Lieberman: Strip Citizenship from Terrorists

Do I have a problem with this? I don't think I do.

The senator, who spoke first to Fox about this on Tuesday, referred to a 1940's era law that states that citizens fighting in a military force that is an enemy of the U.S. renounce their citizenship. "I think it's time to look at whether we want to amend that law to apply it to American citizens who choose to become affiliated with foreign terrorist organizations, whether they should not also be deprived automatically of their citizenship and therefore deprived of rights that come with that citizenship."

Lieberman, according to an aide, plans to amend that law to add those who are part of a terrorist organization. Currently, 8 USC 1481 reads, "A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing" the following act, among others, "entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States."

I'm not familiar with the 1940s law, I assume it was put in place as a response to concerns about Japanese, German or Italian-Americans that actively aided our enemies during the war. The thing about this that I find intriguing is that Joe is underlining the concept of "terrorism and terrorist acts against US citizens is an 'act of war'". It also has to have some impact on the concept of trying terrorists in US courts, doesn't it? (at least I think that's the point, but discuss and put me some f'n knowledge).

Happy Thursday morons.

Posted by: Dave In Texas at 09:23 AM



Comments

1 He's a Jooo! Don't listen.

Posted by: NJConservative at May 06, 2010 09:26 AM (LH6ir)

2 Actually he should be tried for treason and executed but that will never happen.

Posted by: Vic at May 06, 2010 09:26 AM (QrA9E)

3 I basically agree with Lieberman on this - Holder and other Justice Department lawyers that joined the Al Quaida war effort's legal front should have been deported ages ago.

BUT, the thing is... Lieberman is proposing this as a way to get around having to give Al Quaida with US citizenship the same rights as the rest of us (i.e., Miranda rights, etc.) BUT, the only way to strip people of their citizenship would be thru a judicial process, during which time the terrorists would still BEcitizens.

Yes, stripping them of US citizenship is a good idea, but it won't do much as a practical matter to make it easier to fight the War on Terror.

Posted by: CoolCzech at May 06, 2010 09:27 AM (Iaxlk)

4 Let me be clear, while we are uh concerned that this may uh alienate my Muslim compatriots, we must hesitate to say that Senator Lieberman has acted stupidly as uh this provision will uh allow us to round up the seditious radio hosts and Tea Baggers.

Posted by: Commander In Mom Jeans at May 06, 2010 09:28 AM (BiCQw)

5 DemocRAT racist...who'd a thunk it?

Posted by: B+rry Ob+mao at May 06, 2010 09:28 AM (tSxta)

6 We really need another law? And what is wrong with just declaring the person a war combatant. would it not be simpler to juts properly declare war on the Muslim terrorists.

Posted by: bill-tb at May 06, 2010 09:29 AM (y+QfZ)

7 How about using the Geneva Conventions? It's international law, which makes the left all wet and tingly anyway. We can trot the little bastard out into the middle of Times Square (the battlefield) and put a bullet in his head. Battlefield executions are permissible under the GC.

Posted by: NJConservative at May 06, 2010 09:30 AM (LH6ir)

8 Oh BTW, did you know my initials spell 'BO' ? That's my dog's name too! Coinky dinky!

Posted by: torabora at May 06, 2010 09:31 AM (tSxta)

9 Bad bad idea.

Posted by: damian at May 06, 2010 09:32 AM (4WbTI)

10 7 How about using the Geneva Conventions? It's international law, which makes the left all wet and tingly anyway. We can trot the little bastard out into the middle of Times Square (the battlefield) and put a bullet in his head. Battlefield executions are permissible under the GC.
Posted by: NJConservative at May 06, 2010 09:30 AM (LH6ir)
We call dibs on the kidneys.

Posted by: Chinese Embassy at May 06, 2010 09:32 AM (tSxta)

11 Go for it! If the Geneva Conventions apply to guerilla thugs ("insurgents") dressed in civilian clothes, then they are a foreign army (although technically stateless) then the law about aiding them should be applied as it is to anyone participating in a foreign army. The Times Square bomber is a guerilla on an operation penetrating deep into our soil.

Posted by: Minnie Rodent at May 06, 2010 09:33 AM (PZLW0)

12 Joe, Joe. Yer gonna get in trouble with the Democratic party if you keep talking like that. Being Pro-American is Un-American these days.

Posted by: maddogg at May 06, 2010 09:33 AM (OlN4e)

13 Can we still prosecuteJohn Kerryfor the Winter Soldier charadeunder this law? I'd die from delight seeing that happen.

Posted by: mark c at May 06, 2010 09:33 AM (SBIko)

14 2
Actually he should be tried for treason and executed but that will never
happen.

*nods*. Simplest way, and doesn't need another law to accomplish.

Posted by: Kratos (missing from the side of Mt Olympus) at May 06, 2010 09:34 AM (9hSKh)

15 Round eyes owe for Serbian Embassy 'Ooopsie!'.

Posted by: Chinese Embassy at May 06, 2010 09:35 AM (tSxta)

16 I don't like this. It seems like a good idea now, but with any law you have to look at how its going to be twisted and abused down the road. I don't like the idea of the government being able to deny me due process and my god-given rights simply because a bueracrat somewhere declared me a terrorist.
Part of the beauty of our political system is that one can only be deprived of their rights by a jury of their peers. The government being able to do so by fiat without a trial by jury basically renders those 'rights' into privaleges which can be revoked without recourse.

Posted by: HullBreach at May 06, 2010 09:35 AM (aG8M+)

17 Here's my only problem with this: Barack Obama lobbies that the law should be expanded to include domestic terrorist groups. The TEA party gets classified as a domestic terrorist group because of how obviously violent it is. Everybody connected to the TEA party now has to go to court to fight to keep their citizenship. David Frum wears a bright red robe and is appointed High Inquisitor. David Brooks admires the way the robes flow over his legs.

It's the last two sentences that worry me the most.

Posted by: Zuggs at May 06, 2010 09:36 AM (FkKjr)

18 I'm always a proponent of stripping in any form.

Posted by: beerologist at May 06, 2010 09:36 AM (tgXx6)

19 *nods*. Simplest way, and doesn't need another law to accomplish.

Cannot emphasize that enough, especially considering the people in power right now who would actually write said law.

Posted by: Blackford Oakes at May 06, 2010 09:36 AM (BiCQw)

20
Joe's givin' me wood.

Posted by: Dang at May 06, 2010 09:36 AM (UA4gE)

21 16
I don't like this. It seems like a good idea now, but with any law you have to look at how its going to be twisted and abused down the road. I don't like the idea of the government being able to deny me due process and my god-given rights simply because a bueracrat somewhere declared me a terrorist.
Posted by: HullBreach at May 06, 2010 09:35 AM (aG8M+)

Bingo! I can see this morphing really easily into stripping citizenship from somenoe on the No-fly list. Doesn't take a shred of due process to put someone on that list, and it's nearly impossible for a regular Joe to get off of it.

Posted by: Johnnyreb at May 06, 2010 09:38 AM (WGcw3)

22 This is an American Citizen. What you suggest is very dangerous and a very very very very bad idea. Especially with this current regime in charge of things. It is almost as if you are volunteering to be stripped of your Constitutional rights, you "Domestic Terrorist" you.
This would defeat the regime's whole purpose of giving KSM a civilian trial with full citizenship rights.
Americans were justifiably outraged by the idea of giving enemy combatants civilian trials with American Constitutional rights. Now you'd take that away from every American citizen that this regime deems an "enemy of the State"?!

Posted by: Uriel at May 06, 2010 09:39 AM (5XpwW)

23 I also do not see how you could strip somebody of their citizenship without a trial. And by the time we catch these idiots, they're already acting on behalf of the enemy.
Joe is talking sense, but I can't see how it's practicable.

Posted by: spongeworthy at May 06, 2010 09:39 AM (rplL3)

24 See you in the camps, boys.

Posted by: damian at May 06, 2010 09:40 AM (4WbTI)

25 Upon conviction, strip them of citizenship, give them a sailboat with provisions and tell them that if they cross into U.S. waters again, we'll torpedo the damn thing.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at May 06, 2010 09:40 AM (B+qrE)

26 Just take the bastard outside and put a bullet in his fucking head.

Posted by: beerologist at May 06, 2010 09:40 AM (tgXx6)

27 Upon Closer Inspection, Clues Found in Times Square Bomber's
Naturalization Forms (click image to enlarge): tinyurl.com/36p5tcw

Posted by: Justin Camp at May 06, 2010 09:40 AM (nF4Jh)

28 Does this mean that Lieberman is now a teabagging Nazi?

Posted by: TheQuietMan at May 06, 2010 09:42 AM (1Jaio)

29 Naturalized citizens, yes. That which has been granted may also be taken away, particularly if it can be demonstrated that the person sought citizenship under false pretenses, i.e. to wage war (jihad) against the United States. Against a natural born citizen, no, otherwise, the Obama Administration would be trying to revoke citizenship on Tea Party protesters.
Too much opportunity for abuse there, particularly where self righteous libs are concerned. Look at all the talk from Pelosi, Harry Ried, et al, that people protesting Health Care are 'Un-American'. Double plus ungood!

Posted by: BugZ at May 06, 2010 09:42 AM (DrL9F)

30 It applies only to naturalized citizens, BTW

Posted by: SarahW at May 06, 2010 09:43 AM (Z4T49)

31 Doesn't take a shred of due process to put someone on that list, and
it's nearly impossible for a regular Joe to get off of it.

They'll give you a card to show the TSA folks saying you're OK to fly, but you're still on the list. Insane.

Actually he should be tried for treason and executed but that will never
happen.

This. John Walker Lyndh should have been worm food years ago.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at May 06, 2010 09:43 AM (mR7mk)

32 And only those naturalized citizens who have been so for less than ten years.

Posted by: SarahW at May 06, 2010 09:44 AM (Z4T49)

33 too much "Enemy of the State"? I can see that concern.

Dunno. Joe's doing politics anyhow, so who knows?

Posted by: Dave in Texas at May 06, 2010 09:44 AM (Hjxam)

34 Naturalized citizens, yes. That which has been granted may also be
taken away, particularly if it can be demonstrated that the person
sought citizenship under false pretenses,

Oooh, here's that ethical dilemma I posted about yesterday. If they discover your false pretenses before the swearing-in, you don't get the citizenship. Would be consistent to revoke it if your perfidy is discovered after the ceremony.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at May 06, 2010 09:46 AM (mR7mk)

35 His citizenship should be acknowledged, along with the fact that this was a politically motivated act of war, and if convicted after due process, he should be executed for treason.

Posted by: Anthony at May 06, 2010 09:46 AM (9IttK)

36 Naturalized citizens, yes. That which has been granted may also be
taken away, particularly if it can be demonstrated that the person
sought citizenship under false pretenses, i.e. to wage war (jihad)
against the United States.

If I am not mistaken, that is ALREADY in the naturalization law.

Posted by: Vic at May 06, 2010 09:46 AM (QrA9E)

37 And only those naturalized citizens who have been so for less than ten
years.

After ten years and a day, go full Nidal Hasan with our blessings?

Posted by: HeatherRadish at May 06, 2010 09:47 AM (mR7mk)

38 Here's my only problem with this: Barack Obama lobbies that the law
should be expanded to include domestic terrorist groups. The TEA party
gets classified as a domestic terrorist group because of how obviously
violent it is. Everybody connected to the TEA party now has to go to
court to fight to keep their citizenship.

I think that would be fantastic. :-)

Posted by: Esteban Nash, Los Suns at May 06, 2010 09:47 AM (BiCQw)

39 That is the fatal flaw in Joe's thinking. Laws like he is suggesting depend on government interested in protecting the country from outside terrorists. The current "administration" has little interest in that regard, and is much more interested in crushing dissent here at home. We have laws on the books enough to deal with foreign terrorists, if they were actually desiring of dealing with them. The foreign terrorists are simply a distraction from Zero's real aim of transforming America into a socialist state.

Posted by: maddogg at May 06, 2010 09:47 AM (OlN4e)

40 I don't like this. It seems like a good idea now, but with any law you
have to look at how its going to be twisted and abused down the road. I
don't like the idea of the government being able to deny me due process
and my god-given rights simply because a bueracrat somewhere declared me
a terrorist.

That is exactly the problem with this law. All it requires is the State Department making a determination, no trial. If you want to contest the ruling you have to request a trial and only then does the burden of proof shift to the government from the accused. That is just ass-backwards. I am all for stripping them of citizenship once convicted.
Actually he should be tried for treason and executed but that will never
happen.

The Constitution is pretty specific on what constitutes treason -

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only
in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving
them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on
the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession
in open Court. The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment
of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of
Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

I suppose that you could make the case that the bomb was levying war but that seems tough after all the talk that the Obama administration has been doing about how this isn't actually a war. Adhering to their enemies might have a chance of succeeding if some judge doesn't rule that that only applies to nation-states and their armies.

Posted by: chad at May 06, 2010 09:48 AM (WNcvq)

41 This is the most dangerous thing I have ever heard.

Any blogger that thinks this a good idea is a blogger I think is so wrong that I am sorry I know it was said.

And you are really going to enjoy today's FCC ruling.

Posted by: Larry Sheldon at May 06, 2010 09:49 AM (OmeRL)

42 And only those naturalized citizens who have been so for less than ten
years.

Where are you getting that info?

Posted by: damian at May 06, 2010 09:51 AM (4WbTI)

43 Would be consistent to revoke it if your perfidy is discovered after the
ceremony.

yep.

Posted by: john demjanjuk at May 06, 2010 09:53 AM (4WbTI)

44 This seems good until you are declared a terrorist because you attended a Tea Party Rally.
Think it wont happen?
Very foolish thinking.

Posted by: Your Better Self at May 06, 2010 09:54 AM (lD4DZ)

45 So are we supposed to strip them of their citizenship before or after we execute them for treason?

Posted by: NC Ref at May 06, 2010 09:54 AM (jrMdX)

46 The problem with this is HUGE!!!! Much like the calls to ban all gun sales to those on the terror watch list you have to see how it could be used. The left already claims we on the right are terrorists. They say it on almost every tv channel and in the halls of congress. What's to stop them from stripping you or I of citizenship? We'd be stripped of all rights, unable to vote, and could be detained indefinitely. This practice could lead to us being sent to concentration camps. American gulags for political dissenters. And the gun law doesn't even wait for a crime to committed. All they have to do is "suspect" you of being a terrorist and - poof - one of your essential rights disappears instantly. And I imagine Obama and Napolitano will be suspecting a large number of those visiting this site. Just a hunch. The price of treason is a short drop and a sudden stop. Give him a fair trial. Then, let the bastard dance at the end of a rope. America could use a good hanging. Televise it. See the danger of betraying the nation. Stripping Americans, even terrorists, of rights or citizenship is the extreme slippery slope.

Posted by: ChicagoJedi at May 06, 2010 09:57 AM (WZFkG)

47 feels hooky to me, I always go with the gut. Seems like politics and not careful thinkin on Joe's part.

Posted by: The Great Satan's Ghost at May 06, 2010 09:59 AM (MMsBe)

48 I just want to clear on this proposal. Do we strip them of their citizenship before or after we execute them?

Posted by: nevergiveup at May 06, 2010 09:59 AM (0GFWk)

49 I've been thinking about the conflicting aspects of the bomb plot myself - Jonah Goldberg writes about it here.

Posted by: Gerry at May 06, 2010 10:00 AM (xUoGJ)

50 Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort
Posted by: chad at May 06, 2010 09:48 AM (WNcvq)
I'm glad for the manner of writing in this section. It will be easy enough to convict Jugears of this. Every action he takes is an act of adhereing to our enemies and giving them aid and comfort. Nothing would be finer than to see that bastard and the first wookie on the scaffold or in the chair.
As for these terrorists, we have laws enough. If they're overseas and fighting, you kill them on the battle field. If for some reason they are captured, you interrogate them, then shoot them if they're regular foreigners. If they're US citizens set up a quick treason trial, convict, and execute. If the act takes place here in the US, the rules should be much the same. Try citizens for treason and shoot them, and shoot non-citizens without trial. And always use bullets coated with pig blood.

Posted by: Reactionary at May 06, 2010 10:01 AM (xUM1Q)

51 Tea Party members become "domestic terrorists", by some czars declaration. Instantly placed on "no fly" list and American citizenship instantly revoked by that same declaration (as opposed to a court of law). Yeah, I'm about to support that....

Go away, Joe....and take Obama with you.

Posted by: Dell at May 06, 2010 10:02 AM (IdpTe)

52 Not a good idea.

Too easy to abuse.

Just try the greasy fuck. Charge him with treason.

Then he gets a bullet if convicted.

Posted by: eman at May 06, 2010 10:03 AM (ONBbr)

53 Actually, current law is that even a born citizen of the USA can lose their citizenship if they join a foreign army. So I'm not at all sure why any American that joined Al Quaida wouldn't be subject to losing their citizenship.

I have no problem with Lieberman's proposal because joining Al Quaida or the Taliban in effect amounts to a denounciation of one's citizenship. I jsut don't think it will really help us with the whole "terrorist rights" issue because any US citizen subject to losing their citizenship would first have a right of due process that would drag thru the courts, during which time Miranda, the 5th amendment, etc., would fully apply to them. So the practical effact of the law would be minimal.

Posted by: CoolCzech at May 06, 2010 10:05 AM (Iaxlk)

54 Execute Order 66!

Posted by: Joe Palpatine at May 06, 2010 10:06 AM (FkKjr)

55 Joe's heart is in the right place, but this is extremely dangerous.

This old short story seems relevant.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at May 06, 2010 10:07 AM (ZSVyF)

56
I prefer the WWII era policy of trying them as spies and saboteurs, quickly followed by their execution.

Posted by: Mal at May 06, 2010 10:08 AM (Z+qzA)

57 Execute Order 66!

Posted by: Joe Palpatine at May 06, 2010 10:06 AM (FkKjr)

Actually, Joe as Jar Jar is more appropriate.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at May 06, 2010 10:08 AM (ZSVyF)

58 Don't really like the idea, mainly because a person like barack obama can become president and call tea partiers terrorists. overreaction on my part, probably, but don't need citizen revocation laws when there are other options available.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at May 06, 2010 10:09 AM (7VvJB)

59 Why can't we do both?

Posted by: nevergiveup at May 06, 2010 10:10 AM (0GFWk)

60 "amend that law to apply it to American citizens who choose to become affiliated with foreign terrorist organizations"

Affiliated?

Not good enough.

American citizens retain their rights, even under arrest.

They lose some rights when convicted of a crime.

Joe is going too far.

Posted by: eman at May 06, 2010 10:12 AM (ONBbr)

61 I know; sentence him to read an hour's worth of Ed Hardy shoe spam.

Posted by: Vic at May 06, 2010 10:13 AM (QrA9E)

62

Meesa tough guy.

Posted by: Joe Joe at May 06, 2010 10:14 AM (ONBbr)

63 I'm against this. Law of unanticipated consequences. If you make it easy to remove citizenship in one way, you facilitate eventually making it easy to remove it in other ways.
Lieberman is being something of a grandstanding putz here.

Posted by: Wm T Sherman at May 06, 2010 10:14 AM (tm15w)

64 OT: Kids kicked out of school for wearing American flag.

Posted by: FUBAR at May 06, 2010 10:14 AM (1fanL)

65 Actually he should be tried for treason and executed but that will never happen.

Should happen after speedy trial. Public execution. Internationally televised. With close up pics of urine and defecation stained pants so jihadis can see how their little fuck-up is gonna meet Allan.

Posted by: Upscale Community Organizing Thought Criminal at May 06, 2010 10:15 AM (IhHdM)

66
Make him watch Rosie get her back shaved at the zoo.

Posted by: eman at May 06, 2010 10:15 AM (ONBbr)

67 Lieberman: Strip Citizenship from Terrorists

That's fine, but Lieberman also tried to make an argument during the Government Affairs Committee hearing yesterday to revoke 2nd Amendment rights for anyone, including U.S. Citizens, on a "No Fly List" without due process; a broad and sweeping pronouncement that would be unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment, unless it was limited in scope. Old Joe is still a liberal Democrat. Don't let him fool you.

Posted by: A Casual Observation at May 06, 2010 10:16 AM (ITzbJ)

68 OT: Kids kicked out of school for wearing American flag.
Posted by: FUBAR at May 06, 2010 10:14 AM (1fanL)

Yeah but it was in CA wasn't it? And in San Fran to boot?

Posted by: nevergiveup at May 06, 2010 10:16 AM (0GFWk)

69 If someone commits an act of war against the Republic, it shouldn't matter if he's a citizen or not.
Apply some scenarios (see #44) and think about where this could lead.
This is a bad idea.

Posted by: FireHorse at May 06, 2010 10:18 AM (cQyWA)

70 Clearly this is a bad idea. How long before Big Sis decides that anyone who listens to Rush Limbaugh and posts comments on AoSHQ are filthy terrorists whose citizenship should be stripped? It's a bad idea.

Posted by: dczombie at May 06, 2010 10:19 AM (nF4Jh)

71 OT: Kids kicked out of school for wearing American flag.

Posted by: FUBAR at May 06, 2010 10:14 AM (1fanL)



Yeah but it was in CA wasn't it? And in San Fran to boot?
Don't they fly American flags at California schools?

Posted by: Mal at May 06, 2010 10:19 AM (Z+qzA)

72 And yet a bill to prevent people on the terrorist watch list from purchasing guns and explosives is getting pushback?

Posted by: JEA at May 06, 2010 10:21 AM (AfORa)

73 Lieberman, nice guy and principled as he may be, is still a liberal, even when he's being patriotic: If we just had One More Law...

Posted by: comatus at May 06, 2010 10:21 AM (/VEEI)

74 72,

Upside down, at night, and touching the ground.

Posted by: eman at May 06, 2010 10:22 AM (ONBbr)

75 73,

Step right up!

Get on a list!

Lose your Rights!

Posted by: eman at May 06, 2010 10:23 AM (ONBbr)

76 Don't they fly American flags at California schools?
Posted by: Mal at May 06, 2010 10:19 AM (Z+qzA)

? But I wouldn't want to bet my life on it?

Posted by: nevergiveup at May 06, 2010 10:25 AM (0GFWk)

77 I don't like the idea of the government having the power to change laws retroactively.

Posted by: TC at May 06, 2010 10:25 AM (DYJjQ)

78 Sounds like a reasonable plan to me as long as there's due process in determining whether or not the person has actually joined/served a foreign terrorist group.

Posted by: Y-not at May 06, 2010 10:25 AM (Kn9r7)

79 Posted by: Sally Ann Cavanaugh at May
06, 2010 08:42 AM (FRErk)

How about we add the weird
sounding "cavenaugh" name to the list and deny all people with that name
the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

And yet a bill to prevent people on the terrorist
watch list from purchasing guns and explosives is getting pushback?

Posted by: JEA
at May 06, 2010 10:21 AM (AfORa)

We can add the handle JEA to that list as well.



Posted by: Vic at May 06, 2010 10:26 AM (QrA9E)

80 "Naturalized citizens, yes. That which has been granted may also be taken away, particularly if it can be demonstrated that the person sought citizenship under false pretenses,Oooh, here's that ethical dilemma I posted about yesterday. If they discover your false pretenses before the swearing-in, you don't get the citizenship. Would be consistent to revoke it if your perfidy is discovered after the ceremony."
Citizenship should only be rescinded following due process, but yes, if it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt after the ceremony, why shouldn't someone's naturalized citizenship be yanked?

Posted by: BugZ at May 06, 2010 10:27 AM (TB3OX)

81 I don't like the idea of the government having the power to change laws
retroactively.

They don't have that power unless you are talking about the Obama admin who ignore that part of the Constitution; re: Bankruptcy law and retroactive confiscatory taxes on bank executives.

Posted by: Vic at May 06, 2010 10:28 AM (QrA9E)

82
Ed Hardy needs to be stripped of his citizenship and cut into little pieces.

Posted by: Dang Straights at May 06, 2010 10:28 AM (fx8sm)

83 Why can't we just line 'em up and shoot 'em?

Posted by: OregonMuse at May 06, 2010 10:28 AM (trjej)

84 *yawn.

There are already laws that cover this. Instead of re-inventing the fucking wheel and wasting time on shiite like this, how about you douche bags just read the crap you are passing? Or better yet, unpass it?

Read excellent article yesterday in health care bill that requires a fucking 1099 be issued anytime 600 bucks or more trades hands, anywhere, anytime. No shit.

Posted by: Lunatic, What Comes from Fringe at May 06, 2010 10:29 AM (uFdnM)

85 Ugh. From The Cape Cod Times...

"Victoria Reggie Kennedy vowed yesterday to reject any federal earmarks beyond the $68.3 million already in the pipeline for a Boston institute dedicated to her late husband, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy..."


Well isn't that nice of her.

Posted by: Lincontf at May 06, 2010 10:29 AM (qSRHZ)

86 59
Don't really like the idea, mainly because a person like barack obama
can become president and call tea partiers terrorists.

Only if they established that the tea partiers were acting on behalf of a foreign state.

I prefer this approach to one in which U.S. citizens are denied their rights because of some arbitrarily determined decision about whether or not their actions were terrorism. This approach is simpler. Find a foreign connection - such as training in Afghanistan - and you've renounced your citizenship.

Posted by: Y-not at May 06, 2010 10:30 AM (Kn9r7)

87 I believe captured terrorists have rights. These include but are not limited to:

daily beatings during interrogation
cold dank vermin-infested cell
bread and water
firing squad

Posted by: Jones at May 06, 2010 10:32 AM (JL3qV)

88 Lieberman a registered democrat and lawyer. What else do you need to know?

Posted by: Lunatic, What Comes from Fringe at May 06, 2010 10:35 AM (uFdnM)

89 Find a foreign connection - such as training in Afghanistan - and you've renounced your citizenship.
Posted by: Y-not

Find a domestic connection - such as registering Republicans to vote in Ohio - and you lose your citizenship.

Posted by: Easy Bake at May 06, 2010 10:35 AM (ONBbr)

90 I believe captured terrorists have rights. These include but are not limited to:daily beatings during interrogationcold dank vermin-infested cellbread and waterfiring squad a long drop and a sudden stop



FIFY. A firing squad has a sense of honor about it.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at May 06, 2010 10:37 AM (ZSVyF)

91 I guess it all depends upon what the meaning of "state" is

Posted by: Bill C at May 06, 2010 10:38 AM (I+7Zv)

92 This is why I love this site. It makes you think, as compared to the Ministry of Propaganda. At first read, I was all in favor, but after reading the concerns about the potential for abuse, I now oppose.

A law like this assumes that the government works on behalf of the people. For all too many of us, it is clear that this government does not.

This is just another instance which reinforces how unbelievably fortunate we are in our selection of founding fathers. They clearly understood that foreign armies are no more of a threat than our own government, and that is why they made it so hard to accomplish things.

Posted by: pep at May 06, 2010 10:38 AM (0K3p3)

93
I promise I won't abuse any law that strips citizens of their rights.

I double promise.

Allah willing.

Posted by: Easy Bake at May 06, 2010 10:38 AM (ONBbr)

94 Find a domestic connection - such as registering
Republicans to vote in Ohio - and you lose your citizenship.

Posted by: Easy Bake
----------
Noooo. Lieberman specifically talks about amending the existing law which clearly states "entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state."

Posted by: Y-not at May 06, 2010 10:40 AM (Kn9r7)

95 From HA headlines:
A three- or four-page briefing packet, stamped “Secret,” is prepared
for the president before each meeting. It includes background material
on the day’s topic as well as a list of the top U.S. terrorism hot spots
around the globe, with photographs of suspected terrorists.
For Obama, the meetings are an opportunity not only to get
updates on threats and the latest prevention tactics, several
participants said, but also for discussing broader anti-terrorism
strategies. Obama often raises questions about what causes someone to
become a terrorist. That topic was especially relevant this week, with
the news that a naturalized U.S. citizen originally from Pakistan, with
no previous history of extremist tendencies, was implicated in the Times
Square incident.It's a mystery.


Posted by: Mal at May 06, 2010 10:43 AM (Z+qzA)

96
Just give me an inch.

I promise, that's all I want.

Posted by: Easy Bake at May 06, 2010 10:43 AM (ONBbr)

97 "How about we add the weird sounding "cavenaugh" name to the list and deny all people with that name the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?"
How about we take "Al-Hassad" and "Moussami" off the list and let them buy all the firepower they want?

Posted by: JEA at May 06, 2010 10:44 AM (AfORa)

98 At the very least they should be stripped of their victim status.

Posted by: Rickshaw Jack at May 06, 2010 10:45 AM (1v6gM)

99 93 This is why I love this site. It makes you think, as compared to the Ministry of Propaganda. At first read, I was all in favor, but after reading the concerns about the potential for abuse, I now oppose.
Posted by: pep at May 06, 2010 10:38 AM (0K3p3)

Kinda like I used to be 100% in favor of the Death Penalty until that Project Innocence started getting innocent guys released from prison by the dozens. Makes a person sit and say: hmmmmm........, I wonder how many actual innocent people have been put to death by mistake.

Posted by: Johnnyreb at May 06, 2010 10:45 AM (JSetw)

100 Anyone watching Eric Holder? They just cut away on Fox, but he's supposedly going to take a bunch of questions. Mikulski started off basically saying "Tell us how we can reward your awesome awesomeness, Mr. AttyGen. ..."

I'm getting awfully sick of all the praise and wonderment being heaped on the Admin. because "...he was captured in ONLY 53 hours!!!".

Obviously, if any Repub Admin. was in Office the meme would be "...terrorist allowed to roam free for more than two days until Emirates Airlines did their job for them..."

Posted by: Lincontf at May 06, 2010 10:45 AM (qSRHZ)

101 i'm sure we must have laws that already address this?
why not stick to the treason-traitor laws?
why would this be necessary?

Posted by: granny willow at May 06, 2010 10:46 AM (7FgWm)

102 Posted by: JEA at May 06, 2010 10:44 AM (AfORa)


Wrong thread, idiot.

And why should "Al-Hassad" and "Moussami" be denied their civil rights without due process simply because some bureaucrat added their name to a list? Note: boarding an airliner is NOT a civil right.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at May 06, 2010 10:50 AM (ZSVyF)

103 Daniel Greenfield has a must read on this subject:
http://tinyurl.com/35rdz86
"The Constitution and the Times Square Bomber"
Makes Beck look like an idiot brainwashed by Progressives(he is in some cases, this being one of them).
fascinating history he writes about there, this goes back much further than that of WW2. The Founding Father worshiping cult will have a hard time believing alot of the actual history mentioned here....and he doesn't even touch the Alien and Seditions Acts.

Posted by: jp at May 06, 2010 10:50 AM (DFDtC)

104 Did Benedict Arnold have his citizenship taken away?

Posted by: Kent Gatewood at May 06, 2010 10:51 AM (OMfLC)

105 And yet a bill to prevent people on the terrorist watch list from purchasing guns and explosives is getting pushback?
Unless you've flown recently, you could be on the "terrorist watch list" and not know it. So could your "erotic" male massuse.
Throw in some due process such that non-threatening people who happen to share the same name as someone percieved as a threat and you'll find the "pushback" drop significantly.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at May 06, 2010 10:51 AM (plsiE)

106 Somewhat surprisingly and interesting enough, RHINO, Lindsey Graham, spoke up in opposition to sly, old Joe Lieberman's ill-conceived ideas which he proposed during that hearing yesterday..
BTW, If you have any lingering doubts that sly, old Joe is still a flaming liberal, recall, if you will, his impassioned speech on the floor ofCongress when he defended Bill Clinton, saying, in effect, that Bill was naughty, but thatBill hadn't committed any impeachable offenses; a slick speech that got RHINOs like Lindsey Graham and Chris Shays to join Democrats in voting against impeachment.

Posted by: A Casual Observation at May 06, 2010 10:51 AM (ITzbJ)

107 Strip citizenship from healthcare opponents? No, thank you.

Posted by: t-bird at May 06, 2010 10:52 AM (FcR7P)

108 @98

9/11 was accomplished without a single gunshot.

These guys come from a land where AK-47s cost seventy-five bucks. You really think they're doomed if they stop buying weapons at a gun show?

Posted by: Zuggs at May 06, 2010 10:52 AM (FkKjr)

109 Yes, doing away with the 5th amendment's guarantee of due process is a great idea! (What amendment should we put on the chopping block next?)


Posted by: Jim at May 06, 2010 10:54 AM (Ic2wM)

110 #109 Thanks for bringing that up! Dear Gaia, I hate when these idiots try to link 9/11 with firearm sales. I guaran-damn-tee you that if there were armed passengers on those planes, 9/11 wouldn't have happened.

Posted by: Kratos (missing from the side of Mt Olympus) at May 06, 2010 10:55 AM (9hSKh)

111 For Obama, the meetings are an opportunity not only to get updates on threats and the latest prevention tactics, several participants said, but also for discussing broader anti-terrorism strategies. Obama often raises questions about what causes someone to become a terrorist. That topic was especially relevant this week, with the news that a naturalized U.S. citizen originally from Pakistan, with no previous history of extremist tendencies, was implicated in the Times Square incident.

Hell, he had the chance to ask pople who really knew.

Posted by: Billy Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn at May 06, 2010 10:55 AM (oSrBX)

112 105 Did Benedict Arnold have his citizenship taken away?


Arnold was a British citizen and finished his days in England, so no.

Posted by: huerfano at May 06, 2010 10:57 AM (oSrBX)

113 "Obama often raises questions about what causes someone to become a terrorist. ..."


Here's a hint, it begins with a "Q" and ends with an "N".

Posted by: Lincontf at May 06, 2010 10:58 AM (qSRHZ)

114 This idea of Lieberman's is insane. Anyone who gets American citizenship under false pretenses is already at jeopardy of losing that citizenship. Of course, the politicians don't want to make that important part of our law operative, because that would screw up all their attempts to hand out US citizenship to illegals, who are here illegally shitting all over the concept of US sovereignty and, by the same law, could NEVER be offered US citizenship (along with making it clear that those who are pushing to give them citizenship are TRAITORS).

People who hold American citizenship who wage war on America are traitors and need to be held for treason. Of course, politicans don't want to press this important part of US law because that would just expose the traitor who is close friends of The Precedent.

Lastly, the American who married this Pakistani scumbag needs to be arrested and prosecuted - at least for the act of helping someone gain American citizenship illegally, and probably as an accessory to the attack, itself.

But, enforcing our laws and defending US sovereignty is something that none but a select few of our politicians are willing to entertain. Most want to have the laws be nothing but recommendations that they can ignore if they think that they might lose some votes from America-hating scumbags if they do enforce them as they are supposed to. Those politicians are killing this nation and represent a danger as bad as the arab/persian/muslim terrorists - and they should be held on similar charges.

Lieberman's idea is crazy and stupid.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 06, 2010 10:58 AM (Qp4DT)

115 I've got no problem with this law. I don't want to share the oxygen with folks who me dead. Harsh, maybe, but that's me all over.

Posted by: rawmuse at May 06, 2010 10:58 AM (eP2jX)

116 110
Yes, doing away with the 5th amendment's guarantee of due process is a
great idea!

Where does it say there's no due process? All he's proposing to do is to extend a decades-old law to allow for non-uniformed participants in foreign-based terrorism to be treated the same way that Americans who go and join a foreign army to attack us already are.

Is there some evidence that there's not already due process in the existing law?

Posted by: Y-not at May 06, 2010 11:00 AM (Kn9r7)

117 It's already a law, no? A law since 1940?

So what is it, just one of those laws that we have not been enforcing?

Posted by: rawmuse at May 06, 2010 11:01 AM (eP2jX)

118 "Unless you've flown recently, you could be on the "terrorist watch list" and not know it."
I haven't flown in 3 years. So I could be.

"I hate when these idiots try to link 9/11 with firearm sales..."
So you're perfectly content with allowing people on the terrorist watch list to be allowed to buy weapons of any kind, because it's their 'inalienable right' - I love the irony of language sometimes - to do so. Like those 4 or 5 (forget exacly how many there were) who wanted to shoot up Ft. Dix.

Posted by: JEA at May 06, 2010 11:01 AM (AfORa)

119 SEATAC, Wash. (AP) - The Transportation Security Administration says a
baggage area at Seattle-Tacoma airport has been evacuated because of a
smoking bag.


TSA spokesman Greg Soule
says the baggage room and surrounding
area have been evacuated out of an abundance of caution.


Local law enforcement officials and the FBI are on
the scene.


Airport Spokeswoman Terri-Ann Betancourt says the Port of Seattle bomb
squad was called to check out suspicious luggage about 5:30 a.m.
Thursday under the concourse where bags are screened.

Posted by: Barbarian at May 06, 2010 11:02 AM (EL+OC)

120 Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them
or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the
United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death,
or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this
title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any
office under the United States.

This (above) is the law defining treason.

It seems to me that the advantage of Lieberman's approach is that by stripping someone of their citizenship they can be correctly treated as foreign combatants and therefore are no longer entitled to protections in terms of interrogations. So the advantage is that you can squeeze more information out of a person under law Lieberman wants to modify than you can from a person who is convicted of treason but is still a U.S. citizen. That person can just sit in his/her cell (or be executed) and keep their secrets to themselves.

If you want to bring down a terror network, you cannot play by the rules that protect U.S. citizens.

Posted by: Y-not at May 06, 2010 11:07 AM (Kn9r7)

121 I think they shouldn't be allowed to buy luggage

Posted by: JEA at May 06, 2010 11:07 AM (AfORa)

122 Lieberman's proposal is exhibit A in the old saying, "When your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

We have plenty of laws already on the books, Joe. I worry more about how much salt Heather Radish is putting on her french fries.

Posted by: Upscale Community Organizing Thought Criminal at May 06, 2010 11:07 AM (IhHdM)

123 Like those 4 or 5 (forget exacly how many there were) who wanted to
shoot up Ft. Dix.
I didn't know they were on the no fly list.

Posted by: Mal at May 06, 2010 11:07 AM (Z+qzA)

124 The Key Case Law is on the side of Lieberman:

...entry upon our territory [317 U.S. 1, 37] in time of war by enemy belligerents, including those acting under the direction of the armed forces of the enemy, for the purpose of destroying property used or useful in prosecuting the war, is a hostile and war-like act. It subjects those who participate in it without uniform to the punishment prescribed by the law of war for unlawful belligerents. It is without significance that petitioners were not alleged to have borne conventional weapons or that their proposed hostile acts did not necessarily contemplate collision with the Armed Forces of the United States. Paragraphs 351 and 352 of the Rules of Land Warfare, already referred to, plainly contemplate that the hostile acts and purposes for which unlawful belligerents may be punished are not limited to assaults on the Armed Forces of the United States. Modern warfare is directed at the destruction of enemy war supplies and the implements of their production and transportation quite as much as at the armed forces. Every consideration which makes the unlawful belligerent punishable is equally applicable whether his objective is the one or the other. The law of war cannot rightly treat those agents of enemy armies who enter our territory, armed with explosives intended for the destruction of war industries and supplies, as any the less belligerent enemies than are agent similarly entering for the purpose of destroying fortified places or our Armed Forces. By passing our boundaries for such purposes without uniform or other emblem signifying their belligerent status, or by discarding that means of identification after entry, such enemies become unlawful belligerents subject to trial and punishment. Citizenship in the United States of an enemy belligerent does not relieve him from the consequences of a belligerency which is unlawful because in violation of the law of war.

Posted by: jp at May 06, 2010 11:07 AM (DFDtC)

125 So what is it, just one of those laws that we have not been enforcing?

It's phrased in terms of a foreign state.

Lieberman wants to expand the "state" part to encompass terror groups.

Foreign terror groups.

Posted by: Y-not at May 06, 2010 11:08 AM (Kn9r7)

126
119,

You can lose some rights post conviction for a crime.

Do you have to commit a crime to be on a no-fly list?

Perhaps we can be very efficient by making those who put folks on no-fly lists also be the folks on healthcare-rationing panels.

Posted by: eman at May 06, 2010 11:08 AM (ONBbr)

127 @125

Interesting. Great point.

Posted by: Y-not at May 06, 2010 11:09 AM (Kn9r7)

128 I think they shouldn't be allowed to buy luggage





American Tourister Patriot Act?

Posted by: Upscale Community Organizing Thought Criminal at May 06, 2010 11:10 AM (IhHdM)

129 @119

This is a silly counter-argument. No terrorist is going to legally buy a gun to commit at terrorist act, even under current laws.

Aside from that, there's the overwhelming history which shows that terrorists prefer bombs and boxcutters to firearm attacks. You may notice that it is completely illegal to build bombs, but that doesn't stop them from doing so.

All this can do is affect law-abiding citizens who are mistakenly placed on the watchlist.

Posted by: Zuggs at May 06, 2010 11:10 AM (FkKjr)

130 Read the article linked above at Sultan Knish(Daniel Greenfield)..

Posted by: jp at May 06, 2010 11:10 AM (DFDtC)

131 From that school flag story:

"They said we could wear it on any other day," Daniel Galli said, "but
today is sensitive to Mexican-Americans because it's supposed to be
their holiday so we were not allowed to wear it today."...

...But to many Mexican-American students at Live Oak,
this was a big deal. They say they were offended by the five boys and
others for wearing American colors on a Mexican holiday.



"I think they should
apologize cause it is a Mexican Heritage Day," Annicia Nunez, a Live Oak
High student, said. "We don't deserve to be get disrespected like that.
We wouldn't do that on Fourth of July." (you live in The United States of America, sweetie... not Mexico)




As for an apology, the boys
and their families say, "fat chance."



"I'm not going to apologize.
I did nothing wrong," Galli said. "I went along with my normal day.I
might have worn an American flag, but I'm an American and I'm proud to
be an American."--------------
The school officials should be taken out, tied to a tree, and beaten with lengths of steel cable.Next, paddlings will be reinstated, and the teachers issued cricket bats. Miss Nunez shall go first in line.

Posted by: Un_Frickin'_Believable at May 06, 2010 11:11 AM (0Xs52)

132 If you want to bring down a terror network, you cannot play by the rules that protect U.S. citizens.

Posted by: Y-not at May 06, 2010 11:07 AM (Kn9r7)
You seem to forget that we have traitors and America-haters in the WHite House and Congress. Now, if most of them have their citizenships revoked, first, then this might be okay, but with the situation where our lead enforcement officers are traitors, the problem the US has extends far further than what Lieberman is trying to address.
America would be better served if Lieberman proposed impeaching The Precedent (for his many traitorous acts) and arresting Holder for his crimes. But, to give these America-haters even more power over the Americans they hate and have been trying to harm is certainly NOT the way to go.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 06, 2010 11:11 AM (Qp4DT)

133 IIRC some US citizens lost their passports because their activities in Croatia went too far

Posted by: Jean at May 06, 2010 11:12 AM (I/7fp)

134 "There's something fundamentally wrong when people who should be conservatives instead start talking like ACLU lawyers. Start believing that Miranda is a Constitutional right, rather than a bit of judicial activism legerdemain. Start thinking that we should be fighting the War on Terror by following the model of the American Bar Association, rather than that of Washington, Jefferson, FDR and every wartime President between them. The Constitution was never intended to serve as a suicide pact. It was never intended to protect enemies of the United States under the colors of the flag. Its Bill of Rights protected the rights of Americans, not the rights of its enemies. Our laws exist in order to safeguard the rights of Americans. When they are exploited to aid those who deprive Americans of their lives and liberties, then they have been undeniably perverted to play a role opposite to that of their original purpose. The work of the Warren Court is a comprehensive illustration of laws turned in on themselves. No country can have or maintain laws inimical to its survival for very long. And a country that protects its enemies will eventually fall by their sword."

Posted by: jp at May 06, 2010 11:13 AM (DFDtC)

135 Muslims cant take the Citizenship Oath, because they clearly lie when they repeat the oath. That alone should revoke his Citizenship immediately

Posted by: jp at May 06, 2010 11:14 AM (DFDtC)

136 Following this line of thought supporting Joe Joe, why not do predator attacks here, too?

Going too far? Silly?

We don't need more laws. We need to stomp out the countries that foster terrorism. We have grounds right now to destroy Pakistan.

Let's start on that end.

Posted by: eman at May 06, 2010 11:14 AM (ONBbr)

137 But, to give these America-haters even more power over the Americans
they hate and have been trying to harm is certainly NOT the way to go.

We always face a problem in this country when the executive branch is corrupt. That's what checks and balances are for.

There is a process for applying the current law that Lieberman wants to modify. Until someone shows me that that process is fatally flawed - ie: demonstrates that "some bureaucrat" (as someone asserted above) unilaterally makes the decision to strip citizenship - I am operating under the assumption that checks and balances would prevent abuse, as they have apparently done for 70 years.

So far I've seen nothing to suggest this could be extended to include political opponents of the administration or that it would be applied without due process.

Posted by: Y-not at May 06, 2010 11:15 AM (Kn9r7)

138 Do you have to commit a crime to be on a no-fly list?
You don't have to do anything to get on the list except be alive. Read this from the bottom up.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at May 06, 2010 11:16 AM (mR7mk)

139 So you're perfectly content with allowing people on the terrorist watch list to be allowed to buy weapons of any kind, because it's their 'inalienable right' - I love the irony of language sometimes - to do so. Like those 4 or 5 (forget exacly how many there were) who wanted to shoot up Ft. Dix.
So you're perfectly content with allowing the government to strip away the constitutional rights of who pose no particular threat and have done nothing wrong simply because they share the same name as someone a bureaucrat added to a list?
Please, elaborate. What other civilrights should be randomly and secretly stripped from people with no due process on the whim of a nameless government official?

Posted by: Hollowpoint at May 06, 2010 11:16 AM (plsiE)

140 Depending on Obambi to pinkie-swear that he won't abuse such a law makes me too nervous. This strips away too many protections. Let's take a pass on this one.

Posted by: joncelli at May 06, 2010 11:18 AM (RD7QR)

141 I am operating under the assumption that checks and balances would prevent abuse, as they have apparently done for 70 years.

So far I've seen nothing to suggest this could be extended to include political opponents of the administration or that it would be applied without due process.
Posted by: Y-not

Holy cow.

They didn't even read the Health Care bill. You are counting on Congress to protect your rights?

Not very wise!



Posted by: eman at May 06, 2010 11:18 AM (ONBbr)

142 do we have a time frame of when Shahzad went to Pakistan, and spent 5-9 mths there? ,was it before His citizenship came through?

Posted by: granny willow at May 06, 2010 11:18 AM (7FgWm)

143 There's something fundamentally wrong when people who should be
conservatives instead start talking like ACLU lawyers. Start believing
that Miranda is a Constitutional right, rather than a bit of judicial
activism legerdemain

Miranda is a total joke. The Miranda warnings are possibly the most famous English paragraph in the world, with people who don't even speak English able to ape the warning phonetically - as everyone and his brother has heard the paragraph thousands of times in just about every book, movie, or TV show. For anyone to claim that they weren't aware of their rights is a preposterous joke. Personally, I get a kick out of lawyers who claim they weren't Mirandized as a technical loophole. If one can't assume that a lawyer is supposed to know his basic Constitutional rights, then one can't assume that a lawyer knows anything. Meanwhile, the left seems to think that Mirandizing, itself, gives people rights - and, as with other leftist drivel along the same lines, much of America has eaten that idiocy up, hook, line and sinker.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 06, 2010 11:19 AM (Qp4DT)

144 "We need to stomp out the countries that foster terrorism. We have grounds right now to destroy Pakistan."
Even though the majority of Pakistanis support the US?

Posted by: JEA at May 06, 2010 11:26 AM (AfORa)

145 >>>We always face a problem in this country when the executive branch is corrupt. That's what checks and balances are for.

We have never faced a problem with actual traitors in the White House and Congress as we do now. This is truly unprecedented and not something that "we always face". We have a Constitutionally inelgible Precedent that we can't even get to walk into a court of law and just present his documentation to prove that he is eligible. Of course, that's because he's held other citizenships and that obviated 'natural born citizen' status and rendered him ineligible.

On top of that, we have slightly less traitorous gits in the federal government who are looking to hand out US citizenships to every dipshit who is able to break US law by sneaking in here, spit in our faces by refusing to leave (and even holding demonstrations), and shit all over the concept of US sovereignty - which is the most important foundation of "citizenship", to begin with.

I find people who are unwilling to defend US sovereignty and trying to print US citizenships (for people who should be in jail and who all have other citizneships, to start) to be a joke of the worst kind.

>>>There
is a process for applying the current law that Lieberman wants to
modify. Until someone shows me that that process is fatally flawed -
ie: demonstrates that "some bureaucrat" (as someone asserted above)
unilaterally makes the decision to strip citizenship - I am operating
under the assumption that checks and balances would prevent abuse, as
they have apparently done for 70 years.

There are existing laws that can be used to strip Shazaam of his ill-gotten citizenship. Congress wouldn't want those laws enforced, though, because then it makes their treasonous push for citizenship for illegals all too obvious.

>>>So far I've seen
nothing to suggest this could be extended to include political
opponents of the administration or that it would be applied without due
process.


Posted by: Y-not at May 06, 2010 11:15 AM (Kn9r7)
You have to be kidding me.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 06, 2010 11:26 AM (Qp4DT)

146

Stupid, dangerous, hideous idea. Still, if it's limired to naturalized citizens it MIGHT pass constitutional muster. But I doubt it. Congress can't "strip" citizenship:

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.

Posted by: hobgoblin at May 06, 2010 11:27 AM (PpeVF)

147 @142
Did you even read the article? Re due process:
The Lieberman bill would not be retroactive, and anyone stripped of
their citizenship, based on a "preponderance of evidence" legal
standard, "can shallenge that determination in federal court" with that
same legal standard, the senator's staffer said.

Here's the link to the law Lieberman wants to modify.

Posted by: Y-not at May 06, 2010 11:27 AM (Kn9r7)

148 Even though the majority of Pakistanis support the US?

Posted by: JEA at May 06, 2010 11:26 AM (AfORa)
You're not too familiar with reality. You should really try and keep that sort of ignorance to yourself.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 06, 2010 11:28 AM (Qp4DT)

149 do we have a time frame of when Shahzad went to Pakistan, and spent
5-9 mths there? ,was it before His citizenship came through?
He left a couple months after becoming a citizen.

Posted by: Mal at May 06, 2010 11:28 AM (Z+qzA)

150 @148
Apparently, Congress already enacted a law that does just that.
§1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or
naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions

Posted by: Y-not at May 06, 2010 11:29 AM (Kn9r7)

151 Don't like it; the intentions may be good, but "road to hell" and all that.
As already stated above, we have laws to deal with the Times Square guy and people like him -- what needs to be done is to actually use them.
(which will likely not happen, and many people will read this on the surface and say "great idea!", and then slippery slope here we come)

Posted by: unknown jane at May 06, 2010 11:29 AM (5/yRG)

152


So you're perfectly content with allowing people on the terrorist
watch list to be allowed to buy weapons of any kind, because it's their
'inalienable right' - I love the irony of language sometimes - to do so.
Like those 4 or 5 (forget exacly how many there were) who wanted to
shoot up Ft. Dix



YES. As long as they are citizens, that's what citizenship means. We have no "pre-crimes" in this fucking country, idiot.

Because no court of law has adjudicated their rights, these rights are guaranteed (not granted) by the constitution of this country.

The Star Chamber. You might look into that..

Never give anyone power that you wouldn't want to see yielded by your enemies.

Posted by: hobgoblin at May 06, 2010 11:31 AM (PpeVF)

153 Bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad idea. People, you need to understand how dangerous of a precedent this would set. If the government has the ability to strip people of their citizenship based on activities they deem to be terrorism, then we take one step closer to the Brave New World that continues to approach.

You've seen from this despotic administration that they have no qualms deeming innocent, patriotic Americans to be terrorist threats. If something were to happen by some deranged lunatic, it could open the door to first amendment crackdowns, civil rights abuses, political imprisonment, torture, and military tribunals against innocent people.

As painful as it may be for some, this criminal was granted US citizenship and must be handled according to the laws granted thereto. I'm fine with handling anti-US terrorists who aren't citizens as enemies of the state, but we have to follow the rule of law.

Posted by: Me, That's who at May 06, 2010 11:33 AM (zz40+)

154 As already stated above, we have laws to deal with the Times Square guy
and people like him -- what needs to be done is to actually use them.

Depends on what you mean by "deal with." Putting him in jail? Sure, no problem. But you can't interrogate him the way you would an enemy combatant.

As for stripping his citizenship, that depends on if you really can prove that he lied to get citizenship. Even then, there still aren't laws to cover guys like Adam Gadahn, which, if you read the article, is someone Lieberman's amended law is intended to cover.

Posted by: Y-not at May 06, 2010 11:33 AM (Kn9r7)

155 C'mon guys, it's the 14th Amendment, not the 5th Amendment that guarantees due process and sets forth the reqirements and protections of citizenship.
BTW, if you had witnessed the rally in New York City the other day of Latino labor leaders speaking out in their opposition to the new legislation in Arizona, you might suspect thatLatino leaders and Democrats exploiting that issue for their own political gainare as much of a threat, if not more of a threat than foreign terrorists are.
One Latino Labor leader actually brazenly admitted to being an avowed Communist, and another one actually brazenly admitted that his movement's intentions are to takeback parts of this country which whites "stole" from his ancestors. In fact, now get this, in his own speech, that fat blowhard, Congressman Charlie Rangel, actuallymade the bizarre statement that the only people in this country who have a right to get other people to leave this country are native Americans; i.e., indians, who had their lands stolen from them by white men. What a fuck'n demagogue!!!
Make no mistake about it. There is a link between sly, old Joe's proposed legislation and the Democrats' intention to seize total control of this country. Those unscrupulous, slimy low-lifes will exploit the issue of terrorism to strip you of your rights and to empower themselves, and they are relying on easily manipulated Latinos and blacks to be their angry foot soldiers..

Posted by: A Casual Observation at May 06, 2010 11:33 AM (ITzbJ)

156

A court hearing after the fact is cold comfort when a law strips you of the greatest single man-devised status on this planet.


Posted by: hobgoblin at May 06, 2010 11:33 AM (PpeVF)

157 based on activities they deem to be terrorism

Foreign terrorism.

Have any of you read the law?

Posted by: Y-not at May 06, 2010 11:34 AM (Kn9r7)

158 "Strip Citizenship from Terrorists"

Starting with politicians

Posted by: KilltheHippies at May 06, 2010 11:34 AM (VKfXw)

159

C'mon guys, it's the 14th Amendment, not the 5th Amendment that
guarantees due process and sets forth the reqirements and protections of
citizenship.



No, it's not. THe privileges and immunities clause guarnatees the rights of national exercise of basic rights, the Fifth Amendment guarantees due process agasint the federal government, and the Fourteenth amended (for federal purposes) defines citizenship.

14th amendment due process only runs against the state.

What are you, a student of Obumble's con law seminar

Posted by: hobgoblin at May 06, 2010 11:36 AM (PpeVF)

160 @159
A law created can be broadened. Note how a law referencing foreign armies is being broadened to foreign terrorist organizations. Do you really think it won't be broadened to domestic terrorist organizations someday, especially if there is a domestic terrorist attack?

And when it is broadened to domestic terrorist organizations, are we really going to like when the State department of DHS defines who those are? Remember that to the Speaker of the House's daughter, the face of Terrorism is a balding white male in his late '40s. These are the people who will revoke citizenship.

Posted by: Zuggs at May 06, 2010 11:39 AM (FkKjr)

161 What are you, a student of Obumble's con law seminar
He taught one? And can I get a class credit?
All kidding aside, this is a damn good thread.

Posted by: HH at May 06, 2010 11:39 AM (6oDXl)

162 But you can't interrogate him the way
you would an enemy combatant.
Posted by: Y-not at May 06, 2010 11:33 AM (Kn9r7)

Sure we can. Of course, this treasonous administration won't interrogate ANYONE the way an enemy should be - US citizen or not. We have traitors in the federal government who forced the reading of Miranda warnings to aliens in Afghanistan!! Given that recent history, this talk of Lieberman's is just stupid.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 06, 2010 11:40 AM (Qp4DT)

163 They will strip citizenship of Tea Partiers long before they ever take away the rights of terrorists!

Posted by: dfbaskwill at May 06, 2010 11:42 AM (usjNq)

164 The devil is in the definitions. We know what a foreign country looks like, so defining an American as fighting for country X, which in turn will lead to his losing citizenship, is straightforward. But who decides what constitutes a foreign terrorist group? What are the checks and balances? How can this be abused? ANY law that strips citizenship should be very, very closely written. We're right to be suspicious of this modification, IMHO.

Posted by: joncelli at May 06, 2010 11:43 AM (RD7QR)

165 .
Shahzad's citizenship was awarded during thisadministration pick of USCIS Alejandro Mayorkas ?

Posted by: granny willow at May 06, 2010 11:45 AM (7FgWm)

166

A law created can be broadened.


All that is fine, AFTER it's proven in court, beyond a reasonable doubt, that one is a terrorist. If this is going to be a standard for a "criminal act" (which is unfortunately what you have without a declaration of war), that's the standard. If it's a civil standard, as is the current law, there MUST BE some overt, voluntary act FAR BEYOND "acting suspicious" and "emailing people we don't like"

This is about PROOF, Ynot. I read the current law, and saw that Liebs wants to make it apply to "terrorist organizations." Well, last I heard, the terrorists don't give you a uniform or make you sign paperwork. It's kinda specualtive as to what a "terrorist organization" is, and on top of it all, it does not say who get to determine what is a "terrorist organization."

But you're right, federal law never has unintended consequences.


Posted by: hobgoblin at May 06, 2010 11:45 AM (PpeVF)

167 hmm. wait maybe not.. looks like shahzad became a citizen april 17, 2009
mayorkah a head 24 april 2009

Posted by: granny willow at May 06, 2010 11:46 AM (7FgWm)

168 Short law info:

The 5th amendment guarantees due process; the 14th amendment incorporates it to the States as well.

That is, if you allow incorporation

Posted by: Vic at May 06, 2010 11:47 AM (QrA9E)

169 LOL - hobgoblin, my man, you just lost your credibility. But you did have me thinking there for a few minutes, I'll grant you that. LOL

Posted by: A Casual Observation at May 06, 2010 11:51 AM (ITzbJ)

170 It's kinda specualtive as to what a "terrorist organization" is, and on
top of it all, it does not say who get to determine what is a "terrorist
organization."

I believe that the State Department makes the determination. I think they report it to Congress annually. (§2656f. Annual country reports on terrorism)

Posted by: Y-not at May 06, 2010 11:52 AM (Kn9r7)

171 Maybe Liebs, in his thoughts about citizenship, ought to concentrate more on naturalized citizens and dual citizens (as opposed to natural born Americans) because that is where this problem starts. He wouldn't do that, though, because it would make the ineligibility of The Precedent too obvious - and we can't have that. The traitor in the White House can't be exposed. His destruction of America must be allowed to proceed apace, lest the cities burn because of America-haters more concerned with tribalism than the laws and health of the nation ...

Liebs also should be more concerned with stopping the idiocy of anchor babies by illegal aliens (and even by legal residents who are not under the jurisdiction of the US as evidenced by the fact that they cannot be drafted and cannot be held for treason). But, Liebs wouldn't do this, because it is direct opposition to the current push to devalue US citizenship by giving it to every scumbag who spits on US sovereignty and forces themselves on us.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 06, 2010 11:53 AM (Qp4DT)

172 I believe that the State Department makes the
determination. I think they report it to Congress annually. (§2656f.
Annual country reports on terrorism)

Posted by: Y-not at May 06, 2010 11:52 AM (Kn9r7)
The US deals with Hezbollah and Hamas as legitimate governments and government representatives. Our State department doesn't know jackshit about terrorism and I would never want to rely on that fifth column to determine anything about Americans.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 06, 2010 11:55 AM (Qp4DT)

173

171
LOL - hobgoblin, my man, you just lost your credibility. But you did
have me thinking there for a few minutes, I'll grant you that. LOL


Exactly how, praytell?


If you mean what Vic said, that's entirely consistent with what I said. the 14th (FOR FEDERAL PURPOSES) only defines citizenship.


All of the bill of rights is incorporated AGAINST THE STATES through teh 14th. Are you aware we are in what is known as a federal system if independent sovereign entities?



That's what the law is. I should know, since it's my job to.

Posted by: hobgoblin at May 06, 2010 11:56 AM (PpeVF)

174 172
It's kinda specualtive as to what a
"terrorist organization" is, and on
top of it all, it does not say who get to determine what is a "terrorist
organization."

I believe that the State Department makes
the determination. I think they report it to Congress annually.
(§2656f. Annual country reports on terrorism)



Oh, well a Clinton would never deprive anyone of rights unlawfully.

A finding of terrorist association, to teh extent it strips one of rights, must be so blindingly obvious that there's no room for political shenanigans.

There's so much room here, I could drive a flaming tanker truck through it and shout allahu ackbar, listening for the echo

Posted by: hobgoblin at May 06, 2010 11:58 AM (PpeVF)

175 "I should know, since it's my job to." - hobgoblin

Really??? LOL

Posted by: A Casual Observation at May 06, 2010 12:09 PM (ITzbJ)

176 American citizens engaged in terrorism overseas, or foreign agents apprehended here, I say use the laws of war. But an American citizen caught on American soil must retain the protection of the Constitution until they're found guilty in a court of law. It may be appealing to just hang this Times Square jackass, but the same precedent will be applied toall of uswhen they start coming after constitutional militia, Tea Partiers, 9/12'ers and Eagle Scouts.

Posted by: Scott at May 06, 2010 12:12 PM (r5Xxu)

177 But you're right, federal law never has unintended consequences.


Hey, don't look at me.

Posted by: RICO at May 06, 2010 12:19 PM (oSrBX)

178 well they already are coming after the Scout Masters. I say we strip the citizenship from anyone who does not fully support our POTUS during wartime. Dissent in time of war is TREASON

Posted by: Bill C at May 06, 2010 12:22 PM (I+7Zv)

179

ACO,

Please enlighten me.

with respect to the enforcement of criminal penalties, what do you think I'm missing here as to teh 14th amendment's effect on the feds in this context? I mean, equal protection doesn't factor here at all, substantive or procedural due process go against the states under the 14th, I mentioned privileges and immunities (though I don't see how that applies under the 14h to the feds). Lochner's dead letter, section 5 authority to enforce voting rights runs agaisnt the states (though touches on congressional power).

Seriously, do tell, what do you think applies form the 14th amenndment to this case aside from the citizenship definition?

the 5th amendment is what guarantees due process agasint the federal government.

Posted by: hobgoblin at May 06, 2010 12:23 PM (PpeVF)

180 I say we strip the citizenship from anyone who does not fully support
our POTUS during wartime. Dissent in time of war is TREASONPosted by: Bill C at May 06, 2010 12:22 PM (I+7Zv)


The ineligible piece of shit in the White House is a traitor. He has done everything to strengthen America's enemies and harm America's allies during his time occupying the White House. It's more accurate to say that everyone who voted or supported the Ineligible Idiot from Indonesia is guilty of treason.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 06, 2010 12:25 PM (Qp4DT)

181 It is interesting to note that the referenced case above, Afroyim v. Rusk,
387 U.S. 253 (1967), deals with "naturalized" citizen as well.

Also note that it was a narrow 5-4 decision in a very liberal court and it reversed a previous decision that had allowed congress to pass laws that voided citizenship.

I suspect that if a similar case were taken to the court it would be upheld now.

All that being said, I do not believe any citizen should have Constitutional rights removed without due process.

Being designated a "terrorist" by some bureaucrat is not due process.

Posted by: Vic at May 06, 2010 12:29 PM (QrA9E)

182 Dave, I believe your Texas card is going to be rescinded. Who in their right mind would condone anything this regime would consider? And Lieberman, he's no constitutional scholar either. Enacting this changewould just be another nudge into whatever nefarious direction Zero and his czar henchmen think would be advantageous to them down the road.

Posted by: RushBabe at May 06, 2010 12:31 PM (LKkE8)

183 Huge problem here, folks - U.S. citizenship was never intended to be an "easy-on/easy-off" kind of deal, and the U.S. State Department is not a useful or trustworthy part of Gubmint to be empowered with decision powers as to who is or is not "worthy", or when and under what circumstances such worthiness can be declared to have changed.

"I do not believe any citizen should have Constitutional rights removed
without due process.

Being designated a "terrorist" by some
bureaucrat is not due process."

Just so - there's nothing anywhere in the Constitution that would logically lead to allowing any sort of bureaucommies to make decisions on who is or is not a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer, let alone whether said person or persons may continue to be U.S. citizens.

Lieberman's apparently channeling his inner anti-American bureaucrat, here.

Posted by: J.S.Bridges at May 06, 2010 12:45 PM (2XuSq)

184 The typical Dem is an idiot. Lieberman is the exception: he's not a typical Dem idiot, but rather an exceptional Dem idiot (I'm not even sure the party designation is really necessary with him, and I expect he'd agree.).

Posted by: Shooter at May 06, 2010 12:49 PM (zfRju)

185 Lieberman would do everyone a service if he concentrated on islam instead of trying to screw around with American citizens. If Liebs wants to put a dent in terror, then declaring islam a political ideology (which it is, at its core) instead of a religion, is the most important step we can take. The idea that a mosque gets the same deference from our government that a synagogue or church does is an outrage, and quite insane, as mosques clearly serve as political and logistic centers, as well as fire bases for the muslims.

Shazaam could have been interrogated as an enemy combatant, to get information, and then prosecuted for any of a litany of charges related to his attempt to wage war on America and kill scores of American civilians.

The key in the war on terror is that islam is a political ideology that is at war with the US and the West. That is where this all comes down, and until the US starts treating mosques with the same attitude that muslims do (muslims bomb the living shit out of mosques when they are fighting other muslims, or just to make a point, even) then we will be on the losing end, and putting true Americans' citizenship at risk (especially with the traitors infesting our federal government, now) is just stupidity cubed.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 06, 2010 12:53 PM (Qp4DT)

186 I love that you right-wingers support this. Don't you pretend to support the U.S. Constitution? Here's a quote from Liebverman on his proposal:
"I think it's time for us to look at whether we want to amend that law to apply it to American citizens who choose to become affiliated with foreign terrorists organizations, whether or not they should also be deprived automatically of their citizenship and therefore be deprived of rights that come with that citizenship when they are apprehended and charged with a terrorist act."
An American citizen is innocent until proven guilty. ButLieberman (and you nuts) think that simply based onbeing arrested and charged of certain crimes, a U.S. citizen should lose his/her citizenship. Do you not see thefundamental constitutional problemthere?Or do you just not care? Even if you're anAmerican citizen, I guess accusation= guilt = loss of citizenship and rights. Does that sound like a free society to you? Does that sound American?You people amaze me.

Posted by: Sally Ann Cavanaugh at May 06, 2010 02:11 PM (FRErk)

187 Ehhh...might be a bill of attainder.

Posted by: Horatius at May 06, 2010 02:17 PM (dNSVq)

188

Sally Rottencrotch,

ButLieberman (and you nuts) think that simply based onbeing arrested
and charged of certain crimes, a U.S. citizen should lose his/her
citizenship.

Apparently you have not read this thread. Alexrod's paying you by the hour. Read it again, this time for comprehension.

Posted by: s'moron at May 06, 2010 02:41 PM (UaxA0)

189 I'm not sure what rights come with citizenship, outside of voting and the like. Most of the right guaranteed by the Constitution adhere to persons, not citizens. Not that this is going to inconvenience the government for any longer than it takes to come up with a good rationalization, of course.

Posted by: PersonFromPorlock at May 06, 2010 07:58 PM (HdxfL)

190 I have a problem with this, because any given administration can make up their own damned rules on who is/isn't a terrorist. It is a slippery slope that could lead straight to hell.

Posted by: Damocles at May 06, 2010 09:10 PM (FV5rl)

191 Just fyi, neoneocon has a post about this in which she raises good points, imho.

Posted by: Y-not at May 06, 2010 09:26 PM (Kn9r7)

192 Who is Behind Sen. Joe
Lieberman’s Proposed Fascist Legislation?

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

Joe Lieberman’s proposed bill
would make it easy to strip Americans of their Citizenship and hold them as
“Unprivileged Enemy Belligerents” as U.S. Government would only have to show a
U.S. Citizen or group had slight-interaction with a foreign group that touched a
terrorist organization, for example Irish Americans living on the east coast of
the United States contacting their alleged IRA relatives in Northern Ireland.
Since many political groups intersect, even unknowingly with alleged terrorists,
Lieberman’s bill would make it possible for a U.S. Government administration to
do large sweeps of U.S. Citizens denying Americans Habeas corpus, to try them in
military tribunals. One might want to ask who put Lieberman up to introducing
this fascist bill that favors Israel. It should be noted Joe Lieberman’s June
4th endorsement of McCain’s bill S.3081, The “Enemy Belligerent Interrogation,
Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010” strips Americans of Habeas corpus; there
appears to be a pattern here between McCain and Lieberman legislation. McCain’s
bill S.3081 would eliminate several Constitutional protections allowing
Government to arbitrarily pick up Americans on mere suspicion—with no probable
cause. Your political opinions and statements made against U.S. Government could
be used by Authorities to deem you a “hostile” “Enemy Belligerent” to cause your
arrest and indefinite detention. S.3081 is so broadly written innocent anti-war
protesters and Tea Party Groups might be arrested and detained just for
attending demonstrations; Government could charge that attending demonstrations
"materially supported hostilities."
McCain’s legislation S.3081 could like
Lieberman’s proposed bill be used by a corrupt U.S. government administration to
crush anyone that dared question government. Under McCain’s S.3081, an
“individual” need only be Suspected by Government of “suspicious activity” or
“supporting hostilities” to be dragged off and held indefinitely in Military
Custody. Government would have the power to detain and interrogate any
individual including Americans without probable cause. Government need only
allege an individual kept in detention, is an Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent
suspected of; having engaged in hostilities against the United States or its
coalition partners; or has purposefully and materially supported hostilities
against the United States; its coalition partners; or against U.S. civilians.
How could one prove to Government they did not purposely do something?
“Materially Supporting Hostilities” against the United States could include any
person or group that spoke out or demonstrated disapproval against an agency of
U.S. Government. It is foreseeable many Americans might go underground to Resist
Government Tyranny. Definition for Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent: (Anyone
Subject to a Military Commission)

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

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

(Make Your Own
Determination If The Analysis Herein Is Correct) See McCain’s 12-page Senate
bill S.3081 at:

assets.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/politics/ARM10090.pdf

Posted by: Ross Wolf at May 07, 2010 09:48 AM (/tLWH)

193 I think people who react negatively to this mistakenly assume it applies to citizens by birth, and /or are unaware of the many ways a naturalized citizen may be stipped of that status is the first ten years of receiving it.

Lieberman has suggested modifying the law that already strips naturalized citizenship of persons who join an army at war or in hostile conflict with the US (or become an officer in their native country's army at any time).

You can also lose it by taking any official state position or office in another country.

by being convicted of treason,

if your application for citizenship was fraudulent.

People who are citizens by birth cannot be stripped of their citizenship, and even if they could, Lieberman's suggested updating of current law would not apply to them, as it would be in a stature dealing under the heading of naturalization law.

Posted by: SarahW at May 07, 2010 10:11 AM (Z4T49)

194 How can anyone be OK with this?

So the government - which many here oppose in its current configuration - can strip away basic rights and privileges if it deems you an enemy of the state and, in its sole estimation, a terrorist.

This is horrendous.

Posted by: Orlando M at May 07, 2010 07:11 PM (KUllR)

195 delco starter
cat filter
volvo filter
fleetguard filter
bosch alternator
terex parts
perkins filter

Posted by: terex parts at May 08, 2010 11:38 PM (05Q68)

196 thank you dear ..
Ïáíá ãæÇÞÚ , ÇáÊÍáíÉ , ßæßÊíá , ÔÇÊ ßæßÊíá , ãäÊÏíÇÊ ßæßÊíá , ÔÇÊ ÕæÊí ßæßÊíá , ãÇÓäÌÑ , ÇáÇÞÊÕÇÏ , ãäÊÏíÇÊ , Ýä ÊÇíã , ãäÊÏíÇÊ ÇÞáÇã ÚÑÈíÉ

Posted by: soo at May 10, 2010 02:54 AM (WFYoY)

197 test

Posted by: Fish at May 10, 2010 09:48 AM (mTAG8)

198 binary clocks binary led watch led digital watch led digital watches

Posted by: dfcvbcb at May 19, 2010 01:26 AM (eU/Oa)

199 louis vuitton travel bags replica louis vuitton wallets discount gucci handbags replica gucci bags However it was Choo's niece Sandra Choi who became the creative driving forceChoo preferred the purity of couture and he soon fell out with his business partners louis vuitton replica handbags louis vuitton replica handbags fake chanel With a boutique set up in the UK Tamara louis vuitton travel bag who had married spendthrift American multibillionaire Matthew Mellon eyed the US market

Posted by: handbags wholesale at July 21, 2010 01:43 PM (8yyH6)

200 An apple white sleeve,We are the first developer of Blu-ray software in the world.smiling DVD Ripper Every Blu-ray Cloner morning,she DVD Cloner passed Blu-ray Ripper the DVD to AVI door DVD to iPod of DVD to MP3 company DVD to MP4 people blu-ray converter will convert blu-ray vote blu-ray to ipod vote
rip blu-ray to blu-ray ripper envious Mac DVD Ripper eyes.Her mac video converter elegant mac dvd to ipod luxury Video Converter from mac video to apple tv the mac video to apple tv converter inside mac avi to iphone Distributed mac avi to ipod out video to avi bright blu-ray to avi bright blu-ray to hd smile blu-ray to mp3 without blu-ray to mp4 affectation. This blu-ray to mpeg isblu-ray to psp not blu-ray to wmv surprising,holding mac dvd to apple tv a mac dvd to avi high mac dvd to flv salary,enough mac dvd to gphone to mac dvd to iphone hear mac dvd to ipod of a mac dvd to mp3 husband mac dvd to mp4 a bit mac dvd to mpeg rich, what mac dvd to psp is the mp3 cutter out mp3 splitter her DVD Ripper bright DVD Cloner smile
Blu-ray Cloner without convert avi to iphone for mac affectation. This Mac avi to iPhone converter is convert avi to ipod for mac not Mac avi to iPod Converter surprising, holding convert blu-ray to avi a blu-ray to avi converter igh salary, enough convert blu-ray to hd video to blu-ray to hd video converter live convert blu-ray to ipod comfortably, pleased blu-ray to ipod converter to convert blu-ray to mp3 hear of blu-ray to mp3 converter a convert blu-ray to mp4 husband blu-ray to mp4 converter a convert blu-ray to mpeg bit blu-ray to mpeg converter rich,what convert blu-ray to psp is blu-ray to psp Converter the convert blu-ray to wmv reason blu-ray to wmv converter It convert dvd to apple tv for mac is mac dvd to apple tv converter not convert dvd to avi for mac elegant? Be mac dvd to avi converter familiar convert dvd to flv for mac with mac dvd to flv converter her convert dvd to gphone for mac know mac dvd to gphone converter that convert dvd to ipod for mac these mac dvd to ipod converter are convert dvd to iphone for mac only mac dvd to iphone converter people's convert dvd to ipod for mac subjective mac dvd to ipod converter assumptions convert dvd to mp3 for mac Bale.She mac dvd to mp3 converter is convert dvd to mp4 for mac the mac dvd to mp4 converter company's convert dvd to mpeg for mac portersmac dvd to mpeg converter Loves.I hope DVD Ripper everyone Video Converter reading Blu-ray Ripper can mac dvd ripper inspire some mac dvd copy of his mac dvd creator thoughts,self mac dvd to ipod find mac dvd to apple tv the mac dvd to avi answer.A young mac dvd to mp3 man mac dvd to mp4 fishing mac mp3 cutter at the mac ipod converter shore, an mac video converter old man dvd copy beside dvd to mp4 neighbors, alsodvd to avi fishing. Two dvd to flv sit dvd to psp very dvd ripper close.The dvd to ipod strange dvd to iphone thing dvd to mp3 is, the dvd to mp4 elderly video converter keep ppt converter fish blu-ray to hd hooked,but blu-ray copy young blu-ray to mpeg people blu-ray to dvd did blu-ray ripper not blu-ray to avi harvest blu-ray to ipod all blu-ray to mp3 day.We blu-ray to mp4 are blu-ray to wmv live.

Posted by: houyang at August 17, 2010 10:36 PM (h8HyQ)






Processing 0.03, elapsed 0.0559 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0312 seconds, 209 records returned.
Page size 137 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat