would be terrorists.

I gotta say, I think that's absolutely ridiculous. You think that someone trying to set off a car bomb in Times Square will think twice if he might lose his U.S. citizenship? If he gave a shit about his U.S. citizenship, why is he tryna set off a car bomb in Times Square? He already knows he's going to prison forever and ever if he's caught.

128 webevintage  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:45:48am

re: #112 Spare O'Lake

No, but Lieberman is...sortakinda.

I bet Lieberman's BFFs John and Lindsey are backing him all the way.

129 wrenchwench  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:45:52am

re: #40 Cato the Elder

It's actually all right there in the fine print of your passport, folks.

I looked. It's there, on page 4, running over to page 5. Ends with, "You may continue to have U.S. tax liability even if you lose U.S. nationality."

130 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:46:11am

re: #63 _RememberTonyC

you need to live in the real world

You're under the impression that you are?

131 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:46:18am

I got accused of hating America today in the Cinco de Mayo thread. Maybe I should have my citizenship revoked.

132 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:46:47am

re: #64 Killgore Trout

How about the Hutaree militia? Oathkeepers and others who want to "water the tree of liberty"?

This will never apply to homegrown, non-jihadi types.

133 reine.de.tout  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:46:48am

re: #1 Obdicut

I'm not comfortable with the State Department deciding something like that without a trial.

We would have stripped the citizenship of a lot of people in the '50s, with this kind of thing in place, and made our nation much weaker in the process.

Terrible idea. Massive expansion of executive branch power, too.

It is indeed.
I don't know how any true conservative could support this.

134 webevintage  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:47:06am

re: #131 Charles

I got accused of hating America today in the Cinco de Mayo thread. Maybe I should have my citizenship revoked.

Wow, people are still posting to that thread.
Gotta go look....

135 reine.de.tout  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:48:13am

re: #8 Obdicut

I think this nakedly shows Clinton's tendency to approve of measures that expand executive branch power.


Yes.

136 Donna Ballard  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:48:24am

re: #91 SanFranciscoZionist

It did say that this would only apply to actions taken 'overseas'. So you'd have to be a naturalized citizen and then leave the U.S. to do something for the NRA.

Which is not to say that I disagree in the slightest. I sincerely hope someone talks some sense into these folks.

I know that but I have a deep seated distrust of how the government lackeys think. G-men are notorious for saying one thing and doing the complete opposite and it makes me both terrified and angry that Mr. Lieberman, whom I have respected up to this point would propose something like this! There are days when I could jump country for somewhere else but the unfortunate truth is there is no where else on the planet that would be better! Thats what makes this so unsettling. Call me paranoid if you wish! I don't care, but I'm really beginning to wish I could find a hole and crawl in and bury myself.

137 gamark  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:48:33am

re: #59 Charles

If the political climate in the 1940s had been like it is today, Robert Oppenheimer would never have been chosen to lead the Manhattan Project.

Completely disagree. There is no way the political climate today would allow for the internment of an ethnic/religious group like the 1940s climate allowed for Japanese internment. Can you imagine an Army Major of German decent, making anti-American statements, would have been allowed to stay in the army of 1943 like a certain Major Hasan of today? No, our political climate today is going to get more people getting killed before we'd ever get to the point we were at in WWII, if we ever do at all.

138 Spare O'Lake  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:48:41am

re: #121 Stanley Sea

El Wrongo!

Remember Lieberman at the RNC convention of 2008?

Memories...

He is an "independent democrat" and he still sits in the dem caucus IIRC. Anyways, as Cato pointed out, the Hillarious One is all perked up for it, and Pelousy sounds like she could live with it too.
From the linked article:

"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. "

139 lawhawk  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:50:25am

[Link: www.trafficland.com...] - live cam from Times Square showing it to be empty.... but a bunch of those DOT cameras are now unavailable... developing...

140 wrenchwench  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:52:00am
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.

If that were the second and last paragraph of the article, and was followed with a huge sarc tag, then it would all make sense. As it is... wtf?

141 Cato the Elder  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:52:38am

re: #129 wrenchwench

I looked. It's there, on page 4, running over to page 5. Ends with, "You may continue to have U.S. tax liability even if you lose U.S. nationality."

And if that don't scare 'em, nothing will!

142 tnguitarist  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:53:59am

I just don't see how anyone could be on board with this. It's one thing to threaten it after a conviction, but suspected?

143 Walter L. Newton  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:54:52am

re: #140 wrenchwench

If that were the second and last paragraph of the article, and was followed with a huge sarc tag, then it would all make sense. As it is... wtf?

The WTF is that the perceptions of freedom in this country ends with ones grasp of reality.

144 Sheila Broflovski  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:55:14am

Hasn't the U.S. already been there and done that?

Alien and Sedition Acts.

145 Dark_Falcon  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:55:17am

re: #6 Cato the Elder

Scott "Take My Daughter...Please!" Brown doesn't know "denounce" from "renounce".

I would not, however, be opposed to a bill that stripped naturalized "citizens" of their passports and shipped them back to whatever shithole they came from - after conviction, of course.

Nor would I.

146 Obdicut  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:55:23am

re: #142 tnguitarist

Pelosi's support for this is a good demonstration of why Pelosi is not some wild progressive as she is painted to be.

With Pelosi's and Clinton's support for this, the Democrats just took a turn towards the hard right.

Are the Democrats really dumb enough to try to play the "we're more conservative, really!" game?

147 wrenchwench  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:56:32am

re: #143 Walter L. Newton

The WTF is that the perceptions of freedom in this country ends with ones grasp of reality.

Do you mean that freedom is an illusion?

148 Cato the Elder  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:56:40am

Joe Lieberman would suck the chrome off a hot Harley tailpipe if he thought it would keep him in power just one more day. I expect this kind of thing from him.

The thought of Hillary Clinton as president made me retch, and her support of this opportunistic shite is confirmation of my instincts.

Waiting for Obama's statement on this horrible proposal...

Of course, if he comes out against it the wingnuts will go mad and say he's afraid it might apply to him.

Altogether this is a crazy day in Washington. Go Boehner!

149 [deleted]  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:56:42am
150 Walter L. Newton  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:57:49am

OT

This has got to be the greatest, all time, award winning spin that I have ever seen on bad news...

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The economy got what it needed in April: A burst of hiring that added a net 290,000 jobs, the biggest monthly total in four years.

The improving picture caused so many more people to pour into the labor force in search of employment that the jobless rate rose from 9.7 percent to 9.9 percent.

(and of course, were did the majority of these "new jobs" even come from? The part time census workforce. Those are not jobs that have long term impact on the job economy)

[Link: finance.yahoo.com...]

151 Varek Raith  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:58:39am

Would the Hutatree Militia be affected by this...???
:rollseyes:

152 Donna Ballard  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:58:58am

I hope you all have a nice day and a Happy Mothers Day! Time for me to get my day started, Keep Smiling Everyone!

153 webevintage  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:59:14am

re: #146 Obdicut

With Pelosi's and Clinton's support for this, the Democrats just took a turn towards the hard right.
Are the Democrats really dumb enough to try to play the "we're more conservative, really!" game?

Who knows.
This is just crazy shit for either party to embrace....

154 Killgore Trout  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:59:35am

re: #132 SanFranciscoZionist

This will never apply to homegrown, non-jihadi types.

That's why the law sill never stand up. WE don't have a tiered system of citizenship where certain citizens have special protections and others don't. It defeats the whole foundation of our country.

155 Obdicut  Fri, May 7, 2010 10:59:43am

Calling Pelosi's office now to give her (or rather, an overworked staffer) a piece of my mind.

Or rather, to ask for 'clarification'.

156 The Left  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:00:18am

re: #100 _RememberTonyC

That BS, Ice ... the people bashing Arizona for trying to enforce the existing immigration laws are doing just what I described because they have decided it's "racist" to enforce a law that has been on the books for decades. Spare me the leftist hypocrisy.

Sorry, is this a thread about AZ now?
Spare me your wingnut bullshit.

157 Dark_Falcon  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:00:23am

re: #99 NJDhockeyfan

OT but important:

Explosives from torpedo found on sunken ship

That makes things clear, but there still won't be any action taken. The South cannot afford to push at the Norks.

158 KingKenrod  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:01:23am

re: #146 Obdicut

Pelosi's support for this is a good demonstration of why Pelosi is not some wild progressive as she is painted to be.

With Pelosi's and Clinton's support for this, the Democrats just took a turn towards the hard right.

Are the Democrats really dumb enough to try to play the "we're more conservative, really!" game?

Yes, until November.

159 Varek Raith  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:01:25am

re: #157 Dark_Falcon

That makes things clear, but there still won't be any action taken. The South cannot afford to push at the Norks.

Yeah, Seoul would be no more...

160 Gus  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:02:31am

Funny animation here:

Lieberman's 'solution': Strip suspects' citizenship

Leiberman was the reason I stayed home on election day in 2000.

161 Obdicut  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:03:29am

Pelosi's office, to their credit, didn't deny she said she liked the 'spirit' of the bill. They said to check back for a more complete statement from her.

I let them know that the idea of stripping citizenship without a trial is anathema to me.

If you feel strongly about this issue, do call your representative and senators and ask what their position is on this, and register your own feelings.

162 Cato the Elder  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:03:59am

re: #90 Spare O'Lake

It does show a fair measure of Dem contempt for the Constitution and the presumption of innocence.

Again, I can't understand why you get massive downdings for this (bratwurst, iceweasel, Olsonist, Slap, tnguitarist, webevintage)!

Is Hillary Clinton not a Democrat, people?

Is she not showing contempt for the constitution here?

163 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:04:20am

re: #151 Varek Raith

Would the Hutatree Militia be affected by this...???
:rollseyes:


They are getting out on bail I believe.

164 Walter L. Newton  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:05:06am

re: #162 Cato the Elder

Again, I can't understand why you get massive downdings for this (bratwurst, iceweasel, Olsonist, Slap, tnguitarist, webevintage)!

Is Hillary Clinton not a Democrat, people?

Is she not showing contempt for the constitution here?

You have to ask?

165 Obdicut  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:05:42am

re: #162 Cato the Elder

She's not showing the Democrat's contempt, though. She's showing her own.

I didn't give that comment a downding, but it's Spare's typical broad brush.

166 Tiny Alien Kitties are Watching You  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:06:04am

I can't see why this is at all needed or helpful, it is more "kneejerk" reaction than thoughtful response. Exactly what is wrong with the current laws against Sedition or Treason, don't they both carry sanctions up to and including the death penalty?

Instead they want to rewrite the constitution to deal with a problem that only exists in perception rather than fact. Idiocy.

167 The Left  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:06:22am

re: #162 Cato the Elder

Again, I can't understand why you get massive downdings for this (bratwurst, iceweasel, Olsonist, Slap, tnguitarist, webevintage)!

Is Hillary Clinton not a Democrat, people?

Is she not showing contempt for the constitution here?

I've already made clear this is bullshit; I opposed this bullshit under Bush, I oppose it under Obama.
I object to it being painted as "Dem contempt for the constitution", given that the GOP was shitting on the constitution under Bush. Suddenly people care about civil liberties?

Fuck all those who tell us we have to destroy our 'freedums' in order to protect them.

168 Cato the Elder  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:07:25am

re: #165 Obdicut

She's not showing the Democrat's contempt, though. She's showing her own.

I didn't give that comment a downding, but it's Spare's typical broad brush.

Pelosi and Clinton - two leading Democrats - spit on the constitution and due process.

I think Spare's comment was fair.

And I think you would make similar comments about the GOP based on two prominent members' actions.

169 Varek Raith  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:07:34am

This whole bill is nothing but a stupid kneejerk reaction. "Oh, look, I'm tough on terrist!11!"

170 lostlakehiker  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:07:38am

The criminal justice system treated the 1993 attack on the WTC as a one-off effort by a single individual or a small team. This, even though we knew better then, let alone now.

That's how the criminal justice system works. You catch one person. You don't interrogate him much because that could jeopardize the prospects at trial. You're not even interested in trying to unravel the thread back to its source, because you're in no position to do anything about the rest of the thread. The incentive structure of the criminal justice system isn't geared to prevention. Whatever damage we sustain, the DOJ will give itself a pat on the back if whoever was the proximate cause can be convicted.

171 Cato the Elder  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:08:17am

And Dems de facks.

172 Gus  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:08:43am

re: #167 iceweasel

I've already made clear this is bullshit; I opposed this bullshit under Bush, I oppose it under Obama.
I object to it being painted as "Dem contempt for the constitution", given that the GOP was shitting on the constitution under Bush. Suddenly people care about civil liberties?

Fuck all those who tell us we have to destroy our 'freedums' in order to protect them.

Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power." - Benjamin Franklin

AKA "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security."

173 Olsonist  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:09:41am

re: #162 Cato the Elder

Again, I can't understand why you get massive downdings for this (bratwurst, iceweasel, Olsonist, Slap, tnguitarist, webevintage)!

Is Hillary Clinton not a Democrat, people?

Is she not showing contempt for the constitution here?

Brown is a Republican and Lieberman isn't a Democrat. Spare O'Lake is trying to paint Democrats with this piece of constitutional graffiti which has broad if thin support.

174 The Left  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:09:52am

re: #172 Gus 802

Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power." - Benjamin Franklin

AKA "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security."

Bingo. How goes it Gus?

175 Slap  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:11:03am

re: #162 Cato the Elder

My ding was for the crass generalization. I was unaware of a Dem platform point that required contempt for the Constitution. Had the comment focused merely on the specific individuals in question, I would have bypassed it.

That's just my taste, though -- I get really annoyed with partisan-flavored generalizations. And I tend to downding what I perceive as unoriginal recyclings of other peoples' words. Original, thoughtful takes get my respect, regardless of my position.

(And just to be clear - partisan-flavored ice creams aren't too good, either. Unless you get the sprinkles.)

176 Cato the Elder  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:11:04am

I see "Recusancy" is here.

Time for me to recuse myself.

177 Varek Raith  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:11:27am

I don't care what the party affiliation is of those who support this bill. They're all spitting on the Constitution as far as I'm concerned.

178 Obdicut  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:12:13am

re: #168 Cato the Elder

Pelosi and Clinton - two leading Democrats - spit on the constitution and due process.

I think Spare's comment was fair.

And I think you would make similar comments about the GOP based on two prominent members' actions.

Why would you think that, though? Are you being a psychiatrist on the interwebs again?

Those who like the executive branch empowered will like this law-- they are both Democrats and Republicans. We will definitely hear howls about how terrible this law is, rightly so, from some Democrats. I hope we will from some Republicans, as well.

Seeing this as a Republican/Democrat issue is stupid.

179 Gus  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:12:15am

re: #174 iceweasel

Bingo. How goes it Gus?

Checkmate Lieberman! ;)

Oh, same old thing. Scraping by to pay the man and other associated utilities and debts.

How's things with you?

180 engineer cat  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:12:43am

re: #90 Spare O'Lake

It does show a fair measure of Dem contempt for the Constitution and the presumption of innocence.

i only object to this phrase 'Dem contempt', as if Republicans were innocent of it! politicians pander - they all do it

i was already angry at obama for supporting retroactive telecom immunity before i voted for him. and i continue to be angry at him and many other politicians for their support of the extention of the 4th-amendment-dissolving "patriot" act

181 Cato the Elder  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:13:25am

re: #173 Olsonist

Brown is a Republican and Lieberman isn't a Democrat. Spare O'Lake is trying to paint Democrats with this piece of constitutional graffiti which has broad if thin support.

"Broad if thin"?

Now it's really time for a break.

Democrats are doing a fine job of painting themselves, as they also did, may I remind you, with the Patriot Act.

Off to find a thin broad and begin drinking in the weekend...

182 Nimed  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:13:45am

re: #96 Charles

Absolutely -- in the 40s, large segments of America's intellectual/academic community were sympathetic to Marxism at least, if not outright communists. Yet somehow, they still managed to do some pretty amazing things for their country.

Hell, Einstein was openly socialist. How did our country managed to survive his naturalization?

I think we can all agree the Times Square bomber is no Einstein.

183 Old Dragon  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:14:14am

This bill/ and these "gnetlemen" are totally DISGUSTING.
Senator Brown, from my state of MA, should know better.
Since when did the party of "less intrusive Big Gov't" stand for giving the rights to decide a person's "citizenship" to a part of the bureaucracy of the Executive branch ??

Do we never learn from our own history, or is that line only applicable to those who seek refuge from honest thought in the voluminous folds of "patriotism and security"

Appalling....and the echoes from Manzanar and other "camps" continue.

Old Dragon, history teacher ret'd.

184 Cato the Elder  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:14:26am

re: #178 Obdicut

Why would you think that, though? Are you being a psychiatrist on the interwebs again?

Those who like the executive branch empowered will like this law-- they are both Democrats and Republicans. We will definitely hear howls about how terrible this law is, rightly so, from some Democrats. I hope we will from some Republicans, as well.

Seeing this as a Republican/Democrat issue is stupid.

You are awfully fond of telling me when I'm being dim/dumb/stupid.

I'm awfully fond of laughing at you.

185 Obdicut  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:15:04am

re: #183 Old Dragon

Well-roared.

re: #184 Cato the Elder

That's nice, Cato.

186 The Left  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:17:38am

re: #179 Gus 802

Checkmate Lieberman! ;)

Oh, same old thing. Scraping by to pay the man and other associated utilities and debts.

How's things with you?

About the same. Gave up my lease, so here's hoping that they sort my visa out in the next 7 weeks. Checking out some stuff from the Tribeca Film Festival this weekend, including hopefully this:
[Link: movies.nytimes.com...]

Also just made a key lime pie for Jimmah. :-) Hope you're well!

187 Liberal Classic  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:18:55am
Some Democrats expressed openness to the idea, while several Senate Republicans expressed concern.

Strange axis. I'd be interested to get a better grasp of which Democrats are in favor and which Republicans are opposed.

IMO, this measure is not necessary. I wish Sen. Lieberman would reconsider.

For one thing, I can't see that it serves as any kind of meaningful deterrent to terrorism.

For another, I don't see how this measure would pass constitutional muster. Stripping a suspect of terrorism of their citizenship for what purpose? To change the rules of procedure or standards of evidence, perhaps? To my knowledge, the fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments stand in the way of doing so.

And for the record, I'm in favor of military tribunals for foreign fighters captured overseas during war, meaning I don't think they are covered by the 6th amendment. But for domestic terrorism cases, I think there are ample tools for law enforcement, and no reason for changing due process for any crime no matter how heinous.

188 Gus  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:20:42am

re: #186 iceweasel

About the same. Gave up my lease, so here's hoping that they sort my visa out in the next 7 weeks. Checking out some stuff from the Tribeca Film Festival this weekend, including hopefully this:
[Link: movies.nytimes.com...]

Also just made a key lime pie for Jimmah. :-) Hope you're well!

Wild movie. That deserves a posting of the trailer...

Wild and Wonderful Whites of West Virginia Trailer

Youtube Video

Note: Whites is a surname so remain calm.

189 Lidane  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:21:54am

re: #167 iceweasel

I opposed this bullshit under Bush, I oppose it under Obama.

Late to the thread, but I agree so much.

I thought bills like this were stupid under Bush, and they're just as stupid now under Obama. No way in hell would I support it no matter who signs it. No one in government, regardless of party or ideology, should have that kind of power.

I object to it being painted as "Dem contempt for the constitution", given that the GOP was shitting on the constitution under Bush. Suddenly people care about civil liberties?

Yeah, this. For eight years there was a constant mantra among many in the GOP that said that if you didn't blindly support whatever they wanted in the name of fighting terrorism, then you hated America and wanted Al-Qaeda to win. Worried about losing your rights? Well, that's just the kind of appeasment the terrorists expect from pansy ass commie pinkos who hate their country. Don't worry about those kinds of things-- just let the government run roughshod over the Constitution and everything that makes this country great so that the paranoid among us can feel "safe".

190 Dark_Falcon  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:24:14am

re: #177 Varek Raith

I don't care what the party affiliation is of those who support this bill. They're all spitting on the Constitution as far as I'm concerned.

I have to agree. This bill is over the line.

191 Cato the Elder  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:27:31am

There's far too much dinging going on here based on whether you like or dislike a person's previous posts, or just the person.

I think I'm going to start randomly dinging every seventh post based on a coin flip.

Do not be surprised therefore if you think you're my friend or my foe and find yourself getting dinged the opposite way you expected.

192 jamesfirecat  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:28:46am

re: #34 JasonA

Amazing how we lose our shit over a failed car-bombing. Did the UK come anywhere close to shit like this when the NRA was in full swing?

I think you mean the IRA.

Though if you republican I bet you would have said the IRS....

193 Mocking Jay  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:29:50am

re: #192 jamesfirecat

I think you mean the IRA.

Though if you republican I bet you would have said the IRS...

Yikes. One hell of a gaffe there.

And yes, that is what I meant.

194 Liberal Classic  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:33:18am

re: #61 _RememberTonyC

if people know how much they have to lose (their citizenship, for instance), they might think long and hard about becoming a terrorist. there was a time that people were AFRAID to break our laws, but now that we have decided we can pick and choose which laws to uphold and which to ignore, the fear of doing wrong has largely faded. This represents a chance to put some actual fear into would be terrorists.

Two points:

Are you sure this would be a meaningful deterrent to becoming a terrorist? I can't think of a stronger symbolic renunciation of citizenship than planting a bomb and fleeing the country. Is revocation of residency status really going to matter to the perpetrator?

Stripping suspects of their citizenship, and thereby stripping suspects of certain rights (which is the whole point to doing so, as far as I can tell) is itself selective enforcement. In so doing, we are no longer a nation of laws. We're picking and choose what laws to uphold, and IMO weakening our constitutional system in so doing.

195 Nimed  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:34:17am

re: #175 Slap

My ding was for the crass generalization. I was unaware of a Dem platform point that required contempt for the Constitution. Had the comment focused merely on the specific individuals in question, I would have bypassed it.

I don't think that's really fair. Boehner, McConnell, and other prominent Republican leader's stances on issues are regularly attributed to the GOP, and rightly so - if they don't represent the party, who does?

If Clinton and Pelosi are indeed supportive of this aberration, Spare O'Lake's comment is perfectly reasonable.

196 Liberal Classic  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:35:11am

re: #191 Cato the Elder

You came up tails, sorry. :P

197 Olsonist  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:39:31am

re: #191 Cato the Elder

Dang, I never thought of dings as a dangerous doings. I've done dings and occasionally I undone dings. But the idea of silencing dings sounds dingy.

198 reidr  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:39:54am

re: #107 Cato the Elder

I don't see why anyone would downding you for that. It's not just pseudo-Democrat Lieberman behind this, Hillary Clinton is all tits-up for it as well.

It came across (to me) as an unnecessary anti-D smear. Interesting that he doesn't mention the Republicans involved in this legislation. (Brown and who else?) And frankly, I'd say Lieberman is closer to a Republican than Democrat these days.

199 Nimed  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:41:19am

re: #178 Obdicut

Why would you think that, though? Are you being a psychiatrist on the interwebs again?

We will definitely hear howls about how terrible this law is, rightly so, from some Democrats. I hope we will from some Republicans, as well.

Seeing this as a Republican/Democrat issue is stupid.

Let's wait for those howls, then. But the Secretary of State and the Speaker of the House tend to howl awfully loud.

200 Sheepdogess  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:42:55am
That slope isn’t just slippery, it’s frictionless.

Yes indeed.

If this things passes, that would allow the feds to boot out all those "violent" tea-partiers terrorists that they fear so deeply.

Where would they send them? To the gallows my friends, to the gallows.

This thing stinks to high heaven.

201 Obdicut  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:43:18am

re: #199 Nimed

Sure. And I've called Pelosi's office to rail on her already. But there have been plenty of times where the Congressional Democrats are saying one thing and Obama is saying another; the Democrats, bless their hearts, are not nearly as unified as the Republicans. One reason to like them.

As I said, with Pelosi and Clinton both supporting this, the Democrats are swinging to the right. But that doesn't mean that there aren't going to be a ton of Democrats, hopefully the majority-- especially the actual voting kind-- who hate this bill and everything it stands for.

202 Slap  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:45:19am

re: #195 Nimed

I still stand by my perception of it as generalization (and acknowledge that I could have replaced "crass" with "overly broad" for clarity). But broad generalizations are something I personally work to avoid (with varying degrees of success). Had it been less broad, I would have passed it by.

I'm often reminded of something an old friend of mine used to interject into what he perceived as ridiculous conversations, just to screw with people:

"ALL generalizations are FALSE!!!"

203 eastsider  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:48:55am

What's most shocking is that this isn't coming from fringe tea partiers or the like, this is a member of the United States Congress, advocating for the substantial gutting of the Constitution on the whim of the executive branch.

yowza. come on, at least act like you understand the way our country works, you're a senator, dammit.

204 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:49:40am

re: #84 NJDhockeyfan

Are you surprised? Nobody does the right thing in Washington anymore. It's all about politics now.

Support of this would be a dealbreaker for me in terms of future voting.

205 Gus  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:49:44am

Afroyim v. Rusk

Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967)[1], was a United States Supreme Court decision that set an important legal precedent that a United States citizen cannot be deprived of American citizenship involuntarily. Originally the United States Constitution did not address the issue.

...

Majority opinion

The court ruled, in a 5-4 decision, that Afroyim's citizenship could not be taken away without his consent. The majority relied strongly on the history of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Amendment was written soon after the American Civil War, in order to secure the rights of the freed slaves. At this time, African Americans had already been made U.S. citizens by the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the original draft of the Amendment contained no definition of citizenship. However, some Senators were worried that a future Congress might reverse the Act, so they inserted the first clause of the Amendment in order to ensure that the blacks' citizenship was "permanent and secure". This guarantee would have been meaningless if Congress retained the power to strip citizens of their citizenship without their consent. The citizenship guarantees of the 14th Amendment were eventually held by the Supreme Court to apply to all Americans — not just the freed slaves and their posterity — in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).

The majority also pointed to the Titles of Nobility Amendment, a proposed constitutional amendment from the early nineteenth century. It was passed by Congress in 1810 but never ratified by the states. This amendment would have removed the citizenship of any U.S. citizen who accepted a title of nobility from a foreign government. The majority reasoned that the fact that this was passed as a constitutional amendment, rather than a simple law, shows that, even before the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress did not believe that it had the power to strip U.S. citizenship from anyone.

206 Locker  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:49:44am

I'm in way late on this but my problem is with "suspected". I'm a firm believer in the "innocent until proven guilty" concept. I might be a suspected terrorist because my pissed off girlfriend made a stupid phone call. Because of this my rights as a citizen are stripped?

It's bullshit.

207 Cato the Elder  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:50:03am

re: #197 Olsonist

Dang, I never thought of dings as a dangerous doings. I've done dings and occasionally I undone dings. But the idea of silencing dings sounds dingy.

I'm not interested in silencing anything. Just randomizing it, for laughs.

208 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:50:18am

re: #85 Spare O'Lake

Nadal Hassan is unfit to lick Manson's boots.

Pray tell, how do you figure that?

209 eastsider  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:50:50am

re: #208 SanFranciscoZionist

Pray tell, how do you figure that?

he's got a bad back, can't bend over at all.

210 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:51:25am

re: #90 Spare O'Lake

It does show a fair measure of Dem contempt for the Constitution and the presumption of innocence.

Poor Scottie Brown, he fell in with bad companions.

211 jamesfirecat  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:51:52am

re: #193 JasonA

Yikes. One hell of a gaffe there.

And yes, that is what I meant.

I'm just surprised that it took over a 150 posts before someone pointed it out...

212 Gus  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:52:31am

Back later.

213 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:52:38am

re: #98 iceweasel

Scott Brown is a Dem?

He was the darling of the People of the Tea just months ago. I thought they were all into the Constitution and Stuff.

214 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:53:33am

re: #100 _RememberTonyC

That BS, Ice ... the people bashing Arizona for trying to enforce the existing immigration laws are doing just what I described because they have decided it's "racist" to enforce a law that has been on the books for decades. Spare me the leftist hypocrisy.

Don't talk total crap.

215 EastSider  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:54:12am

re: #213 SanFranciscoZionist

He was the darling of the People of the Tea just months ago. I thought they were all into the Constitution and Stuff.

just the second amendment. All the other amendments can piss off. unless they can be revoked selectively for people who aren't "real" Americans, with the definition of "unreal" Americans to be determined subjectively by the mob (though often being determined by skin color and/or religion).

216 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:54:22am

re: #104 JasonA

Wait, let me see if i get this straight...

John Boehner is right?

He may be orange, but he's absolutely correct on this topic, far as I can tell.

217 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:56:09am

re: #113 tnguitarist

As soon as a militia member lost their citizenship, the far right would lose its mind.

However, this appears to be written so that cannot happen. How convenient!

218 avanti  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:57:30am

Fox is flogging the flag shirt story to death, and today the cops are on duty at the school as a precaution. Yesterday, some of the Hispanic kids did a walk out, and a guy in a motorized wheel chair grabbed a Mexican flag from the kids, and the kids grabbed it back. Fox must be breathlessly waiting for a Hispanic to do something violent.
BTW, they've done several interviews with the flags kids that said they just wanted to wear their "colors" on the day the Mexicans were showing theirs.

Fox.

219 MinisterO  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:58:48am

But Chaaarles these despicable scumbags don't deserve constitutional protection!

Do I have to? Yeah probably. /

220 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 7, 2010 11:59:01am

re: #146 Obdicut

Pelosi's support for this is a good demonstration of why Pelosi is not some wild progressive as she is painted to be.

With Pelosi's and Clinton's support for this, the Democrats just took a turn towards the hard right.

Are the Democrats really dumb enough to try to play the "we're more conservative, really!" game?

Apparently. Ay de mi.

221 jamesfirecat  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:00:33pm

re: #218 avanti

Fox is flogging the flag shirt story to death, and today the cops are on duty at the school as a precaution. Yesterday, some of the Hispanic kids did a walk out, and a guy in a motorized wheel chair grabbed a Mexican flag from the kids, and the kids grabbed it back. Fox must be breathlessly waiting for a Hispanic to do something violent.
BTW, they've done several interviews with the flags kids that said they just wanted to wear their "colors" on the day the Mexicans were showing theirs.

Fox.

I've talked with young boys, and they find the idea of homosexuality weird and disturbing!

Moral of the story? Teenagers= Idiots.

222 Berkeley Barron  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:01:26pm

re: SanFrancisco Zionist

Hilarious! Hey Boehner, Zing!!!!!!!!

223 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:01:48pm

re: #162 Cato the Elder

Again, I can't understand why you get massive downdings for this (bratwurst, iceweasel, Olsonist, Slap, tnguitarist, webevintage)!

Is Hillary Clinton not a Democrat, people?

Is she not showing contempt for the constitution here?

Yes, and yes, and I'm pretty damn mad about it.

However, Spare is blatantly trying to make this about the 'Dems', and ignoring The Blessed Scott Brown's involvement. Hence the ding.

224 Cato the Elder  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:01:49pm

re: #209 eastsider

he's got a bad back, can't bend over at all.

LOL!

225 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:02:54pm

re: #90 Spare O'Lake

It does show a fair measure of Dem contempt for the Constitution and the presumption of innocence.

lol @ transparent and obvious partisanship

Scott Brown who?

Lieberman, not a Dem!

226 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:03:49pm

re: #175 Slap

My ding was for the crass generalization. I was unaware of a Dem platform point that required contempt for the Constitution. Had the comment focused merely on the specific individuals in question, I would have bypassed it.

That's just my taste, though -- I get really annoyed with partisan-flavored generalizations. And I tend to downding what I perceive as unoriginal recyclings of other peoples' words. Original, thoughtful takes get my respect, regardless of my position.

(And just to be clear - partisan-flavored ice creams aren't too good, either. Unless you get the sprinkles.)

Dunno. Republican Rapberry Ripple is pretty good.

227 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:05:34pm

re: #191 Cato the Elder

There's far too much dinging going on here based on whether you like or dislike a person's previous posts, or just the person.

I think I'm going to start randomly dinging every seventh post based on a coin flip.

Do not be surprised therefore if you think you're my friend or my foe and find yourself getting dinged the opposite way you expected.

Thanks for the heads-up.

228 Berkeley Barron  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:05:57pm

But seriously, people!!! That Arizona bill is tough but necessary. How many of you have ever been to Arizona? It is filled with drug traffickers!!!! They are just trying to get a hold on the problem without any help from the feds!!!!!

Go check it out before you judge...

229 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:06:17pm

re: #146 Obdicut

Pelosi's support for this is a good demonstration of why Pelosi is not some wild progressive as she is painted to be.

With Pelosi's and Clinton's support for this, the Democrats just took a turn towards the hard right.

Are the Democrats really dumb enough to try to play the "we're more conservative, really!" game?

The fear-mongering and the tough-guy kick-ass act sucks, and it double sucks that Dems are playing it the same way Rs have. Probably for gamesmanship because of the midterms, but it's still horrid.

230 Obdicut  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:06:31pm

re: #228 Berkeley Barron

Sarcasm tag needed.

231 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:08:10pm

re: #228 Berkeley Barron

But seriously, people!!! That Arizona bill is tough but necessary. How many of you have ever been to Arizona? It is filled with drug traffickers!!! They are just trying to get a hold on the problem without any help from the feds!!!

Go check it out before you judge...

I like exclamation points in groups of three!!! They denote intensity and conviction!!! They make me sound like I just ran up to you and I'm wheezing and out of breath and I can't wait to tell you about the latest talking point!!! I really should be in better shape!!! Buy gold now!!! Ron Paul!!!

232 Dark_Falcon  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:09:05pm

re: #223 SanFranciscoZionist

Yes, and yes, and I'm pretty damn mad about it.

However, Spare is blatantly trying to make this about the 'Dems', and ignoring The Blessed Scott Brown's involvement. Hence the ding.

Yes, this is a bipartisan fuckup.

233 alexknyc  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:09:25pm

re: #131 Charles

I got accused of hating America today in the Cinco de Mayo thread. Maybe I should have my citizenship revoked.

I don't happen to agree with you on the Cinco de Mayo issue but when did political disagreements become "hating America?"

234 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:09:32pm

re: #228 Berkeley Barron

But seriously, people!!! That Arizona bill is tough but necessary. How many of you have ever been to Arizona? It is filled with drug traffickers!!! They are just trying to get a hold on the problem without any help from the feds!!!

Go check it out before you judge...

Are the !!!s in lieu of sarc tag? If so, they may not work until we know you better?

If not, carry on.

235 Berkeley Barron  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:09:38pm

No sarcasm, bro! Just trying to share my opnion, even if it is different. It seems like you can't even talk about immigration without being a "bad person" anymore!!!!! No sarcasm from me, I'll let all the other liberals here worry about that.

236 Locker  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:11:21pm

re: #235 Berkeley Barron

No sarcasm, bro! Just trying to share my opnion, even if it is different. It seems like you can't even talk about immigration without being a "bad person" anymore!!! No sarcasm from me, I'll let all the other liberals here worry about that.

You sound like the don't taze me bro guy... in other words this sounds like a parody of some sort but it's not clear enough to recognize. Please resubmit for further review.

237 Obdicut  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:11:28pm

re: #235 Berkeley Barron

Crime in AZ has gone down over the past fifteen years.

238 Dark_Falcon  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:12:13pm

re: #235 Berkeley Barron

Any more?! You just registered today! I smell socks.

239 Slap  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:12:37pm

re: #226 SanFranciscoZionist
A most excellent point.

I'd definitely caution against Chunky Teabag, however.

240 jamesfirecat  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:12:44pm

re: #235 Berkeley Barron

No sarcasm, bro! Just trying to share my opnion, even if it is different. It seems like you can't even talk about immigration without being a "bad person" anymore!!! No sarcasm from me, I'll let all the other liberals here worry about that.

You're being serious?

Okay everybody open season on 228!

241 EastSider  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:13:15pm

re: #228 Berkeley Barron

But seriously, people!!! That Arizona bill is tough but necessary. How many of you have ever been to Arizona? It is filled with drug traffickers!!! They are just trying to get a hold on the problem without any help from the feds!!!

Go check it out before you judge...

welcome to LGF, its good to have you here.

242 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:14:42pm

re: #237 Obdicut

Crime in AZ has gone down over the past fifteen years.

But Phoenix is the kidnap capital of the WORLD!!!!!!!!

//

243 Slap  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:15:11pm

re: #239 Slap

Man, I damn near made myself vomit with that one....

Humble apologies!!!!

(Note the inclusion of the SPECIAL fourth exclamation point....)

244 EastSider  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:17:19pm

re: #228 Berkeley Barron

But seriously, people!!! That Arizona bill is tough but necessary. How many of you have ever been to Arizona? It is filled with drug traffickers!!! They are just trying to get a hold on the problem without any help from the feds!!!

Go check it out before you judge...

Can we unpack what you said a bit?

"Tough but necessary," would be good, but your argument is that the law is supposed to attack the drug trade--If that is the goal, it should be more prescriptive on that front.

As it stands, I fail to see how the law targets drug traffickers right now.

245 Berkeley Barron  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:17:47pm

re: #242 SanFranciscoZionist

Great to see someone has my back! SFZionist proves that there is sanity on this blog!

246 wrenchwench  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:18:07pm

re: #228 Berkeley Barron

But seriously, people!!! That Arizona bill is tough but necessary. How many of you have ever been to Arizona? It is filled with drug traffickers!!! They are just trying to get a hold on the problem without any help from the feds!!!

Go check it out before you judge...

I've been to Arizona. Maybe you should read up on it.

247 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:18:34pm

re: #245 Berkeley Barron

Great to see someone has my back! SFZionist proves that there is sanity on this blog!

Uh, that was with sarc tags!!!!!

248 Berkeley Barron  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:23:05pm

re: #247 SanFranciscoZionist

Sarcasm doesn't really help anybody, I'm just trying to consider why the bill was passed and what the benfits may be. I thought I had finally found an ally, but I guess it is just another bleeding-heart liberal brimming with sarcasm.

I'm as liberal as the next Berkeley lesbian, I just want to discuss the issues.

249 Obdicut  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:23:49pm

re: #248 Berkeley Barron

Dear lord you're boring.

250 Locker  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:24:21pm

I would suggest prodigious use of the report button as a tool for socktroll identification.

251 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:24:50pm

re: #247 SanFranciscoZionist

You and Berkeley Barron have the same IP address. Any idea why that is?

252 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:25:55pm

re: #251 Charles

You and Berkeley Barron have the same IP address. Any idea why that is?

No.

253 jamesfirecat  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:26:00pm

re: #251 Charles

You and Berkeley Barron have the same IP address. Any idea why that is?

HOLY F*** SFZ has a split personality?

That's all I got....

254 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:26:22pm

re: #252 SanFranciscoZionist

No.

Uh, what does that mean?

255 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:27:16pm

re: #252 SanFranciscoZionist

Are you using an Internet connection at some office or school by any chance?

256 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:27:47pm

re: #255 Charles

Are you using an Internet connection at some office or school by any chance?

Currently, yes.

257 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:28:38pm

re: #255 Charles

Are you using an Internet connection at some office or school by any chance?

There is no way that SFZ would be a sock.

258 Obdicut  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:28:54pm

re: #256 SanFranciscoZionist

Have you told any co-workers or students you post on LGF?

You may have a student fucking with you.

259 jamesfirecat  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:29:00pm

re: #248 Berkeley Barron

Sarcasm doesn't really help anybody, I'm just trying to consider why the bill was passed and what the benfits may be. I thought I had finally found an ally, but I guess it is just another bleeding-heart liberal brimming with sarcasm.

I'm as liberal as the next Berkeley lesbian, I just want to discuss the issues.

If you want to discuss the issues I suggest you find an reasonably connected thread to do it on.

This one is about the TEA bill rather than the Arizona one.

Also if you're going to thread jack do it on a new thread so that people will pay attention and you won't look like a sleeper.

260 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:29:15pm

I'm at work. Does that mean this person is someone at my school?

WTF?

261 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:29:16pm

re: #256 SanFranciscoZionist

Currently, yes.

Well, "Berkeley Barron" is using the same network.

262 Locker  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:29:24pm

re: #256 SanFranciscoZionist

Currently, yes.

Uh o. You've got a stalker. This is disturbing.

263 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:30:09pm

re: #258 Obdicut

Have you told any co-workers or students you post on LGF?

You may have a student fucking with you.

Sure, I've mentioned it to people.

264 EastSider  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:30:12pm

re: #261 Charles

Well, "Berkeley Barron" is using the same network.

THOSE CALLS ARE COMING FROM INSIDE THE HOUSE!!!!

265 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:30:30pm

re: #261 Charles

Well, "Berkeley Barron" is using the same network.

Advice?

266 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:30:42pm

re: #261 Charles

Well, "Berkeley Barron" is using the same network.

If she is at a large school, it could be a rather large network.

267 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:31:07pm

re: #264 EastSider

THOSE CALLS ARE COMING FROM INSIDE THE HOUSE!!!

Oh, GREAT! I'm in a slasher movie!

268 Obdicut  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:31:17pm

re: #263 SanFranciscoZionist

The name on the email is given as meyerhw, if that means anything to you.

269 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:32:36pm

re: #268 Obdicut

The name on the email is given as meyerhw, if that means anything to you.

There's a teacher with that last name here, but different initials. John? WTF?

270 EastSider  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:32:43pm

re: #267 SanFranciscoZionist

Oh, GREAT! I'm in a slasher movie!

I kind of wanted + points for using "!!!"

/Trying to throw off the coppers by using Berkeley Barron's signature move.

271 Locker  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:32:47pm

re: #265 SanFranciscoZionist

Advice?

Well. Any advise I'd give would be read by this person. I don't know your situation if it's high school, college, work, small, big but take appropriate action to protect yourself.

The thing is, it's a prankster. They won't be able to keep it quiet so it will come out soon. Even reading this won't stop them, it's a need for attention thing.

272 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:32:56pm

re: #267 SanFranciscoZionist

Oh, GREAT! I'm in a slasher movie!

Nah just some kid at your school made an account. I would expect the school has a computer room and or wireless hub.

273 syrius  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:32:56pm

Berkeley Barron..."Papers, please"

274 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:33:34pm

I blocked the account. I'd suggest you contact the IT department if there is one, or whoever is in charge of the network.

275 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:34:05pm

Charles, I should go to lunch. What do you want me to do in regards to this?

276 Cato the Elder  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:34:06pm

re: #248 Berkeley Barron

Sarcasm doesn't really help anybody, I'm just trying to consider why the bill was passed and what the benfits may be. I thought I had finally found an ally, but I guess it is just another bleeding-heart liberal brimming with sarcasm.

I'm as liberal as the next Berkeley lesbian, I just want to discuss the issues.

Sarcasm helps to rip the flesh off trolls and prepare them for the rendering floor.

277 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:34:25pm

re: #274 Charles

I blocked the account. I'd suggest you contact the IT department if there is one, or whoever is in charge of the network.

OK. What should I tell him?

278 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:35:24pm

re: #275 SanFranciscoZionist

Well, you don't have to do anything - it's up to you if you want to try to get to the bottom of it. I'd be a little concerned if I were you, and I'd want to know who pulled this stunt.

279 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:36:13pm

re: #277 SanFranciscoZionist

OK. What should I tell him?

Just let him know what happened. If the system is set up correctly, he should be able to track who this was from the logs.

280 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:36:15pm

re: #278 Charles

Well, you don't have to do anything - it's up to you if you want to try to get to the bottom of it. I'd be a little concerned if I were you, and I'd want to know who pulled this stunt.

I'll do a little investigative work on this end. I can't imagine who at the school would care to get on LGF, or come across like that.

281 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:37:04pm

re: #279 Charles

Just let him know what happened. If the system is set up correctly, he should be able to track who this was from the logs.

All right. I need a sandwich now.

Let you know if anything comes up.

Yeesh. Sorry 'about this.

282 Cato the Elder  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:38:39pm

Yeesh, indeed. Just when you thought you'd seen it all.

283 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:40:11pm

Dang

284 Oh no...Sand People!  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:41:05pm

Geesh. I know there is most likely a logical explanation, but this thread gave so jeeblies.

285 Oh no...Sand People!  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:42:35pm

re: #284 Oh no...Sand People!

PIMF: gave me some jeeblies.

/Do any of you have a crummy laptop that will, on occasion, automatically put you where you left the cursor last? Mine does it all the time so I end up retyping paragraphs when they get typed over...grrrr..

286 Cato the Elder  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:43:05pm

East Sider: You might want to wait a bit in future before rolling out the welcome mat for newbies...just sayin'.

287 Obdicut  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:43:27pm

re: #285 Oh no...Sand People!

My laptop freezes the input from mouse and keyboard 1 out of every 3 boots. No idea why.

288 Locker  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:43:59pm

re: #285 Oh no...Sand People!

Mine does that sometimes but I finally figure out my thumb was brushing the touchpad. I was able to check a box on the touchpad setup that turns off the pad when I'm typing. That fixed it for me.

289 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:44:24pm

re: #286 Cato the Elder

East Sider: You might want to wait a bit in future before rolling out the welcome mat for newbies...just sayin'.

I will bet good money this was just some kid from her school being an ass.

290 HappyWarrior  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:44:57pm

I really don't like this. Sets up as Charles put it a frictionless slope. What happened to innocent to proven guilty? That's my fundamental problem with this proposed legislation.

291 Cato the Elder  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:45:46pm

re: #288 Locker

Mine does that sometimes but I finally figure out my thumb was brushing the touchpad. I was able to check a box on the touchpad setup that turns off the pad when I'm typing. That fixed it for me.

That's been my experience, too. Do you use a Mac? I'd like to check the same box. Every so often the "thumb-brush" has caused me to delete an entire paragraph.

292 Oh no...Sand People!  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:46:30pm

re: #288 Locker

Mine does that sometimes but I finally figure out my thumb was brushing the touchpad. I was able to check a box on the touchpad setup that turns off the pad when I'm typing. That fixed it for me.

Hey! That might be it. I'll give it a try. Thanks.

293 Lidane  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:50:36pm

re: #233 alexknyc

I don't happen to agree with you on the Cinco de Mayo issue but when did political disagreements become "hating America?"

Didn't you get the memo? Dissent = treason in this post-9/11 world. At least that's what I was told for eight years.

294 Locker  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:50:41pm

re: #291 Cato the Elder

That's been my experience, too. Do you use a Mac? I'd like to check the same box. Every so often the "thumb-brush" has caused me to delete an entire paragraph.

Heaven Forbid! Steve Jobs is the spawn of Satan!

Honestly though I'm not sure how to look at the driver options on a Mac or even if you CAN see the driver options on a mac. For me I just rightclick the icon in the toolbar to get to the settings and I can also see the touch pad settings on a tab in the mouse configuration window.

Good luck and someone help Cato if your a Mac style gearhead.

295 Nimed  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:51:55pm

re: #281 SanFranciscoZionist

All right. I need a sandwich now.

Let you know if anything comes up.

Yeesh. Sorry 'about this.

Nothing to be sorry about. You obviously can't control what other people do in a public network. If anything does come up, it's probably best to mail Charles directly.

"Oh, GREAT! I'm in a slasher movie!" - that was a fucking great comment, lady.

296 Dark_Falcon  Fri, May 7, 2010 12:56:48pm

re: #289 LudwigVanQuixote

I will bet good money this was just some kid from her school being an ass.

Then the school should suspend him or her. Cyberstalking is a serious problem.

297 Dark_Falcon  Fri, May 7, 2010 1:01:15pm

Since we've had a meltdown, I'll be serving Roast Troll on the 'Don't Forget Mom" thread.

298 bagua  Fri, May 7, 2010 1:01:34pm

This bill appears senseless. At what point do we strip a suspect of their citizenship? While they are still a suspect, and presumed innocent, or after conviction? If after conviction, is there not already a deportation option?

299 Lidane  Fri, May 7, 2010 1:05:48pm

re: #298 bagua

This bill appears senseless.

That's because it is.

It's a horrible idea with truly scary implications regardless of your political party or ideology. No one should have that kind of power. If someone is a citizen, they have certain rights.

300 cliffster  Fri, May 7, 2010 1:06:34pm

re: #299 Lidane

That's because it is.

It's a horrible idea with truly scary implications regardless of your political party or ideology. No one should have that kind of power. If someone is a citizen, they have certain rights.

Well, we must appear tough on terror though, mustn't we?

301 syrius  Fri, May 7, 2010 1:09:10pm

This bill doesn't make sense. I agree with Charles, grandstanding by Lieberman. If this Country's Gov't can strip away citizenship from its citizens, how long before this Country is empty of citizens? Let's start doing the right thing and using the Judicial system to prosecute the criminals. Terrorists are criminals.

302 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 7, 2010 1:18:25pm

Hi, everyone. All is well. Berkeley Barron, a coworker, confessed over lunch. Apparently, having observed me ranting to another coworker about the AZ law after reading a previous thread, he decided to see if he could 'wind me up'.

When I explained that we've had stalker trouble in the past, he apologized.

I have until the first week in June to get him back.

Shouldn't happen again.

303 Hieronymus Bosch  Fri, May 7, 2010 1:19:03pm

Here's an interesting take on Chuck Schumer's initial support for Liberman's bill:
[Link: www.salon.com...]

I've long thought that we have two fascist parties in Washington, with the Democrats usually less facist than the Republicans by a significant degree, but sometimes there are idiosyncratic individual issues where it works the other way around. The public just needs to keep the heat on them to prevent extreme reactionary measures like Lieberman's proposal.

304 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Fri, May 7, 2010 1:20:38pm

re: #302 SanFranciscoZionist

Hi, everyone. All is well. Berkeley Barron, a coworker, confessed over lunch. Apparently, having observed me ranting to another coworker about the AZ law after reading a previous thread, he decided to see if he could 'wind me up'.

When I explained that we've had stalker trouble in the past, he apologized.

I have until the first week in June to get him back.

Shouldn't happen again.

PHEW

305 Tigger2005  Fri, May 7, 2010 1:23:43pm

re: #20 Dragon_Lady

All I can do is sincerely hope there are some safe guards in the bill that keeps the State Department from arbitrarily designating any organization that has openly apposed the government as a terror organization.

Well, you can also hope that the bill doesn't pass at all. Write your Congresscritters.

306 Lidane  Fri, May 7, 2010 1:24:13pm

re: #300 cliffster

Well, we must appear tough on terror though, mustn't we?

It's possible to be tough on terror without destroying ourselves in the process.

307 Bagua  Fri, May 7, 2010 1:26:58pm

re: #302 SanFranciscoZionist

Cool. Drama, infiltration, subterfuge, detective work, and a confession!

308 cliffster  Fri, May 7, 2010 1:29:50pm

re: #306 Lidane

It's possible to be tough on terror without destroying ourselves in the process.

Well, destroying ourselves is clearly not something most of our politicians want to avoid. As long as we don't destroy ourselves while they're in office, it's all good.

309 Ming  Fri, May 7, 2010 1:31:46pm

Unfortunately, after OJ Simpson and Lisa Nowak, et. al., many people will wonder if our criminal justice system will someday acquit an obvious terrorist. This concern is understandable, but it would be dangerous in the extreme to tamper with our Constitution. I can understand THINKING ABOUT extra-Constitutional measures, but I think the best we can do is to improve our existing criminal justice system as much as we can. To talk in public about a bill to strip people of citizenship is immature grandstanding.

310 Lidane  Fri, May 7, 2010 1:33:54pm

re: #308 cliffster

Well, destroying ourselves is clearly not something most of our politicians want to avoid. As long as we don't destroy ourselves while they're in office, it's all good.

That's the problem-- they're only thinking of the time they're in office, and not of any long-term implications.

Quite frankly, I hope reason prevails in all this and that Lieberman and the other grandstanding tools advocating for this bill get told to STFU and STFD. It's a bad bill with even worse ideas that should make any reasonable person's skin crawl.

311 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 7, 2010 1:37:25pm

re: #309 Ming

Unfortunately, after OJ Simpson and Lisa Nowak, et. al., many people will wonder if our criminal justice system will someday acquit an obvious terrorist. This concern is understandable, but it would be dangerous in the extreme to tamper with our Constitution. I can understand THINKING ABOUT extra-Constitutional measures, but I think the best we can do is to improve our existing criminal justice system as much as we can. To talk in public about a bill to strip people of citizenship is immature grandstanding.

The danger of a fair trial system is that sometimes people get aquitted who shouldn't be. And yeah, that sucks.

The alternative, of course, is dismantling trial by jury, and letting hooded officials find people guilty based on their own opinions, whims and political needs.

Traditionally, English-speaking peoples tracing their legal heritage to the Magna Carta have preferred not to do this. So yeah...agreed.

312 jvic  Fri, May 7, 2010 1:38:24pm

Hillary:

“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.”

It sounds like she means the measure should apply to naturalized citizens, but, as other commenters have noted, no one has explicitly said so.

I couldn't disagree more. Once you're naturalized, with the statistically insignificant exception of eligibility for the Presidency, afaic you have the same rights as any other citizen.

My libertarian suspicion of government is wondering whether they're implying the measure would apply only to naturalized citizens while they're trying to create the option of applying it to natural-born Americans as well.

My dispirited conservatism is perking up (slightly) to see the GOP leadership stand on principle regarding something besides creationism and abortion.

313 Nimed  Fri, May 7, 2010 1:38:58pm

re: #302 SanFranciscoZionist

Hi, everyone. All is well. Berkeley Barron, a coworker, confessed over lunch. Apparently, having observed me ranting to another coworker about the AZ law after reading a previous thread, he decided to see if he could 'wind me up'.

When I explained that we've had stalker trouble in the past, he apologized.

I have until the first week in June to get him back.

Shouldn't happen again.

His trolling was light enough. Then again:

And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Get him.

314 Charles Johnson  Fri, May 7, 2010 1:43:13pm

re: #302 SanFranciscoZionist

Hi, everyone. All is well. Berkeley Barron, a coworker, confessed over lunch. Apparently, having observed me ranting to another coworker about the AZ law after reading a previous thread, he decided to see if he could 'wind me up'.

When I explained that we've had stalker trouble in the past, he apologized.

I have until the first week in June to get him back.

Shouldn't happen again.

Good, I'm glad to hear it was relatively harmless.

315 Dark_Falcon  Fri, May 7, 2010 1:49:09pm

re: #314 Charles

Good, I'm glad to hear it was relatively harmless.

Me too. SFZ is a wonderful poster and an excellent person.

316 Jaerik  Fri, May 7, 2010 2:08:26pm

There are certain ideas in this world more important than the absolute safety of our citizens.

Our founding fathers got that, why don't we?

317 sagehen  Fri, May 7, 2010 2:12:37pm

re: #316 Jaerik

There are certain ideas in this world more important than the absolute safety of our citizens.

Our founding fathers got that, why don't we?


Give me liberty or give me death!
(do they not teach that in the red states anymore?)

318 alexknyc  Fri, May 7, 2010 3:00:01pm

re: #293 Lidane

Didn't you get the memo? Dissent = treason in this post-9/11 world. At least that's what I was told for eight years.

Trying to set off a car bomb in Times Square is treason. Dissent is as American as the flag.

319 Cobdenite  Fri, May 7, 2010 4:05:21pm

What exactly do they plan to do with natural-born citizen terrorists? Are they going to deport them to the Principality of Sealand? And here I thought Lieberman was a "good libertarian"... -_-

320 Lidane  Fri, May 7, 2010 4:16:26pm

re: #318 alexknyc

Trying to set off a car bomb in Times Square is treason. Dissent is as American as the flag.

Trying to set off a car bomb in Times Square is terrorism. Treason has a very specific legal definition, so I don't use that word often to describe things. Call it my weird hang-up. It's just the way I am.

As for dissent, you're right. It IS as American as the flag. However, during the previous administration, dissent was conflated by many on the right with appeasement, with any criticism being equated with hating America and wanting Al-Qaeda to win.

321 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, May 7, 2010 4:34:58pm

re: #319 Cobdenite

What exactly do they plan to do with natural-born citizen terrorists? Are they going to deport them to the Principality of Sealand? And here I thought Lieberman was a "good libertarian"... -_-

Well, presumably we're not just going to deport foreign-born terrorists, we'd lock them up here, but strip them of citizenship. I suppose we could do the same to the native born. I do get a strong impression though that they're only planning to apply this to naturalized citizens, which sucks and is probably unconstitutional, certainly unAmerican, and conveniently leaves out a wide variety of non-Jihadi terrorist types.

322 Dr. Shalit  Fri, May 7, 2010 7:03:08pm

re: #5 Charles

Charles,

I agree with you on this one. Furthermore, a CITIZEN might be found Guilty of Treason with all that entails. A Non-Citizen is an Enemy Combatant, legal or "illegal" as the situation merits.
AND - as far as MIRANDA goes, just remember, the remedy is the exclusionary rule under the Fourth Amendment as applied to the States through the 14th Amendment, NO MORE and NO LESS. That is all. -S-

323 MandyManners  Fri, May 7, 2010 7:21:37pm

Code Pink does not heart Lieberman.

324 ಠ_ಠ  Sat, May 8, 2010 10:52:52am

The government wants to be able to revoke citizenship for being suspected of doing something that is open to interpretation. There is absolutely no way this could be abused at all.

325 mardukhai  Sat, May 8, 2010 11:53:49am

As both a terrorism survivor (from the domestic left) and a Democrat, I have a slightly different perspective than most.

I honestly don't see the point in seeing a criminal combatant in a domestic court. They declared war, they can live with it.

326 elektramourns  Mon, May 10, 2010 12:26:55pm

This is a slippery slope.

I cannot believe a Jew--Lieberman--doing this. Wasn't his wife's mother a concentration camp survivor? Someone in that family survived the holacaust.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
2 days ago
Views: 134 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1