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 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.


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

Latest Month

April 2018


Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner