You are viewing grrm

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Joe Should Go

sadface
I wish I was a United States Senator, so I could introduce a bill to strip Joe Lieberman of his American citizenship.

You know, Golden Rule and all that. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. What goes around comes around.

Joe Lieberman = Al Gore's Biggest Mistake.

Tags:

Comments

( 48 comments )
tomservojr
May. 7th, 2010 10:46 pm (UTC)
Seconded!
(Deleted comment)
yagathai
May. 7th, 2010 11:03 pm (UTC)
I don't think that being a pandering is a disease, unless being a politician is an illness. In fact, if anything McCain is finally being honest. He was never actually a maverick except in posture. Lieberman was perhaps a bit more craven, but he was always for sale, and a creature of expediency.
saladinahmed
May. 7th, 2010 11:05 pm (UTC)
So you don't agree with him that some asshole with a car full of fireworks and gas cans is EVEN WORSE THAN THE NAZI WAR MACHINE? You must Hate Our Freedom, George.

Ugh. These are scary fucking times to be a 'Saladin,' I'll tell you that much...
ubet_cha
May. 8th, 2010 11:11 am (UTC)
Thanks. I've been busy this week and didn't know what this was about. You helped me clue in on the right articles.
chaos5023
May. 7th, 2010 11:19 pm (UTC)
Just as long I can write the headlines. Congress Passes First Bill of Attainder in US History: "Did It For The Lulz", Says Reid, "Leiberman Douchebag Anyway". Hell yeah.
ticktockman
May. 7th, 2010 11:40 pm (UTC)
I think Al Gore has made bigger mistakes. Lieberman was okay until Bush-Cheney defeated Gore-Lieberman. It was only after he lost that Lieberman turned into a total dick. (Though he telegraphed a bit when he insisted on staying on the Senate ballot just-in-case Gore lost the election.)

*daha*
nycfalcon
May. 8th, 2010 04:39 am (UTC)
Gore's biggest mistake was not being his own man. Allowing Lieberman on the ticket was merely the symptom. Although Lieberman has always played both ends against the middle.
freeport_pirate
May. 8th, 2010 12:31 am (UTC)
It's a shame the people of Connecticut didn't oust him when they had the chance. Of course, a man with an ounce of shame would have conceded when he lost the primary.
notthebuddha
May. 8th, 2010 05:00 am (UTC)
NEVER GIVE UP, NEVER SURRENDER!

But he probably wouldn't do so good against the pig thing.
stephen_dedman
May. 8th, 2010 02:11 am (UTC)
While I think that making you a senator would be an insufferable loss to your readers, I certainly do wish that more senators were as smart as you.

That said, I think Gore's greatest mistake was believing Faux News when they called the election for Bush, which would make Lieberman only his second biggest mistake.
ravenclaw_eric
May. 8th, 2010 02:13 am (UTC)
Being a Roman history buff, when I first heard about this, I said "I have a bad feeling about this..."
nutmeg3
May. 8th, 2010 02:15 am (UTC)
If it's any consolation, I live in CT and I very much doubt Joe will be getting re-elected.
toddotx
May. 8th, 2010 02:19 am (UTC)
Lieberman and Gore
I also dislike the whole retro-deactivate citizenry thing as well, but I am not surprised it was Lieberman (and McCain).

As far as Al Gore's biggest mistake, I simply do not have time to weed through all the nominees.
megmca
May. 8th, 2010 02:19 am (UTC)
Cheers George.

There is something wrong with United States Senators (and Representatives) are doing the best examples of un-Americanism sine the McCarthy days.

VOTE THE BUMS OUT.
tuor
May. 8th, 2010 02:27 am (UTC)
I tend to keep pretty close track of the news, and I hadn't heard about this bill. Pretty chilling if you ask me. However, it isn't very surprising, sad to say. You go from declaring war on "terror" -- or in other words groups of people -- to saying you'll strip citizenship from people who allegedly or actually support these groups of people. Well, it's nice and arbitrary, and the full weight of the government will make sure that defending yourself successfully is almost impossible.

It used to be that we declared war against actual nation-states. You know, like we did with Japan and Germany. Now we're reduced to doing it against a bunch of whackjobs living in the desert half a world away with no real military to speak of. It's pretty pathetic on our part, IMO... and dangerous, too.

As far as Liberman himself: I'm not the least bit surprised. The man, like many politicians, has been for sale all along. The deeper and long term ramifications of this bill doesn't matter to him at all. I'm glad he's not from my state, but he's still an embarassment.
maldis
May. 8th, 2010 02:45 am (UTC)
Joe Lieberman has always been a sanctimonious ass.
vercingatorix
May. 8th, 2010 02:54 am (UTC)
sorry
Sorry, George, but it would be a writ of attainder. ;)
johnnyo70
May. 8th, 2010 03:32 am (UTC)
Stripping?
Senators who propose unconstitutional laws should be immediately stripped of their title. I'd like to ask, "What are they THINKING?" but I know the answer. They're not.
timill
May. 8th, 2010 03:41 am (UTC)
He should only lose his citizenship if he has provided support to a terrorist organization - hang him with his own law.

Of course, my definition of "terrorist organization" is likely to include both the IRA and the state of Israel...
jonaskaufman
May. 8th, 2010 04:52 am (UTC)
I totally agree.
saxster
May. 8th, 2010 05:09 am (UTC)
Lieberman and anyone else in Rome, DC that is serious about passing bills that would allow U.S. citizens to be whisked away without a word, to be interrogated (and probably tortured), should be punted out of the country. Just when I thought the Patriot Act was going too far, now these madmen want to basically burn the Constitution, not just piss on it.
stiobhan
May. 8th, 2010 06:12 am (UTC)
Could you please also add a rider stripping McCain of his Miranda rights?
3165rushingyard
May. 8th, 2010 08:31 am (UTC)
Strip people of citizenship?
Hmmm . . . strip someone of their US citizenship if they commit an act of terrorism?

This is called grandstanding for the sake of ochlocracy.

Perhaps they should strip any US citizen of his/her citizenship if they perform actions which bring great harm to this country, far greater harm than someone parking an SUV with a bomb might ever accomplish.

Did the government threaten to strip Ken Lay of his citizenship?

The executives of Wal-Mart who have been instrumental in undermining our economy by being instrumental in sending millions of much-needed US jobs to China?

Or, perhaps some of those on Wall Street who almost destroyed our entire financial system (but Glen Beck says it was all the fault of over-extended homeowners and the government who MADE the banks made all those loans. It's as if Glen Beck has never heard of a Credit Default Swap or a Mortgage Backed Security).
onefever
May. 8th, 2010 11:41 am (UTC)
Re: Strip people of citizenship?
Something tells me that 2819 deaths(or 168 deaths in Oklahoma city)in one day due to terrorism is a little more heinous then people losing jobs to the Chinese or because of Wall Street greed. Would you consider it greater harm then what Ken Lay did at Enron if that SUV blew up and killed someone? I would because I would trade 100,000 American jobs if it saved someone's life.
3165rushingyard
May. 9th, 2010 10:41 pm (UTC)
Re: Strip people of citizenship?
The problem with your argument is you are doing a bait and switch. This bill was not proposed after the World Trade Center or the Murrah Federal Building bombing and yet those are the things you mention. And yet that is what you are using for your example. What, it took them 9 or 15 years respectively to come up with this bill and that is the impetus for it? No, the impetus for this bill was the attempt to use a poorly crafted bomb to bring harm to a tourist area in New York by a recently naturalized citizen of the US.

The problem is you are forgetting the impact of those 100,000 jobs (and it is actually more in the area of 10,000,000 jobs) which has a cascade effect on far more than one person losing his life . . . or a hundred people losing their lives. Oh, and by the way, what Ken Lay did did lead to people losing their lives. People died from heat exhaustion in California during the rolling blackouts in 2001. People die when they lose their health care when they lose their jobs. People die from stress, etc etc.

We think because Enron and Wall Street are white collar crimes and there is no knife being plunged into someone's chest that there are no deadly consequences to their actions. I assure you, those who have committed suicide over losing their homes are killed by the impact of Wall Street derivative trading as much as by the noose they kill themselves with.
onefever
May. 10th, 2010 09:59 pm (UTC)
Re: Strip people of citizenship?
There is no bait and switch here. Terrorism is the bait of my point (and the bill) and it doesn't get switched to anything, it stays terrorism. And there were bills introduced just after 9/11. It included Homeland security and the Patriot act. As well as bills just after Oklahoma City like the Omnibus Counter Terrorism act of 1995. So what has been determined from the Times Square incident is that those obviously do not go far enough. Hence the Lieberman bill.

Anyway, after reading your post I realized you are just beating around the bush about the answer to my question. Which is essentially yes, you would trade 1 life for 100,000 jobs. That is the problem with liberals, progressives, democrats, whatever. They are statist. Progressive's believe the state is more important then the individual and a good example is socialism and to a greater extent communism. Abortion is also an example. And actually statists are more about "me" or what can I get from the state because I deserve it because I was born here. Then they refuse to serve the state or country (not just militarily) and make excuses. Many don't even pay taxes. What kills me is how liberals hold up JFK as an icon but conveniently ignore one of his main ideas: "ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country". But back your your answer and I will use your "statistics". I wouldn't trade even 10,000,000 jobs for one life because life is the most important thing.

Now I love the arguments liberals make about how "evil corporations" inadvertently cause death with their decisions. This is a classic cop out of individual responsibility. People dying of heat exhaustion caused by Enron is utterly ridiculous. I am amazed that we as people survived through the thousands of years without electrical power. In hotter places, mind you. People don't die because of a lack of healthcare, either. Emergency rooms still give care regardless. That is why you are billed afterwards and not before care. It is what the individual's lifestyle before and after care is given that has a greater effect on your health. Meaning, you should be responsible to take care of yourself to avoid non-emergency visits. And if you need the emergency room, it's there (for everyone, not just the insured). Geez, for all the love of Darwin the left has you would think they would embrace survival of the fittest a little more.

Also, I abhor suicide and I do not shed a tear for those who commit it, no matter what the situation. I have soldiers who lose there whole families and their homes while they are at war and they drive on. A person willing to slap God in the face by ending their own life is despicable. The reason for suicide is always ALWAYS unjustified. There is always a better choice and there is always someone who is doing more with less. And because of that, people killing themselves due to Wall Street's actions is not Wall Street's fault. So I discount that argument.

I'm sick of people blaming others for their problems and looking for a nanny state to take care of them. I encourage you to watch America: The Story of Us on the History Channel and you will see what true Americans look like. They did it for themselves and asked for nothing even when the government and even God pushed them down. But when the country needed them they stepped up. Where is that attitude today.

But anyway back to terrorism and this bill. This bill is not a response to what happened 15 years ago. It is a response to what almost happened a couple weeks ago. Why is it so outrageous to nip a problem in the bud before it happens? Maybe if the U.S wasn't so reactionary and was more pro-active we could control our destiny a little better and possibly stop a terrorist attack. That is America used to be.
3165rushingyard
May. 11th, 2010 04:40 am (UTC)
Re: Strip people of citizenship?
Of course I would be happy to e-mail (or even snail mail) you a copy of my DD214 to prove my service as a Ranger to this country from 1988 to 1992 (I will black out my social security number, but other than that I will leave my military record to speak for itself, maybe you can even call me and I can recite the Ranger Creed for you. Almost 20 years later and I still remember every line. Some things never leave you).

You are using labels as a means to further your argument and as a means of attack. You say I am a Liberal (Please note the capital 'L'. I am not, unless you consider a classic liberal, what we today would call a libertarian in the mold of Trenchard and Gordon of the Independent Whig, to be a Liberal. Which it is not).

You seem to miss my point. I do no necessarily have a problem with removing the citizenship of those who threaten this country. There are precedent for traitors, such as Robert E. Lee and much of the leadership of the CSA. My problem is we are happy to only hold one group accountable while we allow those who wish to exploit their fellow Americans and do great harm to this country to get away with it. These people do far greater harm to this country than one SUV bomb ever could, and yet I am still waiting for some kind of indictment for the near-collapse of our entire economic system.

I am also a historian (one masters degree and working on a second) and there are great parallels in history to what is going on in America, most notably the Ottoman Empire in the late-sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and the Byzantine Empire in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. There the interests of select elites became inverse to that of the state: They did better economically provided the empire did worse; as the empire became more dysfunctional, so did their power and influence grow. They encouraged wars which further sapped the strength of the empire and which allowed them greater profit from said loss of strength.

I do not need to watch America: The Story of Us to see what a true American looks like. I see one every day when I look in the mirror, and I also think of the four years I spent away from my wife while I was in the Army and she was living with her parents in Massachusetts. Don't preach to me of sacrifice as I have watched my brother, a newly promoted first sergeant in the Marine Corps who has served Iraq for one tour, is most likely off to Afghanistan within the year.

My offer still stands, I will be happy to send you a copy of my DD214. Just please, do not let arguments so quickly tumble down into an exercise in name calling. It does neither of us any good. And lastly, it is not a matter of trading a life for 100,000 jobs or even 10,000,000 jobs, the two arguments are not mutually inclusive. We do not have to lose a life to save those jobs; we just have to demand of those who say they put America first to truly put America first.
onefever
May. 11th, 2010 09:50 pm (UTC)
Re: Strip people of citizenship?
Ok to your first reply. What titles did I throw around? The only thing I said about the military is "my soldiers" when talking about people who have it way worse then those whom commit suicide not way worse then you. You were the one content with pompous titles and credentials. "Ranger" "Master's Degree", etc. You have no idea what I do nor what my background is. So I can assume you will reroute that ridiculous comment back to yourself. I never preached to you of any sacrifice that you need to make at all so I have no idea where that came from. I merely suggested you watch a good program about great Americans. From this you derived that I was insinuating you were not a great American and felt the need to defend yourself by saying you look in the mirror and see one. That's great, so do I. But I still like to know when I may better myself with good content and see what I can do to emulate even greater Americans. I mean you made it clear you are a historian so you would think it would interest you. What names did I call you? I did make references to liberals but if you are not, fair enough. That's not exactly a stinger and as a ranger I'm sure you've heard worse. I am torn by your comment about them not being mutually inclusive. I agree that both can be done because they are unrelated. But that was my point. They are unrelated but you found the comparison and I felt the comparison was weak. I agree that we need to keep jobs in America but I don't think punishing companies for finding a better opportunity is fair. Maybe it's just the capitalist in me. If this country makes it harder for a company to make a profit through regulation and taxes then why wouldn't they go somewhere to make more money. However, the reason I said anything at all was you were comparing terrorists to Wall Street and I think the relationship is apples and oranges. Terrorists want to maliciously kill innocent people and cause chaos, I'm pretty sure Wall Street doesn't do that. I hope your brother stays safe in Afghanistan because I'll have it easier in Iraq when I leave in June. I will read the next thing you posted later when I get a chance. Oh and I don't need your DD214, the Ranger Creed, the Soldiers creed, NCO Creed, or anything else. Call me naive but I have a tendency to believe people even on message boards. But I will leave you with a suggestion like you did me. Do not take everything I am disagreeing with you on as an attack. I was actually surprised to see you defending yourself so vehemently because it didn't seem like what I posted was particularly malicious.
3165rushingyard
May. 12th, 2010 12:26 pm (UTC)
Re: Strip people of citizenship?
This was the reason for my response:

"Anyway, after reading your post I realized you are just beating around the bush about the answer to my question. Which is essentially yes, you would trade 1 life for 100,000 jobs. That is the problem with liberals, progressives, democrats, whatever. They are statist."

How would you normally take that? Also . . .

"Now I love the arguments liberals make about how 'evil corporations' inadvertently cause death"

Seeing as I had just made that argument, are you saying you were not calling me a liberal, and that in using the term "liberal" you were not meaning it as an insult?

Like it or not, the term "liberal" is certainly used as a pejorative and an invective from those in the conservative spectrum (please, feel free to correct me if you think I am wrong). It just did not seem like anything I suggested or referenced was dependent upon a particular political ideology.

I was not trying to compare Wall Street to terrorists, so on that I should have been much more clear, but it was more of a comment derived from discussions I have had with others outside of this board. Let's just put it down to me continuing a conversation here and not filling anyone in on the first half of the conversation. I will stand by my statement that the loose and destructive actions by Wall Street from 2000-2008 certainly did more damage than one SUV bomb ever could.

As far as corporations go, they are not evil. They are responsible for employing tens of millions of people in this country. The officers of a company have one, and only one, responsibility: To ensure a profit for their stockholders. Perhaps that is why I favor privately held companies as opposed to publicly traded ones. I am not saying companies need to be punished (unless they engage in illegal behavior (such as Enron)); but I do find it abhorrent that an American company will buy a pair of jeans made in China for $4.25, and from workers who are being paid $0.06 an hour, and then turn around and charge $75 for said pair of jeans. Meanwhile, China is happy to then take the profits from such a manufacturing situation and lend the money at interest to the United States. Sorry, but on the part of the American corporation, that is treasonous and has a strong parallel to the elites of the Ottoman Empire and their dealings with France and England, et al during the seventeenth century.

Perhaps I lean away from the laissez-faire capitalism of Adam Smith and more towards Ordoliberalism. I believe it is the government's responsibility to ensure a country's economic system cannot be brought to the brink of collapse due to abuses in a non-regulated environment.

As far as America: The Story of Us, I actually had already recorded the the first episode because I felt the CGI of the settlements would be helpful in class.

One last thing, Ranger and Masters are not pompous titles. Duke, baron, and king are examples of pompous titles. They don't have to be earned. There is nothing wrong with being proud of the things you worked so hard for, and saying such, particularly when it certainly appeared my nature as a "true American' was being questioned.
3165rushingyard
May. 11th, 2010 07:34 am (UTC)
Re: Strip people of citizenship?
I just got back from a nice walk and I wanted to just address a few of your comments, sir . . .

onefever: "Why is it so outrageous to nip a [terrorist problem] in the bud before it happens?"

How is stripping people of their citizenship if they have provided material support to foreign terrorist groups going to do anything? Tell me, what is this going to do above and beyond what our legal system is going to do (send someone away to prison for a very loooong time)? What is this going to nip in the bud and how is it a preventative measure, as you are therefore claiming?

onefever: "People dying of heat exhaustion caused by Enron is utterly ridiculous. I am amazed that we as people survived through the thousands of years without electrical power."

Look it up, people did die due to heat exhaustion during the rolling blackouts of 2000-2001 (particularly the elderly, and there are even recordings of Enron traders joking about it while it happened). We have not lived in extreme urbanized environments for thousands of years. You probably do not know this, but this was a major problem in the United States during the explosion of urbanization after the influx of southern Europeans post-1880. The government made it a priority for architects and architectural schools in the 1890s and 1900s to solve the problem. They had very limited success. Read through some of the papers in New York during heatwaves of the 1890/1900s and you will see many articles telling people in tenements to check on their elderly neighbors and to get them to areas where they might get relief.

onefever: "I encourage you to watch America: The Story of Us on the History Channel and you will see what true Americans look like. They did it for themselves and asked for nothing even when the government and even God pushed them down. But when the country needed them they stepped up."

Why were people able to pay $300 to buy their way out of the Union draft during the Civil War? Why were people with 20 or more slaves exempted from Confederate military service. Tell me, who do you think was capable of meeting those economic requirements? I am not trying to be contradictory, but records do show that people did ask for help from the government, it just was usually local government and not the Federal government.

I know you believe the United States is a meritocracy. Have you ever considered that it might, just might, not be a meritocracy? I am not a socialist, nor a communist, and I do not believe in the redistribution of wealth. But I also believe I am fully capable of using my intellect and experience to accurately assess a situation (something which allowed me to outstrip my peers in the military when it came to gaining rank and responsibility as a team leader and squad a leader; it also allowed me to perform within the top 1% of academia; and, I put this in because I can only imagine what you think, to serve to educate our young in a public high school in both World and US history).

I know this conversation has been both civil and has gone far afield, but to our original point: What will this bill accomplish, honestly, what will it do to deter or combat terrorism. Honestly, please, I am interested in your arguments (and I assure you, I will pose them faithfully and accurately to my students because I do think this is an issue of great importance).
a_r_williams
May. 8th, 2010 12:25 pm (UTC)
Re: Strip people of citizenship?
"Or, perhaps some of those on Wall Street who almost destroyed our entire financial system (but Glen Beck says it was all the fault of over-extended homeowners and the government who MADE the banks made all those loans. It's as if Glen Beck has never heard of a Credit Default Swap or a Mortgage Backed Security)."

Or the constant cry for deregulation because it hampers the ability of companies to make money.
ubet_cha
May. 8th, 2010 11:15 am (UTC)
I just thanked someone for their sarcastic comment about JoeL because it, along with your post brought his latest SNAFU to my attention. What’s wrong with people? Every time the man begins to redeem himself ( Thinking of the Enviroment bill.) we get this neo-con rubbish.

Ugh
onefever
May. 8th, 2010 11:23 am (UTC)
Enough rhetoric, just call it treason...
I say we lose the vague "material support" clause, make the law more specific to certain acts of support to terrorism like funding, planning, executing, etc. Then go back to the old days and try them for good ol' treason and execute them. Also, Al Gore has made waaaaaaaaaaaay bigger mistakes.
vandor
May. 8th, 2010 02:25 pm (UTC)
slippery slope
This is starting to get a little out of hand. Combining laws like this with what's going on Arizona, its getting ridiculous. Next step will be that for our own personal safety we'll just set up video cameras and audio bugs all over the country to make sure the gov't (Big Brother) can keep us safe from Terrorists, and by terrorists I mean anyone who does not like our current governments.
tadhg92
May. 8th, 2010 04:01 pm (UTC)
I already knew that I loved your books. I just now realized how much I love your (other) readers. We seem to have a bit more in common than just a love of a good tale.
Lieberman is a fink.
jonm095
May. 8th, 2010 05:15 pm (UTC)
TERRORIST EXPATRIATION ACT
Let me start out by saying I'm not a Lieberman fan. As far as I'm concerned, he should not be a Senator any longer, but the people of Connecticut don't share my views. At least he's not as much of a nut job as Kerry was. He scared the shit out of me.

Have you read what he's proposing in this act? This is not something new...we've been doing this since WW2, when anyone who went to fight for Japan or Germany was expatriated. This law was upheld as constitutional in 1980, when it was challenged.

I have no problem with this, as long as due process is observed, which by the existing law it must be. Even after the State Department strips someone of their citizenship, they can still appeal to Federal Court of Appeals. This is not some arbitrary "you pissed us off so we're kicking you out" law.

If someone attacks this country, or knowingly associates themselves with a terrorist organization who intends or expresses desire to attack this country and kill American citizens, why would we want them to remain citizens? So they can come & go as they please? NO! Strip them of their citizenship, revoke their passport and leave them wherever they decided to go and be with their terrorist friends!

Have you not been paying attention to the recent attempted attacks? They've ALL been US Citizens! All of them have gone overseas, spent time with known terrorist groups and then returned to the US, on their US passports, and attempted to KILL US Citizens! WHY wouldn't we expatriate them?!? Next you're going to tell me we shouldn't jail and execute murders.

Can any one of you give me one good reason as to why we shouldn't kick these people out?

Here's Lieberman's speech regarding this bill: http://lieberman.senate.gov/index.cfm/news-events/news/2010/5/lieberman-statement-on-introduction-of-terrorist-expatriation-act

Pay close attention to the part about your lord & savior, Obama, signing off on an assassination order! Surely, no self respecting liberal would do that?!? And of course, we'll never know the truth, because he'll never admit it and any such documentation will not be released under a Freedom of Information Act request!
teriegarrison
May. 8th, 2010 09:04 pm (UTC)
Re: TERRORIST EXPATRIATION ACT
US citizens kill other US citizens every day. Are you advocating that all convicted murderers also lose their citizenship? If not, why no?
jonm095
May. 8th, 2010 10:25 pm (UTC)
Re: TERRORIST EXPATRIATION ACT
There is a significant difference between a murder who kills 1 or 10 versus a terrorist whose goal is to kill 100s or 1000s and in the process, frighten the remaining citizens of the city, state and country into looking over their shoulder and wondering what comes next.

Most murders are committed by someone the victim knows (though with violent crime on the rise, that may be changing); unless there is a serial killer on the loose, people are generally not frightened by a murderer.

Terrorism goes far beyond simple killing. There are a number of definitions of terrorism, depending on which dictionary you choose. My favorite, of the 4 I looked at, is "use of force or threats to demoralize, intimidate, and subjugate"

The definition of murder, "the unlawful and malicious or premeditated killing of one human being by another" while potentially a part of terrorism, is not, in and of itself, a terroristic act.

The point of the bill and of the law it modifies is not to expatriate people who kill. Its purpose is to expatriate people who, by their own actions, including association with known terrorist groups (can you come up with an example of why a citizen of the US would go overseas, to a terrorist training camp, for a legitimate reason?), have made it clear that they no longer consider themselves to be a citizen of the United States of America and who would use their citizenship to gain access to our country freely, where their fellow terrorists, who are not citizens, may not be able to gain access to our country, or at least not as easily, since we do not have secure borders to stop them.

Would you want your neighbor, who goes away for several months to a terrorist training camp, to come back and settle back into your neighborhood for a few days/weeks/months/years, until he's called upon to carry out his attack? Or would you rather that he never be allowed to set foot on American soil, other than his expatriation proceedings?
grrm
May. 8th, 2010 10:57 pm (UTC)
Re: TERRORIST EXPATRIATION ACT
Guilt by association is a repugnant idea, in my opinion.

It was practiced widely during the McCarthy era (Joe, not Gene), one of the more shameful epochs in American history. Lieberman's bill would start us down the road to the same thing.
jonm095
May. 8th, 2010 11:20 pm (UTC)
Re: TERRORIST EXPATRIATION ACT
Put that way, I agree...to an extent. I don't think this is something that can be boiled down to something as simple as guilt by association. When there is satellite footage or an electronic trail that puts someone smack dab in the middle of a known terrorist camp, where they remain for weeks or months before leaving of their own free will...like I said, give me an explanation of why they have a legitimate reason to be there, and we won't label them terrorist.

I'll start off with a reporter. They have legitimate reason for being there for a few days, maybe a week or even two...but I have doubts about that actually happening, but we'll allow it has possible.

Anything else?

There's more to this than just guilt by association.

I know people fear that the government will overstep its bounds. That's why we, as citizens, as voters, have to keep our eyes open and keep the government in check.

As far as I'm concerned, the government hasn't been within its bounds for decades. Each day, it oversteps a little further.

Before assumptions are made...after doing my research and comparing my views to the available options, I have stepped away from the conservatives (I was an independent in my youth, though I've always voted for whoever I thought best, never along party lines) and find myself in the Libertarian camp. Not perfect. Better than the alternatives, which have devolved into two sides of the same coin (The Republicans are no longer truly conservatives). Since we do not want this to turn in to politics 101, that's as far as I shall go.
grrm
May. 10th, 2010 11:34 pm (UTC)
Re: TERRORIST EXPATRIATION ACT
Why should one of your fellow citizens have to provide you -- or the government -- with this "legitimate reason" you want? His reasons are his own, until and unless he commits a crime.

Again, this is McCarthyism. Throw people in jail not because they commit any actual crime, but because you don't like the people that they associate with.

onefever
May. 9th, 2010 03:17 am (UTC)
Re: TERRORIST EXPATRIATION ACT
There is a difference between associating and providing support. The bill does not say anything about "associating with", "moral support", or even just "support". It focuses on providing material support like funding, equipment, plans, etc. But in that case the material support is treason and I have no idea why it wouldn't just be tried as that.
onefever
May. 9th, 2010 03:25 am (UTC)
Re: TERRORIST EXPATRIATION ACT
Don't confuse terrorism with murder. Terrorism is focused on the fear the society goes through following the act. This fear caused by terrorism is in an attempt to undermine the government leading to chaos and eventual collapse (at worst) or a change in policy in the hopes it stops the terrorism (at best). Examples include our stances in Iraq, Afghanistan, and that we are friends with Israel. Same goes for Timothy Mcveigh. He wasn't trying to murder the people in Oklahoma City. His aim was the government. Terrorism has nothing to do with the people which is why it is so dangerous. It has the potential to do more then just end lives. Murder focuses on the individual. One person wanting to kill another person based on the relationship between the two people. Even if that relationship is a robber and a cashier.
scott_lynch
May. 8th, 2010 11:30 pm (UTC)
Re: TERRORIST EXPATRIATION ACT
Can any one of you give me one good reason as to why we shouldn't kick these people out?

Because we're not discussing "kicking them out." We're discussing the act of revoking their recourse to the guarantees enumerated in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. A giant boot doesn't magically appear out of thin air and "kick them out". What are you, five?

The problem with this bullshit is that it's pointless, time-wasting, dog-whistle nonsense that has nothing to do with a) preventing terrorist acts or b) proving/disproving the guilt of suspected terrorists. The citizenship status of a terrorist suspect is no impediment whatsoever to their being tried, or to their being punished if found guilty.

Contrary to the belief of an awful lot of vengeful pants-wetters, "GIT A ROPE, BOYS!" is not the highest aspiration of our society's judicial heritage.
jonm095
May. 8th, 2010 11:55 pm (UTC)
Re: TERRORIST EXPATRIATION ACT
Thanks for ignoring everything else I said, which answers your "question".

It might prevent terrorist acts, if they are found and their passport flagged before they walk away freely from the airport. It will also affect the trial and punishment, as it will move it out of the civilian courts and into the military commission, which is the current way we handle non-citizen ("alien") terrorists, per the Military Commissions Act of 2009, which Obama signed as part of the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act.

We are already trying alien terrorists in military commissions, WITHOUT the protections that we, as American citizens, have (just as we already have the ability to expatriate any citizen who fights against the U.S.) Why should people who qualify as terrorists, through action or providing support, be treated any differently than alien terrorists? This bill levels the playing field. A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist. They are fighting against the U.S. now. This bill recognizes that the "enemy" has changed and so must we.

Some say that we've "evolved" away from the frontier justice you allude to and I suppose from a process standpoint we have. That doesn't mean that there is not a time or place that we will need to "evolve" again, even if some consider it to be devolving instead.

We must fight the enemy we are faced with and we must adjust our weapons and tactics in such a way as to exceed theirs.
elessar2011
May. 8th, 2010 08:55 pm (UTC)
Hear Hear!
Personally, I think Gore's biggest mistakes were being too stiff and not being as gutsy as his dad was. While Lieberman was still a scold at the time, I don't think anyone thought he'd become such a turncoat. The constant moralizing is bad enough, but then he does something like this! Thankfully, I have a feeling the voters in CT are as fed up with him as the rest of us are.

My question is this: what do we do with Lieberman once we strip him of citizenship? I vote we exile him to a deserted island to live out his life a la Castaway.

BTW, I noted that a conservative poster described Obama derisively as "our lord and savior". I find this more than a little ironic, considering the quite blatant Jesus-style worship the right gave to Dubya.
jonm095
May. 8th, 2010 11:25 pm (UTC)
Re: Hear Hear!
Let's send Lieberman to China. I'm sure he can do some good there. Or maybe North Korea?

I didn't pay much attention to GWB, except at election time, when I considered both candidates and voted, as I always do, as the lesser of the evils. Because of that, I didn't "the right" worshiping him...I did hear almost everyone calling him the idiot that he appeared to be.

What I have seen, since he took office, is a "worship" of Obama that I find cult-like and disturbing...hence, my comment.
kraquerman
May. 15th, 2010 01:47 pm (UTC)
ouch
A little harsh, aren't we? I do love Mr. Martin's "My way or the highway" attitude.
( 48 comments )

Profile

Spain
grrm
George R.R. Martin
George R. R. Martin

Latest Month

September 2014
S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930    

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner