Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Joe Should Go

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.



May. 8th, 2010 05:15 pm (UTC)
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!
May. 8th, 2010 09:04 pm (UTC)
US citizens kill other US citizens every day. Are you advocating that all convicted murderers also lose their citizenship? If not, why no?
May. 8th, 2010 10:25 pm (UTC)
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?
May. 8th, 2010 10:57 pm (UTC)
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.
May. 8th, 2010 11:20 pm (UTC)
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.
May. 10th, 2010 11:34 pm (UTC)
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.

May. 9th, 2010 03:17 am (UTC)
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.
May. 9th, 2010 03:25 am (UTC)
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.
May. 8th, 2010 11:30 pm (UTC)
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.
May. 8th, 2010 11:55 pm (UTC)
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.


George R.R. Martin
George R. R. Martin

Latest Month

February 2018


Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner