I take it personally when people try to kill New Yorkers because I grew up in the Big Apple metro area. It’s my city. So, it’s a very emotional matter for me when someone tries to light off a car bomb in Times Square. After 9/11, I was really fearful that the follow-up would be a series of very hard to stop suicide attacks on New York’s transit system. The Bush administration did nothing to alleviate those fears and everything to stoke them (remember the Duct Tape Fatwa?). The Bush administration did their best to turn me into a bedwetter, but they didn’t succeed. It is so refreshing to have a president who is encouraging.
“Finally, New Yorkers have reminded us once again of how to live with their heads held high. We know that the aim of those who try to carry out these attacks is to force us to live in fear, and thereby amplifying the effects of their attacks — even those that fail. But as Americans, and as a nation, we will not be terrorized. We will not cower in fear. We will not be intimidated. We will be vigilant. We will work together. And we will protect and defend the country we love to ensure a safe and prosperous future for our people. That’s what I intend to do as President and that’s what we will do as a nation.”
It matters a great deal how a president publicly reacts to terrorist acts. John McCain’s public reaction was to advocate against informing the suspect, who is a U.S. citizen, of his rights. That would jeopardize our ability to successfully prosecute him. Perhaps recognizing the weakness of McCain’s argument, Joe Lieberman announced that he will introduce a bill to strip American citizens of their citizenship if they are found to be affiliated with a foreign terrorist organization.
Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) thinks he’s found a work-around on the whole Miranda rights debate for U.S. citizens accused of terrorism: Strip their citizenship and ship them to Guantanamo.
Lieberman plans to introduce a bill that would amend a decades-old law aimed at yanking citizenship from U.S. citizens who fight for a foreign military.
“I’m now putting together legislation to amend that to [specify that] any individual American citizen who is found to be involved in a foreign terrorist organization, as defined by the Department of State, would be deprived of their citizenship rights,” Lieberman said Tuesday.
I wouldn’t dismiss Lieberman’s idea out of hand. I don’t like the purpose for which he is introducing this, but the basic principle is sound. It would be a logistical nightmare, but let me focus on the rationale for a moment.
When U.S. citizens decided to join the German, Italian, or Japanese armies during World War Two, we didn’t have any problem with the law stripping them of their citizenship. So, in principle, there should nothing wrong with stripping a known terrorist of their citizenship if he is targeting Americans. Such a provision would go a long way to resolving conflicts in the law arising from the situation we have with Anwar al Awlaki, who has been green-lighted for assassination despite having been born in New Mexico. The Intelligence Community has linked him to both the Ft. Hood shooter and the Christmas Day bomber, but he lives now in Yemen. Should he be shielded from retribution just because he is a U.S. citizen who lives beyond the reach of our law enforcement agencies?
That is at least a compelling case for stripping a terrorist of his citizenship rights. But there are two major problems I have with this discussion. First, Lieberman isn’t introducing this bill to deal with the problem we have with al Awlaki and people like him. He’s doing it to make it possible to throw the Times Square bomber into the Guantanamo Bay prison and try him in a military court. But we already have the Times Square bomber in custody. We have no compelling reason to treat him any differently than we treated Timothy McVeigh. After all, McVeigh had co-conspirators and was less than cooperative. We didn’t strip him of his citizenship or torture him or put him in a military court. I believe it’s wrong to pass ex post facto laws:
An ex post facto law (from the Latin for “from after the action”) or retroactive law, is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions committed or relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law. In reference to criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed; or it may aggravate a crime by bringing it into a more severe category than it was in at the time it was committed; or it may change or increase the punishment prescribed for a crime, such as by adding new penalties or extending terms; or it may alter the rules of evidence in order to make conviction for a crime more likely than it would have been at the time of the action for which a defendant is prosecuted.
Changing someone’s citizen status after they’ve committed a crime in order to make a conviction more likely or in order to gather intelligence in a formerly illegal way, is definitely an insult to the rule of law.
My second concern is logistical. I don’t think it’s an adequate or sufficient standard to rely on the State Department to designate which groups are or are not terrorist organizations. Those designations are politicized by the very nature of the State Department, which is the diplomatic arm of the executive branch. Who we designate as terrorists is colored by more than a cold analysis of the facts; it also involves our state-to-state interests and relationships. For the same reason we don’t want Congress to declare that the Turks committed genocide against the Armenians, we may not want to designate some terrorist group as a terrorist group if it will adversely impact our interests. By the same token, we may list a group as a terrorist organization that may not warrant that designation (or, that has no history of anti-American activity) in order to apply pressure on a foreign country in other areas. If we want to set up a system to allow us to strip someone of their citizenship, we have to have a court that can look at the facts dispassionately. The State Department won’t do.
But even that wouldn’t solve the logistical headache. What standard of evidence would you need to meet to prove that an individual is affiliated with a designated terrorist group? It’s not like they have membership cards or paycheck stubs. That would have to be ironed out very carefully, and the result would probably be a standard so high that the law would become impracticable.
There’s no question that international stateless terror groups create real challenges to our legal system, and when you throw in the matter of U.S. citizens engaging in terrorism from abroad, it becomes hopelessly difficult. I doubt we can come up with a perfect solution.
But I will say this. The minimum standard for stripping someone of their citizenship should be that evidence of intent to commit terrorism has been introduced and accepted by a special court. That the loss of citizenship will not be applied ex post facto. And that the suspect is currently outside the reach of the law. Under those circumstances, it would make sense to strip someone of their citizenship and even to target them for assassination. While I would have grave concerns about such a change in the law, I think it would actually be preferable to the situation we face now where we are targeting a U.S. citizen in Yemen for death on nothing more than the say-so of the executive branch. That same standard would allow the government to target peaceful political opponents on vacation abroad. It’s not an acceptable standard.
So, even though Lieberman is bringing up this bill for all the wrong reasons, and even though he is engaging in shameless bedwetting-promotion, there is a real issue that needs to be looked at. The status quo is an insult to the rule of law and offers the opportunity for unaccountable abuses of power.
Joe Lieberman, following in the steps of another Joe — Joe McCarthy.
And who maintains that State Department list? And how accurate is it? And will we see AP articles the equivalent of their “No-fly list did not stop Time Square terrorist” article; the gist was that Emirate Airlines did not use (or have) and up-to-date no-fly list with the bombers name on it when he checked in.
Seems to me that the German-American Bund, the Silver Shirts, and Antonin Scalia’s father did not lose their citizenship prior or during World War II. So cheerleading can’t be a prima facie ground for losing citizenship. And we already have sufficient legal consequences for folks who provide material support to enemies of the US.
Once again Holy Joe is grandstanding.
Here’s the current list.
And the relevant info under current law:
I was just going to say … letting the State Dept. decide? Spencer Ackerman makes a good point about Holy Joe’s BS over his his place .. and do you know there is one exception in the current law(and deals with fighting for a foreign army) … I’ll let you guess the exception
yes, we can all join the Israeli Army without fear of losing our US citizenship. Not so for Canada, Australia, Britain, or any other country.
Kahane Chai is on the list however.
Yes, let us treat all Arabs and/or Muslims differently. No one screamed about not mirandizing the Hutaree militia. When they start screaming about people like Rudolph and McVey getting mirandized, perhaps I will listen. Until then, just NO!
I’m sure this idea came from the Nazi’s….I think they started by stripping Jews of their citizenship
Godwin! Godwin! Godwin!
<sigh>
Drawing parallels between the current attitude to Muslims and the attitude in 1910 to Jews is not permitted, and will not be permitted until such time as a couple of million have been slaughtered in one way or another.
A million or so won’t do? Or doesn’t it count if the slaughtering in done in their own country?
People born in the USA get their citizenship from the 14th Amendment. Statutes that try to strip such citizenship are obviously and egregiously unconstitutional. So go ahead Joe, propose a constitutional amendment to abridge birthright citizenship. I’m sure the ‘wingers will love you for bringing the US in line with old Europe on this.
Naturalized citizens HAVE been stripped of citizenship on the basis that they lied on their application.
The whole idea is odious, and should be vigorously opposed.
A very good point, and it shouldn’t be difficult to prove that this guy lied to gain citizenship for the purpose of terrorism. They used to ask if you belonged to an organization dedicated to the overthrow of the USA, maybe they’ve removed this little impediment in the name of diversity.
Where is there any – you know – evidence that he lied on his application, or that he gained citizenship for the purpose of terrorism?
Al-Queda should qualify.
So, you are saying there is evidence he was a “member” of Al Qa`eda when he applied for citizenship? And that evidence consists of what? A membership card? A canceled check for his initiation fees? Canceled checks for his annual dues? He’s on the official Al Qa`eda membership roster for that year?
Not to continue a flame war, but yes, there is supposed to be evidence that he attended a training camp in Pakistan. Apparently, he’s a poor student.
Flame war? Since when does questioning or challenging an interlocutor’s assertion constitute a flame war?
And if he really did attend a training camp in Pakistan, when was that? It seems most likely that it was AFTER he applied for and was granted citizenship, in which case he could not hvae lied about it on his citizenship application.
.
Part 10 AFFILIATIONS
… and of course have you filed and paid your taxes on time.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
.
3. Serving In Your Native Country’s Armed Forces If That Country Is Engaged In Hostilities Or At War With The United States
If your native country is engaged in hostile actions or is at war with America you need to be extremely careful. The US government will attempt to take away your US citizenship if they find out you are either aiding or serving in your native country’s armed forces in any capacity. Alternatively, the US government could try to nail you with a treason conviction and then strip you of your US citizenship.
5. Lying To The USCIS During The Naturalization Process
If you deliberately withheld information from or misrepresented information given to the USCIS or INS when filing your N-400, the USCIS may cancel your Certificate of Naturalization and revoke your US citizenship. This includes withholding information and misrepresenting yourself during your naturalization interview or oath ceremony. If your Certificate of Naturalization is cancelled and your US citizenship revoked, you may also find yourself facing criminal prosecution as well as deportation proceedings.
For example, if you lived outside the country for four months and deliberately omitted this absence from your N-400 and the USCIS finds out about it after you’re naturalized, they could move to have your Certificate of Naturalization cancelled. All they would need to show is that your absence would have disqualifed you from or materially affected your naturalization due to the “physical presence in the United States” requirement for naturalization applicants.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
I practice immigration law, and Lieberman’s efforts are not wholly unprecedented. The Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) contains a provision for the denaturalization of a naturalized U.S. citizen for association, within five years following naturalization, with any organization association with which would have precluded a grant of naturalization in the first place. See INA Sec. 340, 8 U.S.C. 1451(c).
In short, if you become a naturalized citizen, and then join or assist al Qaeda within 5 years of your naturalization, you can be stripped of citizenship, and the law provides that the association itself is prima facie evidence that such a person “was not attached to the principles of the Constitution…and was not well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States at the time of naturalization…”
So what Lieberman is advocating here, I think, is a broadening of the law to eliminate the five-year restriction, and to include acts of terrorism by the naturalized citizen, rather than membership or affiliation with a terrorist group.
Of course, there is other law that says that even non-naturalized aliens having lawful status are entitled to the same 5th Amendment rights when it comes to being brought into the criminal justice system. So even his own idea wouldn’t fix the problem that he thinks exists — “Mirandizing” citizen terrorists. Even if you could strip them of citizenship, they still get 5th Amendment protection in a criminal context.
Sure looks like present laws could handle it.
I’m interested is seeing a native US citizen brought to trial for being a listed, card-carrying member of the Real IRA. My guess is that if Joe gets his law, that wouldn’t happen; the law would be only for Islamic organizations.
A country of gods, not men or laws.
And you’re accusing the likes of Lieberman of bedwetting?
How would you react if the Iranian state officially assassinated people in the US that they thought might be involved in terrorist activities against them? That would, I take it, be fair enough?
You’re assuming that Yemen and Pakistan aren’t consenting to these drone attacks. But they are consenting to them and even utilizing them for their own purposes.
When Bill Clinton targeted al-Qaeda training camps with tomahawk missiles, few people thought it was out of line, and many fewer felt that way after 9/11. In cases where sovereignty isn’t even being violated, there’s much less case for complaint.
There are serious ethical and legal issues related to drone attacks and targeted assassinations. I don’t dispute that, but targeting a man in Yemen for plotting and inciting violence against U.S. air travel and U.S. military bases (with the consent of the (Yemeni government) is not comparable to Iran targeting people here without our consent.
Um, let’s see — the Yemen government consents to having one of its residents murdered by the US, but is unwilling to arrest him themselves? If you’re talking drone attacks, the Yemen government is consenting to the inevitable killing of its own citizens by the US? If that’s the case, they’re using the US as their attack dog for their own political purposes.
“Plotting and inciting violence against U.S. air travel and U.S. military bases” is your standard for justifying murder? In that case there are probably a million or more individuals in North America and around the world who would qualify for killing without a trial. With arrogant, corrupt behavior like you advocate, that number can only grow exponentially.
not unwilling. unable. like pakistan, they have a civil war and lawless tribal areas.
Once again, Dave, we see that American exceptionalism remains alive and well in the “progressive” community.
“First, Lieberman isn’t introducing this bill to deal with the problem we have with al Awlaki and people like him. He’s doing it to make it possible to throw the Times Square bomber into the Guantanamo Bay prison and try him in a military court.”
In other words, Lieberman wants to make it a publicly known principle that such detainees can be deprived of all constitutional rights such as habeas corpus, due process, etc. And the big dark disgusting implication of Lieberman’s proposal is that the government should be legally empowered to torture such detainees if it so chooses. Politically, Lieberman is announcing, yet again, that he hearts torture.
I agree — sounds like Lieberman’s objective in all of this is to figure out a way to deprive people of due process before the case is even adjudicated. If you want to use the justice system to strip a person’s citizenship after a conviction, then perhaps that’s open for legitimate debate. But without due process? What a crock of shit, and Lieberman knows it…
Seems to me this isn’t a whole lot different than the Bush administration’s two-step desire to designate US citizens as enemy combatants, and then strip them of their citizenship (permitting rendition, Guantanamo, torture, etc.) If it’s wrong under Bush, it’s wrong under Obama.
Similarly, since when did assassinating people on executive branch say-so (or, if you’re opposed to the death penalty, on anyone’s say-so) become OK, except if they’re American citirens?
Seems to me the root of this problem is the Bush administration’s immediate decision in 2001, upheld by Obama, to treat terrorism legally (as well as politically and rhetorically) as an act of war rather than a criminal act. But as you yourself have noted, BooMan, most of the high-profile stoppings of terrorist plots since 2001 have come due to a combination of intelligence and law-enforcement work – not military chest-beating. And as other commenters have noted, there’s no substantive difference between the actions of the Times Square guy and right-wing nuts like McVeigh or Hutaree. (Only motive and skin color.) The justice system has worked fine for the white guys.
I don’t see much nuance to this at all. This is a law enforcement problem. Treating it as something more has led to the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people (or over a million, if you believe the Bush cabal was serious about believing Iraq to be a terror threat), and harmed our national security far more than it’s helped it. It also continues to undermine the very real respect in which our legal system was once held by much of the world. All because the Bushes, Liebermans, McCains, and Palins of the world want to indulge the public’s appetite for vengeance against those uppity brown-skinned
citizensfurriners who apparently hate their own freedoms (that we want to take away).It’s time to stop treating these issues as some sort of uniquely nefarious modern threat for which our legal system has no remedy. All that does is enable the demagogues and bedwetters.
.
Dr Aafia Siddiqui‘s 12-year old daughter Maryam mysteriously shows up at her grandmother’s home after being missing for seven years.
The Government has formally declared 12 years old Maryam as daughter of Dr. Aafia Siddiqui after proved by DNA Test and the girl handed over to the family of Dr. Aafia Siddiqui.
A mother with her 3 children
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
There is a huge difference between fighting for a foreign government and fighting for a terror group or criminal gang. In the former it’s okay to strip citizenship since clearly the person has allegiance to a different country. In the latter, the person is just a killer and thug who is operating for ideological/religious reasons. Big difference.
Second, we just lived through the Bush nightmare. We saw environmental groups wiretapped by the FBI for suspicion of terrorist activities. Now you want to give the State Dept the ability to strip citizenship from people who are accused of being terrorists? Fuck that. No way. There is way too much room for abuse of such a law, and it opens a slippery slope to eliminating citizenship for lesser and lesser crimes.
You worry about the targeted assassination of US citizens, and your solution is to open this can of worms so that we are simply assassinating former US citizens? Sorry, that doesn’t convince me in the least.
This is just another horrible, anti-American idea by Joe Lieberman and deserves to be defeated. Just because a US citizen engages in traitorous acts does not mean we suddenly have to strip their citizenship. Our laws provide for what to do in such instances: convict, sentence to death.
Please Booman, you are smarter than this. This is just another loony idea from the pro-torture, pro-Gitmo, anti habeus corpus faction on the right in this country. You think it’s okay for certain US citizens to lose their rights, guess what, it might one day be you who is losing your rights.
Example: Do you think Jose Padilla should have been stripped of his citizenship and sent to Gitmo? With this law in place that would have happened, he would never have had a trial. I don’t want to live in a country like that.
Wait a minute.
I specifically rejected giving the State Dept. the authority to have any say in stripping an American citizen of their citizenship.
As things stand right now, we can assassinate former citizens and people who never were citizens and people who are still citizens. So, don’t criticize me for wanting some clarity in the law. I am not advocating killing terrorists/citizens that are directing terror attacks from sanctuaries abroad, but at least looking at adding some clarity to the law so that we can have a legal and coherent way for dealing with someone like bin-Laden who also happens to be a citizen.
We can’t convict and sentence people who we cannot apprehend because they are living in hostile, tribal foreign countries.
Jose Padilla should have been tried in court for some relatively minor offenses. And I specifically rejected ex post facto laws. So, I would reject treating Padilla or the Times Square bomber any differently from anyone else who has been apprehended.
You should be careful to read what I actually wrote and not suggest that I support Lieberman’s shenanigans in any way.
Actually, we can try and sentence someone in absentia with due process, at which point I would certainly support stripping someone of their citizenship under certain conditions (if convicted of the crimes for which they are charged). But simply stripping someone of their citizenship without any sort of due process is a bad idea, IMHO.
true, we can try people in absentia. But that hardly addresses the problem. bin Laden had been convicted for a year or three before 9/11.
For shits and giggles, let’s say bin-Laden or KSM had been citizens. Wouldn’t you prefer that we strip them of the citizenship before we hunt them down? Or does citizenship count for nothing? Because that’s how they’re treating it right now.
I’m fine with doing that, but only after a trial and a conviction, in absentia or otherwise. What I have a problem with is the idea that there would be some sort of codified mechanism of depriving someone of due process before the case is adjudicated in our justice system. Lieberman’s idea seems to be to strip people of their citizenship so they can be tried in some sort of kangaroo military tribunal, and I’m not OK with that.
Lieberman’s idea is ridiculous. But that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t figure out a better way to deal with citizens living abroad who are trying to kill us than just ignoring that the are citizens and dropping a 500lb. bomb on their head. If you want to drop a 500lb. bomb on their head, you probably should have some process that precedes that that is overseen by a court. That’s my point.
I now see the reasoning behind your argument. But in today’s political culture it will just become “even the liberal BooMan agrees that terrorists should lose citizenship rights”.
I’m sorry, I’d much rather have the government knowingly kill terrorists abroad who are U.S. citizens rather than put in place a regime to wipe out the rights of U.S. citizens for something as difficult to define as terrorism.
As I mentioned earlier, the Bush FBI defined-down terrorism to include environmental groups and anti-GOP protesters. It would be great if we had a “special court” that we could truly trust with these decisions, but as we’ve seen with FISA et al., courts can be doormats just like any other govt. department. This law would be abused so that future GOP presidents could take away someone’s citizenship and torture them. Period.
If Bin Laden were a U.S. citizen, I’d want him treated just like Tim McVeigh. Capture him, put him on trial, sentence him. If McVeigh went out hiding in Mexico and was directing militia groups in ongoing attacks against the U.S., I’d totally be in favor of an assassination order should he be found. It’s similar enough in my opinion to SWAT teams sniping some killer who is holding a family hostage. That said, I’d much prefer capture and conviction.
Anyway, my main concern is that this law would further degrade our fundamental rights. It has room for abuse, and I could easily see it being expanded to include run-of-the-mill murderers, child molesters, and anyone who commits serious felonies. Pretty soon the death penalty won’t be enough — the GOP will want to strip criminals of citizenship so that they can’t vote, they can’t sue their prison facilities, they can’t contest their convictions, etc. Now you would say “hey, non-U.S. citizens can contest their convictions, the courts wouldn’t allow otherwise”. Tell that to the non-U.S. citizens in Gitmo. The courts have taken a decade with those cases and they are still locked up with no trials.
I’m sorry for mischaracterizing your position. I do believe that we should oppose any efforts to expand the govts ability to remove citizenship rights. That way lies tyranny.
Miranda applies to anyone who is arrested under US law.
Doesn’t matter if the person is a US citizen.
Lieberman is an idiot.
The no fly list did work. (I know it’s hard to believe.)
The airline didn’t look at the updated version.
US Customs saw the name on the list. That’s how they knew where he was.
.
A story that has vanished from the WCBS site … h/t FDL
(Yeshiva World) – In the end, it was secret Army intelligence planes that did Times Square terror suspect Faisal Shahzad in. Armed with his cell phone number, they circled the skies over the New York area, intercepting a call to Emirates Airlines reservations, before scrambling to catch him at John F. Kennedy International Airport.
There were many developments in the fast-paced investigation, but sources told CBS 2 how the operation went down. Spooked by reports that authorities were looking for a Pakistani-American, Shahzad rushed out of his Bridgeport, Conn. Home and headed for the airport. He made the reservations on the way, paying cash for his ticket.
Agents raiding his Bridgeport home found components for the bomb device, including firecrackers and the boxes for the alarm clocks. They also reportedly found a hand-drawn map of potential targets, including the 4, 5, and 6 trains and the Staten Island ferry. There was also evidence of his ties to Pakistan, including a Karachi ID and residency papers.
Pakistan officials have reportedly made arrests in connection with the case. One of the suspects, Tausif Ahmed, is believed to have traveled to American two months ago to meet with Shahzad.
≈ Cross-posted from my diary — Incarceration and Trial of Dr. Aafia Siddiqui in the US ≈
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
“Such a provision would go a long way to resolving conflicts in the law arising from the situation we have with Anwar al Awlaki, who has been green-lighted for assassination despite having been born in New Mexico.“
Yes, it is SO inconvenient that the guy is a natural born citizen – makes killing him without due process (aka murdering him) SOOOO awkward, you know. If he could only be stripped of his citizenship, then it would be quite all right to kill him without any due process whatsoever by just dropping a few bombs on his neighborhood.
Oh wait, no it wouldn’t. When the state kills someone without due process, it is murder, and not at all OK, whether or not he is a United States citizen.
And what is it when a state stands helpless to stop a man from inciting, training, and dispatching people to blow up our civilian aircraft because they happen to be living in a foreign country that is unable or unwilling to stop their activities?
Murder, and unlawful.