Lieberman's Bill

[Gromnir]

linky

 

discuss

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited May 7, 2010 by Gromnir

[Gorth]

Strange link...

 

Edit: Now it works, in Technicolor too

[Gromnir]

Strange link...

 

oops

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gorth]

Interesting... in a morbidly fascinating kind of way. Did I understand it correctly, that the suspicion alone is enough to strip you of your citizenship and shove you in front of a military court?

[Humodour]

Obama will veto it if it passes, based on his past stances and what I've been reading.

[HoonDing]

Interesting... in a morbidly fascinating kind of way. Did I understand it correctly, that the suspicion alone is enough to strip you of your citizenship and shove you in front of a military court?

Under Bush there was a law that allows foreigners accused of terrorism to be incarcerated forever. I don't now whether it's still in effect.

[Pop]

I'm not sure there was a law. The 41st's administration always contended that terror suspects irregular combatants in wartime, thus removing them from the protection provided by the Geneva Convention and the US Constitution.

Obama will veto it if it passes, based on his past stances and what I've been reading.

He wouldn't have to. Even with a Republican majority this sort of thing wouldn't go anywhere. Lieberman is grandstanding. The joke is that all this has really done is make Glenn Beck look reasonable - he's spoken out against it. Though, given his positions on Health Care Reform at different points in time, he might change his tune should some teabagger rep reopen the issue at some point down the road.

 

Meanwhile, Congressional Republicans have come out against a proposed bill that would prevent people on terror watch lists from legally buying guns and / or explosives. But that's par for the course. Post 9/11, Republicans tend to frown upon the Fourth Amendment (and the First, as far as things like implied privacy go) and rigorously raise the banner of the Second.

Edited May 7, 2010 by Pop

[mr insomniac]

Interesting... in a morbidly fascinating kind of way. Did I understand it correctly, that the suspicion alone is enough to strip you of your citizenship and shove you in front of a military court?

Hmm, my take on it is that a suspect must be affiliated with a known terrorist organization in order to be stripped of citizenship and thus denied miranda rights. the article doesn't mention any definition or breadth of scope to determine how deep one's affiliation with such an organization must go in order to be subject to lieberman's law... if it should ever become a law, that is.

[Guard Dog]

This is a very, very, VERY bad idea. Citizenship, once granted, cannot be stripped. What about natural born Americans? Should they be stripped as well for comitting a crime? Hell no. Bad bill, bad idea, and it could take us to a very dark place. But like Lord of Flies just pointed out two posts back, it will never pass.

[Meshugger]

What's the point of citizenship if the government can just strip it away whenever they feel like it? Might as well abolish the nation-state as well while you're at it, Mr Lieberman.

[Wrath of Dagon]

This is a very, very, VERY bad idea. Citizenship, once granted, cannot be stripped. What about natural born Americans? Should they be stripped as well for comitting a crime? Hell no. Bad bill, bad idea, and it could take us to a very dark place. But like Lord of Flies just pointed out two posts back, it will never pass.

Actually it can be, if you lie on the US entry application.

 

These people are enemy combatants, not regular criminals. We need to have the option of interrogating them instead of reading them Miranda rights and letting them remain silent. That was the Bush administration position, apparently until a 2006 law which states that even terrorism suspects (edit: if US citizens) have to be given full constitutional rights unless they're affiliated with Al Qaeda. That's a stupid way to tie our own hands in a war.

Edited May 7, 2010 by Wrath of Dagon

[213374U]

The proposed legislation would amend current law that strips a person's citizenship if they fight with a foreign army.

Whoa. So, if you go and join the French Foreign Legion, The Man automagically takes away your rights, or do you have to fight against the US?

[kirottu]

The proposed legislation would amend current law that strips a person's citizenship if they fight with a foreign army.

Whoa. So, if you go and join the French Foreign Legion, The Man automagically takes away your rights, or do you have to fight against the US?

 

I actually talked with some guy last weekend who had been in this situation and had to make a choice between finnish and USA citizenship. It is pretty ****ed up... on both sides.

[Monte Carlo]

It seems to be to be a symbolic gesture. And, given that the protagonists here are machine Democrats it's probably a bit of dog-whistle muscle flexing for their blue collar voters.

 

The USA has life-without-parole mega prisons, federal death penalties and has dabbled with extra-judicial POW camps using soft-core torture techniques. It renders foreign nationals. It hunts down it's foes with drones armed with big rockets.

 

These are all bad-ass sanctions of which I would not immediately disapprove of.

 

So tearing up some terrorists passport before giving him a lethal injection, or crashing a hellfire into his pickup, seems a bit meh.

[Walsingham]

I think the central problem is that we are witnessing a collision of the rules of war with the laws of peace. The core of the this problem is not simply one of precedent and practice, but jurisprudence (I think that's the right word). It is simply not possibly to treat enemies on the field of war with same demands of evidence and judgement. Picture CSI Getting Shot in the Ass. So, being as how we are a democracy we have to make a choice.

 

On the one hand this means we have judges insisting people who've been picked up in Waziristan can't be held. Indeed in the UK we just had a judge rule that susepcts have a right to hear the evidence against them which would mean a really REALLY short life for any human informant who helped us.

 

On the other hand we are justifiably wary of the standards applied in war being applied in peace, and to us.

 

We have to choose where we want the balance to rest. For my money I would suggest we draw a line based on where the suspect was apprehended, and the balance of evidence has been gathered. If they were apprehended in friendly territory, and the evidence is electronic or drawn primarily from friendly territory, then go with a criminal standard. If they got picked up in unfriendly territory, or the bulk of evidence is in enemy territory, then the reverse applies. The problem I suppose is where there's no evidence at all. I'm not sure how one would stop that.

[Monte Carlo]

and it will get worse before it gets better.

Edited May 7, 2010 by Monte Carlo

[Gorth]

The problem I suppose is where there's no evidence at all. I'm not sure how one would stop that.

We gather our pitch forks and torches and seek out the isolated, the different ones and the pariahs and attibute things like tornados, aids and earthquakes to them. From there on, things usually sort themselves out.

[Orogun01]

Putting terrorists before a military court is not a bad idea, since they chose to join a paramilitary organization. The problem as Wals put it is in the proof, perhaps it should fall to the court to prove that this man is indeed connected to a terrorist organization and then strip him of his rights and spank him.

Although I feel that some amendments are necessary to ensure that this bill is effective; which means impeding it's abuse.

After all there is no sense in democracy protecting those that would destroy it.

[Walsingham]

The more I think about it the more I come back to this critical difficulty with evidence. The quality of evidence taken in a warzone is (realistically) probably never going to satisfy a civilian jury. However, if we assume that there are terrorists out there somewhere how do we propose tackling them? Do we not tackle them? Do we simply permit any agent of a foreign power who is not in uniform to murder our citizens with complete impugnity?

[Pop]

It seems to be to be a symbolic gesture. And, given that the protagonists here are machine Democrats it's probably a bit of dog-whistle muscle flexing for their blue collar voters.

The books you're reading are at least 30 years out of date. Lieberman isn't even ostensibly a Democrat at this point, he's essentially a neocon independent who caucauses with the Dems. And the Democrats don't have a solid bloc of blue-collar voters. Unions aren't exactly power players anymore, in the grand scheme of things, and they don't really have any interest in this sort of legislation. "Blue collar" voters haven't been with the Dems since the Seventies, when the party shook up the structure of the Congress and kicked out their Southern anti-civil rights contingent, who flocked to the Republican party and made it what it is today. They're not called "blue collar" voters anymore, they're called "family values" voters. They vote Republican, because Republicans don't pal around with queers or the browns who steal our jobs, and they all worship Reagan.. Lieberman's appealing to Tea Party types (nevermind that Teabaggers identify as independents and libertarians by and large. To the average voter, both terms are more bemusingly honorific than indicative of actual policy positions.)

Edited May 8, 2010 by Pop

[Pop]

But like Lord of Flies just pointed out two posts back, it will never pass.

That's funny! If I had an alt on this forum, it would be a rape-happy Ayn Rand character.

[Pop]

I might actually do that, now that you've gotten me thinking about it.

[Guard Dog]

But like Lord of Flies just pointed out two posts back, it will never pass.

That's funny! If I had an alt on this forum, it would be a rape-happy Ayn Rand character.

Hmmmm, I can think of a few here who meet that criteria. Maybe you already HAVE done that....

[Ayn Rand's Ghost]

Lieberman's propensity for changing positions on issues is emblematic of the conniving nature of his people. They have only ever conspired to remove the true individual from his rightful profits, with their sinister banking practices.

Edited May 8, 2010 by Ayn Rand's Ghost

[Meshugger]

But like Lord of Flies just pointed out two posts back, it will never pass.

That's funny! If I had an alt on this forum, it would be a rape-happy Ayn Rand character.

Hmmmm, I can think of a few here who meet that criteria. Maybe you already HAVE done that....

 

"5 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)

4 Members: Meshugger, Ayn Rand's Ghost, Oblarg, Guard Dog"

 

Now look what you did

 

//EDIT: Meh, too late.

Edited May 8, 2010 by Meshugger