Lieberman Introduces 'Terrorist Expatriation Act'

[National Kato]

Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) will introduce today, along with Scott Brown (R-Mass.), Jason Altmire (D-Penn.), and Charlie Dent (R-Penn.), the 'Terrorist Expatriation Act.' (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/05/how_liebermans_citizen-strippi.html?wprss=plum-line)

[PDF of bill here.] (http://lieberman.senate.gov/assets/pdf/TEA_full.pdf)

This bill would give the State Department the power to strip your American citizenship if it finds you to have associated with a terrorist organization as defined by the Department. The Act would amend an earlier statute (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001481----000-.html) that details other things that can cost you citizenship: serving in the army of a foreign state, pledging allegiance to a foreign state, etc.

The burden of proof would be on the State Department, so you would have the opportunity to defend yourself in court. Jonathan Turley, legal scholar, believes it to be manifestly unconstitutional and says it may be difficult to contest findings (http://jonathanturley.org/2010/05/05/lieberman-to-propose-citizenship-stripping-law/). The point seems to be to find a way to get U.S. citizens into military tribunals, despite their poor track record of convictions compared to our own court system.

Senator Chuck Schumer has come out forcefully (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/05/schumer_comes_out_against_lieb.html) against this bill, saying via spokeman that he believes 'it would be found unconstitutional in this context and would also be ineffective. There are much better ways of obtaining information from terrorists.'

Does this intefere with the Supreme Court's findings in Afroyim v. Rusk (1967) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afroyim_v._Rusk) or the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion) or does the previously-linked statute 1481 overrule in this case? Do you believe the State Department has the right to create a 'stateless citizen' because of your associations? Is it 'un-American?' Is it just a knee-jerk reaction to our continuing 'national trauma' over terrorism?

At the very least, I think it deserves a national debate. I'll settle for discussing it with you guys. :D

[civil]

I know he's not the only Senator involved, but ol' Crazy Joe sure is giving our national politics a good chuckle. Lor' bless 'im.

[Ink Asylum]

I just hope he doesn't retire at the end of his term. Definitely looking forward to seeing him finally get voted out of office.

[BlackPete]

I can't help noticing that he made an exemption for the IDF. Go figure.

[txshurricane]

If your citizenship gets stripped, come live in south Texas. Nobody notices or asks here, anyway.

[TheManEatingCow]

I can think of many an expat who would love to have his citizenship stripped in order to stop paying US taxes. The US has made it very difficult to renounce citizenship if it is being perceived as a tax dodge.

[J Arcane]

I can't think of a single politician I have ever loathed more in my life than Joe Lieberman.

[National Kato]

The Time Square attempted attack has led to a lot of craziness over the past several days. Sen. John McCain has stated his support for not reading Faisal Shahzad his Miranda Rights, despite being a naturalized citizen. Lawmakers today pushed back hard against New York Mayor Bloomberg's request that those citizens on the federal No Fly list be prevented from buying a gun. Meanwhile, we have some of the same Congressmen supporting stripping citizenship.

It's like the Consitution has become an a la carte menu.

[txshurricane]

It's like the Consitution has become an a la carte menu.
Amen to that, on both sides of the aisle.

[Hemalin]

Only foreign terrorist organizations? What about domestic terrorism?

[National Kato]

Only foreign terrorist organizations? What about domestic terrorism?

If the State Department considers them a terrorist organization, it would be included. I don't know of many within the U.S., however.

[DoctorFinger]

It's a stupid bill. Stripping someone of their citizenship is something which should never be taken lightly, and should never be for something as nebulous as "associating with a terrorist org." Prosecute someone for it? Sure, but that's far enough.

[J Arcane]

It's a stupid bill. Stripping someone of their citizenship is something which should never be taken lightly, and should never be for something as nebulous as "associating with a terrorist org." Prosecute someone for it? Sure, but that's far enough.
I'm not even sure you can, or should, be prosecuted for such a thing, unless it's at least proven you actually aided and abetted their committal of a crime.

I've "associated" with a number of past, current, and future criminals in my life no doubt, some of them known to me, some of them not at the time. Should I be guilty of any crime for that?

If the answer is "yes", then we've basically gone farther than McCarthyism even did.

[Generation ABXY]

It's a stupid bill.

A common thread among such knee-jerk legislation, I'd venture.

Stripping someone of their citizenship is something which should never be taken lightly, and should never be for something as nebulous as "associating with a terrorist org." Prosecute someone for it? Sure, but that's far enough.

That depends entirely on how you want to define "associating," I suppose. There are plenty of people who come in contact with questionable sorts without out ever knowing what they do or, at the very least, not helping them.

[Dorkandproudofit]

Aaand another point for Orwell. Seriously, this is not American. Fuck Joe Lieberman and any politician who even remotely supports this bill. Fuck them all to hell. This is America, not a fascist state.

[DoctorFinger]

BY "associating" I mean actively participating in or aiding terrorism-related activities. It has to be an affirmative action. Someone posting on a message board shouldn't be prosecuted, someone sending donations to Hamas or Hizballah should be.

[Generation ABXY]

Someone posting on a message board shouldn't be prosecuted, someone sending donations to Hamas or Hizballah should be.

Well, if they can prove you knowingly did it (that is, you weren't, say, just tithing or whatever and it got funneled to them), I suppose I could see my way to agreeing.

[DoctorFinger]

I don't mean one of the charities which are eventually proven to be funneling cash to them, I mean knowingly sending them donations.

[Deadend]

This is a terrible idea and allows for horrible things quickly.

Lets say the bill passes, now the KKK is on it, as they seek to terrorize people. Now all KKK members and supporters are not citizens. Next up.. Environmentalists as they terrorize the profits of Corporations.

I think this is the wrong way to go about finding a solution. I do think something should be done, but this is a backasswards and WRONG way of doing it.

[Hawkzombie]

I can't think of a single politician I have ever loathed more in my life than Joe Lieberman.

Lieberman is the true anti-christ. I knew the man was evil when he was against video games 10 years ago, and now we're seeing he truly is!!

[Ultima Thulian]

Oh goody, more unconstitutional legislation. America is on a roll.

[Ox]

Clearly unconstitutional under the precedent that Kato cites. Kato, you are infringing on my schtick and will be hearing from my attorney.

Not reading him his Miranda rights is clearly constitutional, however. The Miranda warnings are not constitutionally mandated but instead a prophylactic rule to prevent evidence from being presented in violation of the Fifth Amendment. No Fifth Amendment violation has taken place yet, obviously.

[National Kato]

Clearly unconstitutional under the precedent that Kato cites. Kato, you are infringing on my schtick and will be hearing from my attorney.

I plead the Fifth.

[ShivaX]

This seems like something the Tea Party should be wigging out about.

[DoctorFinger]

This seems like something the Tea Party should be wigging out about.
Why would a movement based around fiscal issues give a damn?

[ShivaX]

Why would a movement based around fiscal issues give a damn?

They're all about the government turning into a dictatorship and overreaching its bounds last I heard.

[Vigil80]

I'm sure there are a lot of people who disapprove who are also involved in the Tea Party. But if you're looking for the movement as a whole to take it up as part of their identity, it'll probably take longer than two days. The issue will probably need more exposure than it's likely to get, too. And the Doctor's also right that the movement's prima dictum revolves around government fiscal behavior.

Of course, if you were just looking for a way to take a shot at the Tea Party, well, enjoy.

[txshurricane]

Of course, if you were just looking for a way to take a shot at the Tea Party, well, enjoy.
Gee, imagine that.

Tea Party. It's the new Christianity.

[ShivaX]

Gee, imagine that.

Tea Party. It's the new Christianity.

Gee imagine that, you jumped on me for something I didn't do.

Forgive me for not knowing the platform of the Tea Party. Then again, last I looked they didn't fucknig know what it was either most of the time beyond "less taxes and less deficits".

[diablopath]

C'mon, guys. The Tea Party has its own thread.

[Vigil80]

Gee imagine that, you jumped on me for something I didn't do.

Forgive me for not knowing the platform of the Tea Party. Then again, last I looked they didn't fucknig know what it was either most of the time beyond "less taxes and less deficits".
Well if you hadn't before, you did in this very next post, so... :p

[ShivaX]

Well if you hadn't before, you did in this very next post, so... :p

Yeah I figured what the hell. I hate the Tea Party, but I wasn't taking a shot at them. But if I'm gonna "do the time" I might as well do the crime while I'm at it.

[rein]

C'mon, guys. The Tea Party has its own thread.
Is that anything like 2 girls 1 cup?


Has Senator Lieberman lost his freakin' mind?


JWn3ccLnj2o

[txshurricane]

Gee imagine that, you jumped on me for something I didn't do.

Forgive me for not knowing the platform of the Tea Party. Then again, last I looked they didn't fucknig know what it was either most of the time beyond "less taxes and less deficits".
I wasn't jumping on you per se, just commenting about this sudden unsubstantiated bias in general.

[Slack3r78]

Not reading him his Miranda rights is clearly constitutional, however. The Miranda warnings are not constitutionally mandated but instead a prophylactic rule to prevent evidence from being presented in violation of the Fifth Amendment. No Fifth Amendment violation has taken place yet, obviously.


This is what I find hilarious about the idiots crowing about people "not deserving to be read Miranda rights." The entire fucking point of Mirandizing people is so you don't put a future prosecution in jeopardy.

[MagGnome]

I can't think of a single politician I have ever loathed more in my life than Joe Lieberman.

I can think of several. Thankfully most of them are out of office. Sadly a few still remain, including Joe Lieberman.


Gee, imagine that.

Tea Party. It's the new Christianity.

Seriously, boo hoo. That's what I think every time someone makes a post like this. :p

It's not like conservatives ever made fun of the war protesters, after all. Or people protesting for environmental causes, etc.



Aaand another point for Orwell. Seriously, this is not American. Fuck Joe Lieberman and any politician who even remotely supports this bill. Fuck them all to hell. This is America, not a fascist state.

This bill is a drop in the bucket compared to bills like the Patriot Act.

[txshurricane]

Gee, imagine that.

Tea Party. It's the new Christianity.

Seriously, boo hoo. That's what I think every time someone makes a post like this. :p
I know the exact feeling. I have it when I see threads cursing a state when it knocks down a marriage bill. :)

Fair's fair, I suppose.

[MagGnome]

Wow, thanks for being a dick!

I'm happy to hear that people toying with my rights amuses you so.

[Ultima Thulian]

Mags, surely you can understand the underlying double standard that TX is trying to communicate here, right? No? Ok, I'll post in a multitude of snarky responses he could follow up with...

I'm happy to hear that people mocking my religion amuses you so.
I'm happy to hear that the government overtaxing me amuses you so.
I'm happy to hear that calling me a redneck for practicing my second amendment rights amuses you so.

And the list goes on. He's not necessarily making a direct jab at you, he's pointing out a blatant (and frankly, obvious) hypocrisy here. Some subjects on CoG are...how shall we say...more safe to mock than others. For example, one can make jabs at Christianity fairly easily here, usually with little blowback. Gawd help you if you so much as even suggest that gay marriage is anything less than superawesomeamazingtotallykawaii. See his point now? Don't let your emotions get the best of you. Makes you easy to troll.

Now back to our regularly scheduled programing.

[Vigil80]

In the words of Sam Beckett: oh boy.

[Generation ABXY]

While there is something of a double-standard around here – or, rather, the scales are sometimes unevenly tipped – it’s not really an apples-to-apples comparison here... at least, not from where I’m standing, Ultima Thulian. Yes, both groups are advocating for change, but in one case, a group feels we’re going in the wrong direction while the other is, quite arguably, being actively oppressed.

I’ll admit though, the comment that kicked it off and many that followed were all a little unnecessary.

[txshurricane]

Thank you, ABXY and Ultima, for the elaborations.

Mags, if you thought that for some reason that I was implying that life in the U.S. was fair for homosexuals, you thought wrong.

All I was pointing out is that your response was inappropriate by your own standards. Which is not to say that you aren't entitled to it; just don't be afraid to get slapped with the paddle when you overswing the oar. :)

[MagGnome]

I hate you all, and I'm going to take my toys and go home! :p

I apologize for my brash judgment. I'm a little high-strung right now, but I should know better.

[Ultima Thulian]

While there is something of a double-standard around here – or, rather, the scales are sometimes unevenly tipped – it’s not really an apples-to-apples comparison here... at least, not from where I’m standing, Ultima Thulian. Yes, both groups are advocating for change, but in one case, a group feels we’re going in the wrong direction while the other is, quite arguably, being actively oppressed.

I’ll admit though, the comment that kicked it off and many that followed were all a little unnecessary.

No arguments, I likely overstated what I was trying to convey. I loves me some CoG, and these kinda things exist happen everywhere, especially on the internet. As TX said, I was just simply pointing out that the pendulum swings both ways...or the oar hits the one it swings...or something. I, unlike TX, am not good with canoeing metaphors.

[Ultima Thulian]

I rarely do this, but...

I hate you all, and I'm going to take my oars and go home! :p

I apologize for my brash judgment. I'm a little high-strung right now, but I should know better.

Sorry, it's just that you don't get a canoeing metaphor everyday, and I'm gonna go ahead and enjoy it. :D

[ShivaX]

Theres a pretty big difference for someone giving you shit over something you can legally do (practice whatever religion you want), and people actively preventing you from doing something.

I think you're all missing that difference.

If I make fun of your religion, you can ignore me and keep practicing.
If I call you a redneck gun-lover, you can ignore me and keep owning guns.

If I want to get gay-married, I can't. Ignoring you isn't an option. If I could get gay married you'd be well within your rights to make fun of me for it if you wanted, but the point is - I can't (in most places).

The taxes thing is the only one thats remotely close (since you don't have the option of not paying), but thats also very subjective. Go to Europe and bitch about how high your taxes are and they'll likely laugh you out of wherever you are.

Not being able to have the protections of marriage isn't subjective, its a hard, cold fact. The only place it becomes subjective is if we're talking about marriage vs civil unions.

Huge, huge difference between someone saying something you don't like and someone actively stopping you from doing something.

[Ox]

The taxes thing is the only one thats remotely close (since you don't have the option of not paying), but thats also very subjective. Go to Europe and bitch about how high your taxes are and they'll likely laugh you out of wherever you are.

Not being able to have the protections of marriage isn't subjective, its a hard, cold fact. The only place it becomes subjective is if we're talking about marriage vs civil unions.
I have no idea what definition of "subjective" you're using here; the context makes it very confusing. I will point out that the rate of taxation seems to be a cold, hard fact. Whether that is an acceptable or unacceptable rate of taxation is subject to debate, but then, so is the propriety of gay marriage or any other political issue. I don't think you can distinguish between political issues based on their debatability.

But like I said, I don't really know what you mean by "subjective." So maybe you meant something completely different and I have misunderstood. In which case, I apologize.

[muddi900]

Lieberman is the true anti-christ. I knew the man was evil when he was against video games 10 years ago, and now we're seeing he truly is!!

I am only here as a casual observer, but that was 20 years ago. Yes, you are that old!

[ShivaX]

I have no idea what definition of "subjective" you're using here; the context makes it very confusing. I will point out that the rate of taxation seems to be a cold, hard fact. Whether that is an acceptable or unacceptable rate of taxation is subject to debate, but then, so is the propriety of gay marriage or any other political issue. I don't think you can distinguish between political issues based on their debatability.

But like I said, I don't really know what you mean by "subjective." So maybe you meant something completely different and I have misunderstood. In which case, I apologize.

Well everything is subjective if you push it far enough, but maybe it was a poor choice of words. "Blacks shouldn't be free men" can be subjective if you want to play semantics.

I was saying that someone making fun of you isn't the same thing as people actively preventing you from doing things. If someone came in and took your Bible and locked you in jail for being a Christian it would be a closer example. Only noones doing that, they're just making fun of you. I think most homosexuals would take being made fun of over not being able to be married. Then again, they get made fun of AND can't be married, so its pretty much a win/win in that case.

[Ox]

Well everything is subjective if you push it far enough, but maybe it was a poor choice of words. "Blacks shouldn't be free men" can be subjective if you want to play semantics.
I'm not sure why you have to dismissively claim I'm 'playing with semantics.' You used a word in a context where I couldn't tell what you meant. I asked you to explain yourself so I could figure out what you were saying, I didn't nitpick your word choice.

I was saying that someone making fun of you isn't the same thing as people actively preventing you from doing things. If someone came in and took your Bible and locked you in jail for being a Christian it would be a closer example. Only noones doing that, they're just making fun of you. I think most homosexuals would take being made fun of over not being able to be married.
Let's say I'm a homosexual who has no desire to get married but hates being made fun of. Does that mean making fun of me is worse than denying me the right to get married? I think so, but do you?

[J Arcane]

Mags, surely you can understand the underlying double standard that TX is trying to communicate here, right? No? Ok, I'll post in a multitude of snarky responses he could follow up with...

I'm happy to hear that people mocking my religion amuses you so.
I'm happy to hear that the government overtaxing me amuses you so.
I'm happy to hear that calling me a redneck for practicing my second amendment rights amuses you so.

And the list goes on. He's not necessarily making a direct jab at you, he's pointing out a blatant (and frankly, obvious) hypocrisy here. Some subjects on CoG are...how shall we say...more safe to mock than others. For example, one can make jabs at Christianity fairly easily here, usually with little blowback. Gawd help you if you so much as even suggest that gay marriage is anything less than superawesomeamazingtotallykawaii. See his point now? Don't let your emotions get the best of you. Makes you easy to troll.

Now back to our regularly scheduled programing.
I'd like to read the version of these forums you do.

I don't see it. We have as many conservative as liberal posters here, and I see plenty of rhetoric slung from both sides.

[Ultima Thulian]

I'd like to read the version of these forums you do.

I don't see it. We have as many conservative as liberal posters here, and I see plenty of rhetoric slung from both sides.

I agree. As I said, I overstated what I was trying to say a bit. I don't think it's quite as even-steven as you say, but it's certainly not as split as I made it out to be either.

So in short: my bad.

[ShivaX]

I'm not sure why you have to dismissively claim I'm 'playing with semantics.' You used a word in a context where I couldn't tell what you meant. I asked you to explain yourself so I could figure out what you were saying, I didn't nitpick your word choice.

Fair enough.

Let's say I'm a homosexual who has no desire to get married but hates being made fun of. Does that mean making fun of me is worse than denying me the right to get married? I think so, but do you?

No. Making fun of you for being gay is shitty, but whatever. Denying you rights for being gay is much worse. Everyone can be made fun of or ridiculed by people. Its not illegal to bust out the N-bomb, but it is illegal to deny a black man his rights.

[Ink Asylum]

Let's say I'm a homosexual who has no desire to get married but hates being made fun of. Does that mean making fun of me is worse than denying me the right to get married? I think so, but do you?

I'd hope, even if you don't want to get married, that you'd be more offended by having a right denied to you on the basis of your sexuality than if you'd been insulted. Even if it's a right you'd never use but other people in your minority group would.

I have no desire to have kids but if someone passed a law saying that just white people can't have kids I'd still be upset, more-so than if someone insulted me.

Many people are upset by the denial of civil rights, even if they are not personally affected. Insults, to me or anyone, don't come close to that level of injustice.

[MagGnome]

I rarely do this, but...

Sorry, it's just that you don't get a canoeing metaphor everyday, and I'm gonna go ahead and enjoy it. :D

I'm going to row right out of this thread. :p

[MagGnome]

I'd hope, even if you don't want to get married, that you'd be more offended by having a right denied to you on the basis of your sexuality than if you'd been insulted. Even if it's a right you'd never use but other people in your minority group would.

I have no desire to have kids but if someone passed a law saying that just white people can't have kids I'd still be upset, more-so than if someone insulted me.

Many people are upset by the denial of civil rights, even if they are not personally affected. Insults, to me or anyone, don't come close to that level of injustice.

This is exactly how I feel. I have little to no desire to get married, but that doesn't mean that it's okay that I don't have the option to do so.

Before someone decides to be "smart", I will point out the obvious - I can legally marry a woman. I'm well aware of this.

[Vigil80]

Depends on what your definition of "a lot" is. Or "conservative" too, I suppose. I only really count three or four on a given topic.

It probably just seems like a lot because Ox has the deliberation acumen of 13 normal P&R hounds. :p

[J Arcane]

Depends on what your definition of "a lot" is. Or "conservative" too, I suppose. I only really count three or four on a given topic.

It probably just seems like a lot because Ox has the deliberation acumen of 13 normal P&R hounds. :p
Given that I generally only count maybe three or four active on the left in a given topic, I'd say the balance comes out pretty even in my view.

It's not like there's many of us bothering with P&R.

[Generation ABXY]

Time for a roll call? :D

[txshurricane]

Oh, whoa, it's illegal to have a homosexual relationship now?

Or are you saying that every civilized country in the world recognizes marriage?

I don't know, maybe I'm getting this whole "rights" and "qualifiers" thing wrong. Maybe I should be drawing Welfare, going to college on a full ride scholarship, and using CHiPs for my root canal.

:)

[ShivaX]

Or are you saying that every civilized country in the world recognizes marriage?



Countries That Recognize Gay Marriage


Netherlands - the first country to grant gay marriage on April 1, 2001.

Belgium - the second country to grant gay marriage on Jan 30, 2003.

Canada - the third country to grant gay marriage on June 28, 2005

Spain - the fourth country to grant gay marriage on July 3, 2005.

South Africa - the fifth country to grant gay marriage on Nov 30, 2006.

Norway - the sixth country to grant gay marriage on May 11, 2008.

Sweden - the seventh country to grant gay marriage on May 1, 2009.

Countries That Allow Same-Sex Domestic Partnerships or Civil Unions



Croatia
Civil partnerships for same-sex couples have been granted since 2003.

Denmark
Legal civil partnerships have been allowed since 1989.

Finland
Has offered registered partnership benefits since September 2001.

France
Pacte Civil de Solidarité" (PACS), or "Civil Solidarity Pacts," were instituted in France on November 9, 1999.

Germany
Gay couples can register as "Life Partnerships," granting lesser financial and pension benefits than marriage.

Hungary
Gay couples have been protected under common-law marriages since 1995; however they are not eligible for legal marriage.

Iceland
Since 1996, gay Icelanders have been protected under registered partnerships.

Luxembourg
Civil partnership legislation modeled after France's PACS were introduced in Luxembourg in 2004.

Mexico
Same sex civil unions were legalized in Mexico City in November 2006 and in the state of Coahuila on January of 2007, essentially making civil unions legal in all of Mexico (by law, each Mexican state must recognize the laws granted to individuals of the other states).

New Zealand
In December, 2004, New Zealand enacted legislation recognizing same-sex civil unions.

Norway
Since 1996, gay Norwegians have been protected under registered partnerships.

Portugal
Same-sex partners have the same rights as opposite-sex partners in common law marriage.

Sweden
Swedish same-sex couples have been able to register under domestic partnership laws since 1995.

Switzerland
Same-sex couples are given limited legal benefits with civil recognition.

United Kingdom
Domestic partners can register under the Civil Partnership Act. This legislation took affect in December 5, 2005 giving registered same-sex couples all of the rights, privileges and responsibilities of married heterosexual couples. The Civil Partnership Act applies across all of England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.


Yeah noone does it.

[MagGnome]

Yep, once again the US is behind when it comes to civil rights. This is nothing new, unfortunately.

[National Kato]

On topic:

On Meet The Press, Attorney General Eric Holder says he wants Congress to modify Miranda. (http://crooksandliars.com/node/36929)

HOLDER: That's clearly the case. He-- was given his Miranda warnings-- after the public safety exception questioning-- was finished. And he has talked to us. And he continues to talk to us.

GREGORY: But would you like interrogators to have more flexibility?

HOLDER: exception was really based on a robbery that occurred-- back in the '80s and-- something to do with a supermarket. We're now dealing with international terrorism. And I think that we have to think about-- perhaps modifying-- the rules that-- interrogators have. And somehow coming up with something that is flexible and is more consistent with the threat that we now face.

GREGORY: So, let me-- let me unpack that a little bit. What you'd like to see happen is that Congress would pass a law that would say to judges, "Hey, look, in this environment, if we extract information that could be valuable intelligence about another terror plot, about who they're involved in. Whether they're connected to the Pakistani Taliban. We want to get all that without them lawyering up and still be able to use that against them in a court of law." And you need more flexibility to do that, you think?

HOLDER: Yeah, we certainly need more flexibility. And we want the public safety exception to be consistent with-- the public safety concerns that we now have in the 21st Century, as opposed to the public safety concerns that we had back in the 1980s.

GREGORY: So, that's news. I mean, that's an important development. Would you work with Congress to try to get that new law passed?

HOLDER: Yeah, we want to work with Congress to come up with a way in which we make our public safety exception more flexible. And again, more consistent with the threat-- that we face. And yes, this is in fact the big news. This is a proposal that-- we're gonna be making and that we want to work-- with Congress about.

GREGORY: So, a new priority for the administration.

HOLDER: It is a new priority.I really do not agree with this. I understand Democrats are constantly trying to fit the 'tough on terror' mold in order to combat Republican talking points, but Shahzad is an American citizen. We read McVeigh his Miranda rights. Why are we so afraid of our own system of justice? Besides, after being read his rights, Shahzad kept talking.

[Ultima Thulian]

Yep, once again the US is behind when it comes to civil rights. This is nothing new, unfortunately.

I'd argue that's a bit harsh and even somewhat factually inaccurate, but to each his own. I can understand where you're comin' from, so I won't argue.

[Ultima Thulian]

I really do not agree with this. I understand Democrats are constantly trying to fit the 'tough on terror' mold in order to combat Republican talking points, but Shahzad is an American citizen. We read McVeigh his Miranda rights. Why are we so afraid of our own system of justice? Besides, after being read his rights, Shahzad kept talking.

Agreed. As some one previously stated, the whole point of Miranda rights is to prevent "lawyering" in the first place.

But I bet a dollar and a donut Americans will swallow this shit whole and ask for seconds. Lately, we've been trading off civil liberties for the illusion of safety with relatively little fuss.

[National Kato]

On FOX News Sunday, Chris Wallace had Lieberman and Rep. Peter King (R-NY) on to talk some more about the failed Times Square bombing and Lieberman's bill (http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/node/36938):WALLACE: Senator Lieberman, you just heard Mr. Brennan, the White House counterterrorism adviser. Your reaction to his discussion of the way that the case of the Times Square bomber was handled?

LIEBERMAN: Well, after the fact of the attempted bombing attack last Saturday night, the reaction was not just excellent, it was almost miraculous -- 53 hours and we've apprehended him. Great cooperation. Just the kind of work that we all hoped would happen when we set up the Department of Homeland Security post-9/11.

But the fact is that we were lucky. We did not prevent the attempted attack. And that's the -- in some sense, the fourth break through our defenses. Last spring in Arkansas, Hasan, the Detroit bomber and this one.

Look, we're in a big open society. And if people are fanatical enough to put their own lives on the line -- "I want to kill other innocent human beings" -- it's hard to stop them every time, but that has to be our goal. So I'd say in terms of prevention, the system failed.

And what we've got to do now is to go back, put all the facts together and look at every point. Was there something the U.S. government, our allies, could have done to stop Faisal Shahzad before he parked that car in Times Square?
Is it really feasible to expect to stop these attempts before they happen? Sure, we can set that as our goal, but I don't believe an attempt equals failure. There's just too many people, with individual intentions, to prevent any further attempts.

Lieberman and Wallace also had an interesting exchange about the 'Terrorist Expatriation Act:'WALLACE: ... came up with an idea this week, a controversial idea -- strip the U.S. citizenship from any American citizen who provides material evidence to a foreign terror group.

Question: What about the presumption of innocence? How can you strip the citizenship before someone is convicted of a crime?

LIEBERMAN: Well, the presumption of innocence remains. In other words, this is a process. You know, I was surprised at how controversial the recommendation was, frankly.

And I think, in part, it was because people don't know that there's a 1940 statute amended several times since that says if you're an American citizen and you join the military of a country that's at war with us, it's basis for the State Department to begin a process to revoke your citizenship. That's been upheld by the Supreme Court.

I offered this proposal because we've seen a pattern now. Al Qaida and the other terrorist groups are changing their mode of operating. And increasingly, they're looking for American citizens to carry out these plots, and one of the reasons is the passport that lets them -- like Shahzad -- come in and out of the country.

So the way this works, Chris -- the State Department decides based on intelligence and other factors -- or open statements -- Awlaki, the radical cleric in Yemen, is an American citizen. If he gets captured, do I want him read -- does anybody want him read his Miranda rights? No.

So I say the State Department ought to be able to begin a process, and these people can be represented. Look, an American citizen takes an oath to defend and protect the Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic. If you join a foreign terrorist organization as designated by the State Department, which is what my amendment says, you violated that oath. You have no more right to be an American citizen.

WALLACE: But you know, Senator, that -- there was a 1940 law, but there were also Supreme Court rulings in 1967 and 1980, and they said if an American joins a foreign army, a formal army, that's fighting against the U.S., he still doesn't give up his citizenship unless he voluntarily chooses to do so.

LIEBERMAN: But in those cases, Chris, as I read them, they also said that action equals intent -- in other words, you can assume somebody's intention by their actions, by the very fact that they've taken up arms against the United States of America. The main change...

WALLACE: Well, in those cases they said joining the army wasn't enough. They had to voluntarily waive their citizenship.

LIEBERMAN: Well, but it wasn't that you had to come forward and say, "I'm no longer an American citizen." Incidentally, if any of these terrorists want to do that, they can stop at the local American consul's office and just say they no longer want to be citizens. People actually do that.

But the passport is part of a tool that the terrorist groups have now. It's probably the main reason why the terrorists in Pakistan wanted to use Shahzad. He had an American passport. We've got to stop that.


It doesn't seem like Lieberman understands what he's talking about in regards to the 1940 statute and subsequent Supreme Court rulings.

[Ox]

I really do not agree with this. I understand Democrats are constantly trying to fit the 'tough on terror' mold in order to combat Republican talking points, but Shahzad is an American citizen. We read McVeigh his Miranda rights. Why are we so afraid of our own system of justice?
Question: are the Miranda warnings an essential part of liberty? Are they an essential part of the American system of justice? Or are they purely procedural rules that could in principle be supplanted by something better?

Besides, after being read his rights, Shahzad kept talking.

Agreed. As some one previously stated, the whole point of Miranda rights is to prevent "lawyering" in the first place.
This is something I've always found interesting. People defend the Miranda warnings by pointing out that suspects often waive their rights.

This is certainly true, and it mitigates the negative consequences of the warnings in some cases. But doesn't that also suggest the warnings are of little importance? After all, if these rights were really so terribly important, we wouldn't be enthusiastic when people waived them to their own detriment.

Lately, we've been trading off civil liberties for the illusion of safety with relatively little fuss.
I don't know what 'relatively' means to you, but given the number of very vocal people protesting even the most minor or theoretical incursions on liberty, I would not describe the situation as 'relatively little fuss.' I guess we have different expectations.

[National Kato]

Question: are the Miranda warnings an essential part of liberty? Are they an essential part of the American system of justice? Or are they purely procedural rules that could in principle be supplanted by something better?

I believe they are an integral part of the American system of justice, yes. U.S. citizens have legal rights and the Miranda warning is a method by which some of those rights are explained, in case a citizen is unaware or otherwise impaired.

This is something I've always found interesting. People defend the Miranda warnings by pointing out that suspects often waive their rights...But doesn't that also suggest the warnings are of little importance? After all, if these rights were really so terribly important, we wouldn't be enthusiastic when people waived them to their own detriment.I only mentioned that Shahzad had waived his rights because Lieberman and McCain and others who decry Mirandizing these suspects usually do so while stating that once someone is read their rights, they 'lawyer up' and shut up, apparently permanently preventing any progress in the case from that point on. Which, of course, isn't true.

Now, as more information comes out about Shahzad and his bumbling actions before and after the attempt, it's quite likely he waived his rights simply because he was an idiot. However, as a citizen of this country, he still deserves the warning and his rights, intelligence notwithstanding.

[MagGnome]

Agreed. As some one previously stated, the whole point of Miranda rights is to prevent "lawyering" in the first place.

But I bet a dollar and a donut Americans will swallow this shit whole and ask for seconds. Lately, we've been trading off civil liberties for the illusion of safety with relatively little fuss.

I agree. It's sad how quickly many Americans are willing to give up liberty for the illusion of safety.

[Ultima Thulian]

This is something I've always found interesting. People defend the Miranda warnings by pointing out that suspects often waive their rights.

This is certainly true, and it mitigates the negative consequences of the warnings in some cases. But doesn't that also suggest the warnings are of little importance? After all, if these rights were really so terribly important, we wouldn't be enthusiastic when people waived them to their own detriment.


I don't know what 'relatively' means to you, but given the number of very vocal people protesting even the most minor or theoretical incursions on liberty, I would not describe the situation as 'relatively little fuss.' I guess we have different expectations.

Mayhap on your first point, but I do believe in a slippery slope principle. And I still don't see much logic in getting rid of Miranda to begin with.

And people bitch all the time. They do little in actuality though, and that to me equals "relatively little fuss." Congress has over a 95% incumbency rate. But boy howdy, all you ever hear is how politicians suck. Yea? So do the people. This country has already proven to be so physically lethargic that many in the fed and state governments are suggesting and enacting ridiculous laws in an awkward attempt to curb diabetes and the monetary problems that fat unhealthy people bring. And we are apparently so intellectually lethargic we'll complain that nothing changes and yet seem to not get the fact we vote the same assholes over and over again. And that's just one example.

[Ox]

I believe they are an integral part of the American system of justice, yes. U.S. citizens have legal rights and the Miranda warning is a method by which some of those rights are explained, in case a citizen is unaware or otherwise impaired.
Well, yes, the Miranda warnings are a routine practice in the American justice system. But quite frequently U.S. citizens are not read their Miranda rights. The courts have held that your rights are not violated simply because police failed to read you your rights when you were arrested. If they are an integral part of the system of justice, the justice system sure does seem to be awfully cavalier about whether or not they are required.

I only mentioned that Shahzad had waived his rights because Lieberman and McCain and others who decry Mirandizing these suspects usually do so while stating that once someone is read their rights, they 'lawyer up' and shut up, apparently permanently preventing any progress in the case from that point on. Which, of course, isn't true.
It's not always true. People do sometimes invoke their right to remain silent.

Now, as more information comes out about Shahzad and his bumbling actions before and after the attempt, it's quite likely he waived his rights simply because he was an idiot. However, as a citizen of this country, he still deserves the warning and his rights, intelligence notwithstanding.
This is what I find particularly interesting. The purpose of the warnings is to put an arrestee on notice of his rights. We don't want people confessing to crimes just because they are too ignorant to know better. But you seem to be very relaxed about a suspect being too foolish to know better. Why don't we have rules to protect the foolish as well as the ignorant?

My problem with Miranda is that it makes no sense to me. The class of people who are (a) too ignorant to know they have the right to shut up but (b) wise enough to invoke that right if informed of it, seems to be very close to nonexistent. The Miranda warnings do alert suspects that maybe the cop is not your friend; but nobody says an American has a right to be alerted to the danger. It's a solution looking for a problem.

I do think we should have a policy of not giving the Miranda warnings to terrorism suspects. As I pointed out, this is already perfectly legal. And while giving the Miranda warnings does not always cause a suspect to clam up, that does happen a nontrivial fraction of the time. The somewhat enhanced possibility of getting useful information easily trumps whatever interest we have in complying with a purely prophylactic and rather silly rule.
Mayhap on your first point, but I do believe in a slippery slope principle. And I still don't see much logic in getting rid of Miranda to begin with.
I suppose it's a matter of perspective, but I don't think going back to the way the Fifth Amendment worked for the first 177 years of its existence is a 'slippery slope' about which we need lose sleep.

[National Kato]

It's not always true. People do sometimes invoke their right to remain silent.

Yes, I know. I was referring to the fact that invoking your rights does not always prevent any further progress in building the case. If it did, cases would never get anywhere. But to hear opponents of the Miranda warning speak, you'd think that by simply invoking your rights the case is thrown out the window and you're a free man because, gosh, you now have access to a lawyer! That, of course, isn't true.

But you seem to be very relaxed about a suspect being too foolish to know better. Why don't we have rules to protect the foolish as well as the ignorant?Maybe I'm not communicating my points well because you're misunderstanding. Miranda most certainly protects the foolish and the ignorant. I'm more and more relaxed about Shahzad as information is released. The young man, apparently, isn't the brightest terrorist we've encountered. He loses his escape vehicle keys, his apartment keys...his bomb-making skills are a failure. I mean, he wasn't exactly a mastermind in execution.

I suppose it's a matter of perspective, but I don't think going back to the way the Fifth Amendment worked for the first 177 years of its existence is a 'slippery slope' about which we need lose sleep.My main concern is for the way this national debate is moving: removing citizenship by association and suspending procedural rules/rights (which may lead to removing other rights in the future) just because we feel vulnerable to the unpredictability of individuals.

Maybe it comes off as chest-thumping, but I don't see America as a country that needs to be afraid.

[Ultima Thulian]

My main concern is for the way this national debate is moving: removing citizenship by association and suspending procedural rules/rights (which may lead to removing other rights in the future) just because we feel vulnerable to the unpredictability of individuals.

Maybe it comes off as chest-thumping, but I don't see America as a country that needs to be afraid.

Here here. My feelings exactly.

[BlackPete]

I do think we should have a policy of not giving the Miranda warnings to terrorism suspects. As I pointed out, this is already perfectly legal. And while giving the Miranda warnings does not always cause a suspect to clam up, that does happen a nontrivial fraction of the time. The somewhat enhanced possibility of getting useful information easily trumps whatever interest we have in complying with a purely prophylactic and rather silly rule.

Just a quick note: By not reading Miranda to a suspect, you are hoping the suspect doesn't know enough about his rights so he can invoke them; which makes your job (as a cop or a prosecutor) easier, and you can keep the suspect in interrogation longer.

I find very little comfort in this thought unless you completely trust that all cops and prosecutors will be 100% fair and objective in their jobs.

[MagGnome]

I find very little comfort in this thought unless you completely trust that all cops and prosecutors will be 100% fair and objective in their jobs.

Of course!

Why wouldn't they be? :p

[ShivaX]

Of course!

Why wouldn't they be? :p

Yeah, cops would never do anything shady (http://www.villagevoice.com/2010-05-04/news/the-nypd-tapes-inside-bed-stuy-s-81st-precinct).

Oh and...
Again, it is said, that aliens not being parties to the Constitution, the rights and privileges which it secures cannot be at all claimed by them.

To this reasoning, also, it might be answered, that although aliens are not parties to the Constitution, it does not follow that the Constitution has vested in Congress an absolute power over them. The parties to the Constitution may have granted, or retained, or modified the power over aliens, without regard to that particular consideration.

But a more direct reply is, that it does not follow, because aliens are not parties to the Constitution, as citizens are parties to it, that whilst they actually conform to it, they have no right to its protection. Aliens are not more parties to the laws, than they are parties to the Constitution; yet, it will not be disputed, that as they owe, on one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled in return to their protection and advantage.

If aliens had no rights under the Constitution, they might not only be banished, but even capitally punished, without a jury or the other incidents to a fair trial. But so far has a contrary principle been carried, in every part of the United States, that except on charges of treason, an alien has, besides all the common privileges, the special one of being tried by a jury, of which one-half may be also aliens.

[Ox]

My main concern is for the way this national debate is moving: removing citizenship by association and suspending procedural rules/rights (which may lead to removing other rights in the future) just because we feel vulnerable to the unpredictability of individuals.

Maybe it comes off as chest-thumping, but I don't see America as a country that needs to be afraid.
It comes off as revealing more about your personal life than anything else.

I don't usually discuss my family, but I will do so (briefly) now. I am the oldest of five siblings. There is a large age spread: while I turn 30 later this month, my two youngest sisters are 10 and 3. They are, as girls of that age are apt to be, very cute. Due to our large age gap, it is natural that I feel not only fraternal affection for them, but somewhat avuncular and even perhaps slightly more than that.

All four of my siblings live on the island of Manhattan, near the Theater District and a mile or two from Times Square. I live in Philadelphia. Were a very bad terrorist attack to happen in New York, it is entirely conceivable that my siblings would be among the casualties. I would be unharmed. This would be a highly undesirable scenario, on both counts.

I think it's easy for us, as young people, to presume those who obsess over terrorism do so our of fear for their own safety. In fact, I suspect they do so out of fear of being the one who is not harmed. This, in part, might help explain the well-documented phenomenon of people becoming more right-wing as they age.

Just a quick note: By not reading Miranda to a suspect, you are hoping the suspect doesn't know enough about his rights so he can invoke them; which makes your job (as a cop or a prosecutor) easier, and you can keep the suspect in interrogation longer.
As I said, this is not the case; you are hoping the suspect does not invoke those rights, but there is no reason to suspect there is anyone in the Western world who is not familiar with the Miranda warnings.

I find very little comfort in this thought unless you completely trust that all cops and prosecutors will be 100% fair and objective in their jobs.
Being as polite as I possibly can, this is a really silly argument. How on Earth are mandatory Miranda warnings supposed to deter police misconduct? If an officer is willing to coerce you into confessing to a crime you did not commit, it's hardly a stretch to say he's going to deny doing so on the stand. What, do you think there used to be a bunch of cops who went into court and said, "Then, Your Honor, I beat the defendant over there in the face with a fax machine. After I did that for an hour or so, he opened right up!"

No, cops say they read the Miranda warnings. The only ones who admit they failed to read the warnings are the inveterately honest ones we don't have to worry about anyway. I've seen dozens of criminal defendants claim the cop is lying and he never read the warnings. I have my own suspicions about the veracity of some of those claims, but I can say I have never seen a judge give the slightest credence to a suspect over an officer on that issue.

The Miranda warnings were created by the Supreme Court to guard against people waiving their rights ignorantly, something which probably didn't happen in 1966 and certainly doesn't happen anymore. They were not created to prevent police misconduct, because even the Warren Court was a little more practical-minded than that.

But let's explore exactly what the Miranda warnings do. We've established, I think, that they don't prevent police misconduct and were never intended to do so. They are designed to protect the foolish or ignorant from themselves. But if that's our goal, why pussyfoot around by merely mentioning the suspect's rights? Some defense attorneys have argued that the Miranda warnings should stress that clamming up and getting an attorney is advisable -- right now, suspects often say, "Maybe I should get a lawyer," and then the cops (usually falsely) tell him lawyers are a bad idea and he'll be better off just confessing. Why is this permissible?

[National Kato]

I think it's easy for us, as young people, to presume those who obsess over terrorism do so our of fear for their own safety. In fact, I suspect they do so out of fear of being the one who is not harmed. This, in part, might help explain the well-documented phenomenon of people becoming more right-wing as they age.

I have no doubt that is true, Ox, with exceptions and variations per individual.

At 36, I have in my life a wonderful woman, her two teenage children, my immediate family, her immediate and extended family - and I love them all dearly. I would be completely wrecked if any of them were victims of an attack. But that doesn't change my feelings on this particular matter. I just feel that we don't have to change much of what makes this country great because we're suddenly a bit more vulnerable than we've been.

Now, I'm six years older than you but find myself with a more 'left-wing' perspective on this issue. I wouldn't say I have less loved ones to be concerned about or that I worry about them any less than you do. Perhaps it's my family's lengthy military service background...or my own service background...or maybe it's a lifetime of patriotic cinema and narratives that shape my beliefs. Maybe it's a naive belief in the 'beacon' of America that is, in part, based upon the rights, protections, and steadfast resiliance and freedom of its citizens. I find that with each Congressman that talks about how we have to make these changes in order to protect our way of life against this incredible menace, I wonder what way of life we're protecting. Is it merely the comfortable lifestyle of 24-hour, get-whatever-you-want-now security? Or is it something more integral to the fabric of this nation?

Why don't we spit in the enemy's face by remaining as we are? Allow Shahzad an attorney, try him in our coveted legal system as the American citizen he is, stop indefinitely holding enemy combatants, stop breaking the Geneva Convention standards...essentially, why don't we show the enemy exactly why we're a beacon and why we'll always win? Why do we have to sacrifice liberty for security?

[MagGnome]

Why don't we spit in the enemy's face by remaining as we are? Allow Shahzad an attorney, try him in our coveted legal system as the American citizen he is, stop indefinitely holding enemy combatants, stop breaking the Geneva Convention standards...essentially, why don't we show the enemy exactly why we're a beacon and why we'll always win? Why do we have to sacrifice liberty for security?

Here here! These breaches of justice make me ill.

[Ox]

Why don't we spit in the enemy's face by remaining as we are? Allow Shahzad an attorney, try him in our coveted legal system as the American citizen he is, stop indefinitely holding enemy combatants, stop breaking the Geneva Convention standards...essentially, why don't we show the enemy exactly why we're a beacon and why we'll always win? Why do we have to sacrifice liberty for security?
Okay, there are several responses I'd like to make to this.

1. This is the second time you have conflated my argument regarding the prophylactic Miranda warnings with different arguments made by different people about different things. Just as I did not say that Miranda warnings always terminate an interrogation, I did not say we should indefinitely hold enemy combatants/deny him a trial/break the Geneva Convention. You are attacking a strawman. I'm not particularly offended because I don't think you're doing it deliberately. But there's a reason I don't say, "Republican Senator X speaks for me." I don't necessarily agree with every Republican on every issue, and even on the issues I do agree with them on, I often think they present ineffectual or flawed arguments for those political stances. Thus, I reserve for myself the privilege of making those arguments I wish to make.

2. What's ironic about your complaint is that -- for most of the non-Miranda issues you cite -- you are the one who wishes to change our 'coveted legal system', not I (and not Republican Senator X). We have always routinely excluded wartime enemies from our civilian courtrooms, we have always had indefinite detention during wartime, we have always used our current interpretation of the Geneva Conventions. To the extent that you and I disagree about how we should approach these issues, I suspect it's at least as much due to our disagreements about history as it is our disagreements about politics.

3. Obviously we have to sacrifice liberty for security, and if you can't agree to that, you're living in a fantasy. Look at the Fourth Amendment for a classic example of weighing liberty against security: the government may never search or seize you... unless that search or seizure is reasonable, or if the search or seizure is backed by a warrant. Are you going to pretend the reasonableness test doesn't balance security and liberty interests against each other? Are you going to pretend the liberty interests are never found less compelling than the security interests? Tying back to the previous point, you have a conception of the history of American law and practice that is grotesquely at odds with reality. It is strange indeed for you to speak so glowingly of a history and system you apparently do not understand.

4. Obviously the current situation is somewhat different from that confronting previous generations. I need hardly list the various ways in which modern terrorism is both more threatening and more insidious than crimes in the past. Over time, our legal system has changed to respond to new issues and new threats: look, for example, at the Miranda warnings themselves, which became necessary only after modern police forces came into existence. If you want to complain that the old ways are always and forever the best ways, that is fine -- we'll go back to no exclusionary rule, the Bill of Rights only applies to federal officials, and eliminate the vast majority of the right to appeal a conviction. Oh, we'll also criminalize seditious speech again, too.

I doubt you want that. Heck, I don't want that. But if you want to retain the changes to the American legal system that you like, you have to come up with a somewhat more sophisticated intellectual framework than, "Why don't we spit in the enemy's face by remaining as we are?" You have no desire to remain as we are, or as we were. And the fact that this argument is made by so many, including thinking people such as yourself, indicates the paucity of informed debate on these issues.

[National Kato]

1. This is the second time you have conflated my argument regarding the prophylactic Miranda warnings with different arguments made by different people about different things. Just as I did not say that Miranda warnings always terminate an interrogation, I did not say we should indefinitely hold enemy combatants/deny him a trial/break the Geneva Convention.

Ox, when I say 'opponents of Miranda' I'm not referring to you directly, unless you do support and agree with the talking heads that make such statements. Please don't make personal that which is not. I respond to you directly because you respond to me - and only in your last post did you make it about personal family, which I respect, but then also expressed my thoughts and disagreements about your assumption about me and my family. Rest assured you can make whatever arguments you wish.

2. What's ironic about your complaint is that -- for most of the non-Miranda issues you cite -- you are the one who wishes to change our 'coveted legal system', not I (and not Republican Senator X). We have always routinely excluded wartime enemies from our civilian courtrooms, we have always had indefinite detention during wartime, we have always used our current interpretation of the Geneva Conventions. To the extent that you and I disagree about how we should approach these issues, I suspect it's at least as much due to our disagreements about history as it is our disagreements about politics.It very well may be, but I'm not alone in my concern and in noticing that changes are being made. History shows we've always had the ability to do these things under specific circumstances. Except now, we're adding additional circumstances, amending those existing laws, and loosening the requirements as we see fit. I mean, you honestly believe we've always waterboarded? It's this erosion born of fear that concerns me...it's the seemingly case-by-case basis upon which we decide, "This citizen does not get a lawyer; this citizen is no longer a citizen; this person we hold without charge; this person we torture." It's happening and it's occurring in the realms of personal liberty, privacy, and basic human rights.

3. Obviously we have to sacrifice liberty for security, and if you can't agree to that, you're living in a fantasy...Are you going to pretend the reasonableness test doesn't balance security and liberty interests against each other? Are you going to pretend the liberty interests are never found less compelling than the security interests?...It is strange indeed for you to speak so glowingly of a history and system you apparently do not understand.There's a reasonableness test that can be disputed and challenged in a court of law, and there's an expulsion of one's citizenship upon the decision of a department that may very well be unchallengeable due to national security and the use of secret evidence. One results in court costs, fines, and possible imprisonment for a crime; the other results in a stateless person. Now, I understand the burden of proof is on the State, but it still concerns me.

4. ...If you want to complain that the old ways are always and forever the best ways, that is fine -- we'll go back to no exclusionary rule, the Bill of Rights only applies to federal officials, and eliminate the vast majority of the right to appeal a conviction. Oh, we'll also criminalize seditious speech again, too.There's going back and there's going back, Ox. I think you understand which I meant. I don't think my opinion is that difficult to understand, regardless of whether you agree or not.

You have no desire to remain as we are, or as we were. And the fact that this argument is made by so many, including thinking people such as yourself, indicates the paucity of informed debate on these issues.I do indeed wish to remain, in many ways, as we are or were. You don't have to throw the baby out with the bathwater, Ox. If I believe we do not have to amend FISA or how we conform to Geneva guidelines or how we deal with American citizens who terrorize, it does not mean I think we need to revert to a time when there were less rights. As to my 'spit in the face' statement, I didn't know I was supposed to be presenting a sophisticated intellectual framework. You brought the topic to a personal level and I was responding with personal emotions.

[ShivaX]

You know whos actually opposed to this bill?

Glenn Beck.

I almost wept when I agreed with Glenn. Then he, thankfully, went off into Glenn land and his insanity. Basically Glenn is terrified it will be used against him when Obama's Reich comes to power and destroys America.

[Ox]

Actually, Beck makes a good argument there. One of the best reasons for having more protections for citizens than non-citizens is that the temptation to misuse power against your political opponents is naturally very much greater in the case of citizens. I don't particularly think the Obama Administration is likely to charge Glenn Beck is terrorism, but it's hardly implausible that they fantasize about it on occasion. Heck, half the country gets hard-ons thinking about that. This is why, for example, the Constitution defines the crime of treason and places a heavy evidentiary burden on the government to prove it: history demonstrates even relatively benign leaders often have difficulty ignoring their own interests when exercising the police power.

[MagGnome]

George W Bush and his administration were certainly a good example of that. They infiltrated a number of activist groups (environmental, human rights, animal rights, etc.) and placed many of them on watch lists. If that's not the government overreaching, then I don't know what is.

[ShivaX]

Actually, Beck makes a good argument there. One of the best reasons for having more protections for citizens than non-citizens is that the temptation to misuse power against your political opponents is naturally very much greater in the case of citizens. I don't particularly think the Obama Administration is likely to charge Glenn Beck is terrorism, but it's hardly implausible that they fantasize about it on occasion. Heck, half the country gets hard-ons thinking about that. This is why, for example, the Constitution defines the crime of treason and places a heavy evidentiary burden on the government to prove it: history demonstrates even relatively benign leaders often have difficulty ignoring their own interests when exercising the police power.

Well big picture Beck is correct. That kind of indiscriminate power in the government's hands is a very bad idea.

I don't think Obama is going to revoke his citizenship or anything though.

Still the power to do so basically because "the government says so" is a very terrifying power to hand over. Like you said treason is something thats very hard to bring down on someone and the Founders did it for a reason. This bill could easily hand some future President the ability to all but claim a dictatorship by using "classified" information to revoke the citizenship of any political enemies.

I think history shows how easily a republic can switch to a dictatorship in troubling times. Times seem bad, someone comes out and says they can fix it if only they had more power and before you know it you're freezing your ass off in Russia wondering where it all went wrong.

[txshurricane]

George W Bush and his administration were certainly a good example of that. They infiltrated a number of activist groups (environmental, human rights, animal rights, etc.) and placed many of them on watch lists. If that's not the government overreaching, then I don't know what is.
Does that make it okay for the Obama administration to do the same? I don't see the point of posting this.

Well, actually, I do...but I'm just being facetious. :)

[MagGnome]

I think history shows how easily a republic can switch to a dictatorship in troubling times. Times seem bad, someone comes out and says they can fix it if only they had more power and before you know it you're freezing your ass off in Russia wondering where it all went wrong.

Speaking of which, I saw Bent last night. It's a play about the Nazi persecution or homosexuals during the Holocaust. It was very moving, powerful, and thought-provoking. I highly recommend checking it out if you ever have the chance. That goes for everyone here.

I went to see it because a friend of mine is in the cast, and I'm glad I did. The only "downside" is that the play is seriously depressing, which is obvious given the subject matter.


Does that make it okay for the Obama administration to do the same? I don't see the point of posting this.

Well, actually, I do...but I'm just being facetious. :)

I debated even responding to this, because I think the answer is obvious. :p

Of course it wouldn't be okay for Obama to do the same. I'm hardly a cheerleader for our current president, and when he screws up (which he has many times) I'm usually the one pointing it out to my friends while they defend him. It's sort of strange and annoying, actually.

My point was that presidential power can easily be abused, as was demonstrated time and time again by the previous administration.

[txshurricane]

You'll have to excuse my little jabs. I'm not intentionally trolling. I'm on my phone most of the time, usually while I'm feeding the new baby.

Just thought I'd inspire you to clarify. :)

[National Kato]

Added full bill in PDF format to OP.

Altmire and Dent (co-sponsors) are calling the bill the TEA Act. Hmm, I wonder why they'd choose that acronym? ;)

Beck may want to distance himself a bit further from the bill.

[MagGnome]

You'll have to excuse my little jabs. I'm not intentionally trolling. I'm on my phone most of the time, usually while I'm feeding the new baby.

Just thought I'd inspire you to clarify. :)

I didn't assume that you were trolling. I hope my clarification was helpful. :)

[Ox]

George W Bush and his administration were certainly a good example of that. They infiltrated a number of activist groups (environmental, human rights, animal rights, etc.) and placed many of them on watch lists.
There's something wrong with infiltrating a group? There's nothing illegal about joining the ACLU, the NRA, or the Mummers under false pretenses. Likewise, there's nothing illegal about putting your grandmother on a watch list, which can mean as little as occasionally skimming her blog. These might well be wastes of time, money, and manpower, but I would think "government overreaching" would have to at least arguably breaking the law or, at the absolute minimum, doing something creepier than pretending to like you.

If that's not the government overreaching, then I don't know what is.
I suspect that you could think of a more extreme example of government overreaching if you really, really tried.

I think history shows how easily a republic can switch to a dictatorship in troubling times.
People say this. How true is it?

There are a few examples of republics switching to dictatorship. Weimar, obviously. What others are you thinking of? Most of the examples I can come up with are those of extremely shaky republics that served as brief interludes between tyrannies: Revolutionary France had a liberal government whose lifespan was measured in picoseconds, South and Central America rarely had two generations grow to maturity under the same constitutional order, etc. The other republics -- Athens, Rome, Mexico -- either fell foul of foreign invasion or simply got so sclerotic that massive constitutional overhaul was unavoidable.

I'm not convinced that there's much if any historical evidence to suggest that republics which survive their first years (naturally the most dangerous for any constitutional order) are any more likely to slide into autocracy in times of stress than any other form of government. But history's a big subject, and I'm probably not thinking of the examples you have in mind.

[Dorkandproudofit]

There's something wrong with infiltrating a group? There's nothing illegal about joining the ACLU, the NRA, or the Mummers under false pretenses. Likewise, there's nothing illegal about putting your grandmother on a watch list, which can mean as little as occasionally skimming her blog. These might well be wastes of time, money, and manpower, but I would think "government overreaching" would have to at least arguably breaking the law or, at the absolute minimum, doing something creepier than pretending to like you.

The problem is that they were spying on people who had done nothing whatsoever to deserve it. No person in their right mind would look at those groups and decide, "Hey, they might be terrorists plotting with Al Qaeda to take over". It was an absolutely inexcusable invasion of privacy, there is no justification for that. Legality had nothing to do with why it was wrong.


People say this. How true is it?

There are a few examples of republics switching to dictatorship. Weimar, obviously. What others are you thinking of? Most of the examples I can come up with are those of extremely shaky republics that served as brief interludes between tyrannies: Revolutionary France had a liberal government whose lifespan was measured in picoseconds, South and Central America rarely had two generations grow to maturity under the same constitutional order, etc. The other republics -- Athens, Rome, Mexico -- either fell foul of foreign invasion or simply got so sclerotic that massive constitutional overhaul was unavoidable.

I'm not convinced that there's much if any historical evidence to suggest that republics which survive their first years (naturally the most dangerous for any constitutional order) are any more likely to slide into autocracy in times of stress than any other form of government. But history's a big subject, and I'm probably not thinking of the examples you have in mind.

In this case, you are on the right track. The exception is Rome, which could have avoided it had they just listened to the Gracchus brothers at the end of the Mid-Republic instead of killing them.

[txshurricane]

There's something wrong with infiltrating a group? There's nothing illegal about joining the ACLU, the NRA, or the Mummers under false pretenses. Like



The problem is that they were spying on people who had done nothing whatsoever to deserve it. No person in their right mind would look at those groups and decide, "Hey, they might be terrorists plotting with Al Qaeda to take over". It was an absolutely inexcusable invasion of privacy, there is no justification for that. Legality had nothing to do with why it was wrong.
What comes first: the chicken, or the egg?

[pomeroy]

I agree. It's sad how quickly many Americans are willing to give up liberty for the illusion of safety.

This coming from the dude who loves the smoking ban...

[Ultima Thulian]

which came first...chicken or the egg?

Who cares? Either one makes a meal.

[Ox]

The problem is that they were spying on people who had done nothing whatsoever to deserve it. No person in their right mind would look at those groups and decide, "Hey, they might be terrorists plotting with Al Qaeda to take over". It was an absolutely inexcusable invasion of privacy, there is no justification for that. Legality had nothing to do with why it was wrong.
I don't understand how there can be an invasion of privacy by joining a public organization. Do you think if I went to the NRA or the Sierra Club and asked to sit in on a meeting, they would tell me their rites were secret and not for the eyes of outsiders? Is a blog private?

Moreover, it's true that those organizations were probably not going to join al Qaeda. But there were violent organizations before al Qaeda, and there will be violent organizations after al Qaeda. You need only look at the Seattle WTO protests to see that non-Muslim activist organizations are quite capable of breaking the law and attacking people and property. What's wrong with occasionally attending International ANSWER or Tea Party meetings so we have forewarning if they are planning to stage a riot?

Maybe those people had done nothing to deserve it (but see Seattle, et al). But the way we find out if people deserve sanctions is to investigate them and find out. Since you appear to concede the investigation broke no laws, I can't figure out what's wrong with it.

[Karmakin]

I think the problem with it is where we draw the line for what is a "threat" or what isn't a threat or whatever. Someone who thinks that the ACLU or other such groups is a "threat" says something very real about themselves. For what it's worth, I think all these things are legal...

Up to the point where they start acting to undermine said groups without real cause. This is something that has happened in the past, and probably will happen in the future. That's where it crosses the line IMO.

In any case, the problem with civil rights type arguments is most people focus on the leaders, when the unfortunately the problem often is that most people will give up the rights of others in order to gain security themselves (or even the illusion of such), and in a democracy, this makes actual honest to goodness progress in terms of civil rights often a high-risk little reward political activity.

[Dorkandproudofit]

I don't understand how there can be an invasion of privacy by joining a public organization. Do you think if I went to the NRA or the Sierra Club and asked to sit in on a meeting, they would tell me their rites were secret and not for the eyes of outsiders? Is a blog private?

Moreover, it's true that those organizations were probably not going to join al Qaeda. But there were violent organizations before al Qaeda, and there will be violent organizations after al Qaeda. You need only look at the Seattle WTO protests to see that non-Muslim activist organizations are quite capable of breaking the law and attacking people and property. What's wrong with occasionally attending International ANSWER or Tea Party meetings so we have forewarning if they are planning to stage a riot?

Maybe those people had done nothing to deserve it (but see Seattle, et al). But the way we find out if people deserve sanctions is to investigate them and find out. Since you appear to concede the investigation broke no laws, I can't figure out what's wrong with it.

So you'd be perfectly okay with it if someone lied their way into your life, pretended to be your friend while lying to your face, then followed your every move and reported it as if you were a common criminal, so long as it was technically legal?

That's disturbing.

[Ultima Thulian]

So you'd be perfectly okay with it if someone lied their way into your life, pretended to be your friend while lying to your face, then followed your every move and reported it as if you were a common criminal, so long as it was technically legal?

That's disturbing.

He's arguing the legality of it, not the morality. Morality is subjective, legality less so.

[Dorkandproudofit]

He's arguing the legality of it, not the morality. Morality is subjective, legality less so.

Then he's missing the point. As I said earlier, the problem people have with it has nothing to do with legality. It's an ethical problem.

Apparently, Ox either missed where I said that, or he completely ignored it.

[Ultima Thulian]

Then he's missing the point. As I said earlier, the problem people have with it has nothing to do with legality. It's an ethical problem.

Apparently, Ox either missed where I said that, or he completely ignored it.

No, you're missing the point. This is a legal issue. You can, and have, argue the morality of the situation till you're blue in the face, but it means little, given the incredibly subjective nature of morality.

For example, I'll counteract your morality with somebody else.

One may say, "It would be morally bankrupt to not do everything and anything to protect the lives of the innocent. If we don't stop crazy, harmful people from killing the ones we love and cherish most, then we have failed them."

Your move.

[Karmakin]

The problem is that's not really what we're talking about here.

We're talking about groups such as the ACLU or the SPLC or things like that. The problem is when we elevate these groups to some sort of huge boogeyman those are the things that can happen. (BTW, it's the same for groups such as the NRA, for an example).

And morality is actually objective. We can disagree on the moving parts of it, but in the end the math should be similar enough that we can discuss it. For the reason you said, the morality of going after real terrorist groups is clear. But going after those working for non-violent political change (even if it's change we don't like), is exactly the opposite.

On a side note, this sort of morality is something that people are going to be discussing widely in a few months, so get used to it :). (Busy right now or I'd link) Check out Sam Harris' TED speech for a preview. The TLDW story is that morality is a measure of real harm to conscious beings, and should be judged as such.

[Ultima Thulian]

The problem is that's not really what we're talking about here.

Agreed, that was my point.

We're talking about groups such as the ACLU or the SPLC or things like that. The problem is when we elevate these groups to some sort of huge boogeyman those are the things that can happen. (BTW, it's the same for groups such as the NRA, for an example).

Also agreed.

And morality is actually objective. We can disagree on the moving parts of it, but in the end the math should be similar enough that we can discuss it. For the reason you said, the morality of going after real terrorist groups is clear. But going after those working for non-violent political change (even if it's change we don't like), is exactly the opposite.

Disagreed here. But I generally adhere to subjective ethical relativism, so I can't really say you are "wrong" either, haha. :p

edit: The red text are my responses...I'm being very lazy today.

[MagGnome]

I don't care if it's "legal" or not. There are plenty of laws that I don't agree with.

It's immoral, and flat out wrong, IMHO, for our government to be spying on any group that it wants to. Infiltrating a terrorist cell is one thing. Infiltrating the ACLU, Sierra Club, various animal rights groups, vegan groups, political activists, etc. is flat out wrong. Fancy language and technicalities are not going to convince me otherwise.

The Bush administration argued that waterboarding was okay, so you'll excuse me if I treat every thing they did with the highest level of skepticism.

[txshurricane]

The Bush administration argued that waterboarding was okay, so you'll excuse me if I treat every thing they did with the highest level of skepticism.
If you think that the CIA and the military no longer waterboard just because Obama made it illegal, then I think that's naive. In fact, I have no reason to believe that Obama doesn't condone torture in the interest of national security.

Or are we still believing everything the President says in public as hard truth?

[MagGnome]

If you think that the CIA and the military no longer waterboard just because Obama made it illegal, then I think that's naive. In fact, I have no reason to believe that Obama doesn't condone torture in the interest of national security.

Or are we still believing everything the President says in public as hard truth?

Excuse me? Where in my post did I say anything about Obama?

If you knew me at all, you would know that I'm hardly a fan of our current president. I even told one of my friends that I feel like Obama is turning into George W Bush with better PR.

[txshurricane]

Excuse me? Where in my post did I say anything about Obama?

If you knew me at all, you would know that I'm hardly a fan of our current president. I even told one of my friends that I feel like Obama is turning into George W Bush with better PR.
Where did anyone say anything about George Bush?

I think I misinterpreted your reason for putting an evil mustache on one president and not the other.

[ShivaX]

If you think that the CIA and the military no longer waterboard just because Obama made it illegal, then I think that's naive. In fact, I have no reason to believe that Obama doesn't condone torture in the interest of national security.

Other than him saying it?


Or are we still believing everything the President says in public as hard truth?

No, apparently we're still believing everything he says in public is a lie.

I mean I can say "I have no reason to believe that Rush Limbaugh isn't a child rapist," if I want. I mean I have no reason to believe he IS a child rapist and I know hes spoken out against that sort of thing, but I'm not going to believe everything hes said publicly as the truth.

[txshurricane]

Other than him saying it?

No, apparently we're still believing everything he says in public is a lie.

I mean I can say "I have no reason to believe that Rush Limbaugh isn't a child rapist," if I want. I mean I have no reason to believe he IS a child rapist and I know hes spoken out against that sort of thing, but I'm not going to believe everything hes said publicly as the truth.
Um...suffice to say that I don't have the time nor effort to compile the list of lies that the President has told. Surely you wouldn't deny that the President has lied on numerous occasion, many of which are readily available in video form.

[MagGnome]

Where did anyone say anything about George Bush?

I think I misinterpreted your reason for putting an evil mustache on one president and not the other.

I used Bush because it's a known fact that during his administration many left-leaning groups were infiltrated and several were put on watch lists.

I wasn't saying anything whatsoever for or against Obama.

Is it not possible for me to criticize one president without it being automatically assumed that I'm giving another one a pass? :confused:

[txshurricane]

I used Bush because it's a known fact that during his administration many left-leaning groups were infiltrated and several were put on watch lists.
I didn't know that. Source?

[MagGnome]

I'll try to find a source later. It came to light years ago, so it's not exactly on the front page these days.

Edit - I tried to do a quick Google search, and the first page (and several after) were all about the Tea Party being infiltrated. Go figure. :p

[txshurricane]

I'll try to find a source later. It came to light years ago, so it's not exactly on the front page these days.
I don't disbelieve you. I have plenty of naive moments, and this is one of them.

[J Arcane]

The CIA and FBI and everyone else have been investigating various counterculture groups and vocal political groups like this for decades. Trying to make a partisan issue out of it is retarded.

[MagGnome]

The CIA and FBI and everyone else have been investigating various counterculture groups and vocal political groups like this for decades. Trying to make a partisan issue out of it is retarded.

Fair enough. I think that the CIA and FBI overreach all the time as well, but I won't go there.

I think it's best to close this whole can of worms.

[ShivaX]

The CIA and FBI and everyone else have been investigating various counterculture groups and vocal political groups like this for decades. Trying to make a partisan issue out of it is retarded.

I agree on this point.

You watch fringe groups just to be safe.

And of course whoever is in charge tends to watch political opponents.

Then again if Bush is in charge the most likely threats are from a left-leaning group. When Obama is in charge the most likely threats are from right-leaning ones. People are more likely to wig out and do stuff to people they don't agree with.

Then theres the groups you always watch regardless (anarchists, extreme militias, etc).

[Ox]

So you'd be perfectly okay with it if someone lied their way into your life, pretended to be your friend while lying to your face, then followed your every move and reported it as if you were a common criminal, so long as it was technically legal?

That's disturbing.
Would I be perfectly okay with it? No, I'd be disturbed that someone I trusted turned out to be operating under false pretenses.

But is it unethical for someone to maintain false pretenses? Imagine for a moment you think I'm plotting a violent crime. Is it unethical for you to lie to me and try to figure out if I am a criminal? Of course not; that's your duty. It would arguably be unethical for you to refuse to employ deceit to prevent a serious crime.

I would still be disturbed and upset when I found out you thought I was a criminal. But me being upset and disturbed doesn't demonstrate you did anything wrong.

Then he's missing the point. As I said earlier, the problem people have with it has nothing to do with legality. It's an ethical problem.

Apparently, Ox either missed where I said that, or he completely ignored it.
Or maybe you didn't bother to explain what the ethical problem was, and I couldn't figure out what it could possibly be.

Do you seriously think that it's always and everywhere unethical to lie? Do you think there's no possible justification for lying ever? I happen to think it's okay to lie to suspected criminals about certain things (like the fact that they are under investigation). And if I, or the Sierra Club, or the Boy Scouts of America are suspected of planning violent crimes, I would hope the police would try to investigate those suspicions rather than saying, "Well, I guess we'll find out when the Boy Scouts blow up the Girl Scout cookie factory." In the course of that investigation, it might be necessary to say, "Oh, no, Mr. Boy Scout, you don't need to destroy the evidence. You can trust me, I think you're absolutely swell." This would be a lie. I have no problem with that, and I have a tough time understanding why anyone other than the person being investigated would have a problem with that. Simply declaring this is an ethical issue doesn't actually answer my question.

And morality is actually objective. We can disagree on the moving parts of it, but in the end the math should be similar enough that we can discuss it.
I agree with this.

It's immoral, and flat out wrong, IMHO, for our government to be spying on any group that it wants to. Infiltrating a terrorist cell is one thing. Infiltrating the ACLU, Sierra Club, various animal rights groups, vegan groups, political activists, etc. is flat out wrong. Fancy language and technicalities are not going to convince me otherwise.
1. There is really no need for you to be so pointlessly dismissive of an argument as to describe it as "fancy language and technicalities." An argument may be wrong. It may be unpersuasive. If it is either of those things, you can feel free to say so. If you are feeling particularly thoughtful, you can even try to explain why. But dismissing an argument because it is "fancy" and "technical" is the very worst kind of anti-intellectualism, and it says very little good about you that you would resort to such a crude and retrograde tactic.

2. There is nothing particularly humble about your opinion on this matter.

3. How are we to tell the difference between an animal rights organization and a terrorist organization without infiltrating it? This is the problem with your line-drawing: you are distinguishing between valid and invalid investigations based on information that is not available until after the investigation is conducted. You might as well say that an X-ray is permissible if the bone turns out to be broken, but if it turns out to be a sprain, an X-ray is unethical. How can it possibly be fair to judge a man's actions by relying on information he did not have at the time he made his decision?


The Bush administration argued that waterboarding was okay, so you'll excuse me if I treat every thing they did with the highest level of skepticism.
"Bush did it, therefore it's wrong; I don't need any more analysis than that." Is this a fair summary of your position, Mag?

[MagGnome]

"Bush did it, therefore it's wrong; I don't need any more analysis than that." Is this a fair summary of your position, Mag?

Sure, let's go with that. You win! :D