(no subject)

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

If you haven't heard, New York was under attack by an idiot. As opposed to past idiots, this idiot happens to not only be brown and born in Pakistan, but is also an American citizen. This last bit introduces hoops that our proud lawmakers must jump through to maintain their integrity on terrorism:

“Obviously that would be a serious mistake until all the information is gathered,” John McCain said when asked whether the suspect, Faisal Shahzad, should have been Mirandized.

“What I was talking about was that we don’t have to Mirandize someone immediately. You don’t – before you charge them, there’s time that elapses,” McCain later clarified to POLITICO.

“I hope that [Attorney General Eric] Holder did discuss this with the intelligence community. If they believe they got enough from him, how much more should they get? Did they Mirandize him? I know he’s an American citizen but still,” Peter King (R-NY) told POLITICO.

Joe Lieberman has another idea: "I think it’s time for us to look at whether we want to amend that law to apply it to American citizens who choose to become affiliated with foreign terrorist organizations, whether they should not also be deprived automatically of their citizenship, and therefore be deprived of rights that come with that citizenship when they are apprehended and charged with a terrorist act."

Apparently he thinks domestic terrorist organizations should get a free pass.

So, aren't these the guys who keep harping on restricting the amount of power the federal government has over its citizens? They've previously tried to claim these powers only over unlawful combatants, but if they can invent a charge that lets them revoke someone's citizenship at the drop of a hat... the slope these men walk along is mighty slippery.

Comments

You are right.

[zebra24.livejournal.com]

1) Terrorist isn't an idiot, just unlucky.
2) There shouldn't be any persons deprived of their rights, no matter citizenship or not.
3) Question is how he got his citizenship, was it legal or not.

I agree with you: Reps and Dems too often just plays same game.

But I still think that Dems still worse than Reps in this matter.

Re: You are right.

[frodomyhero.livejournal.com]

In which matter?

Re: You are right.

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

Question is how he got his citizenship, was it legal or not.

Why? We can't predict who will become a terrorist. The story sounds like he lost his job got depressed and desperate.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

When we start talking about simply depriving people of their citizenship for doing things we don't like, people should get worried. Suddenly we can just do anything to them.

[merig00.livejournal.com]

actually State Department has a right to strip citizenship from a naturalized citizen which is kinda fucked up.

[prader.livejournal.com]

I agree with you.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of the terrorist- but this sets a dangerous precedent that I'd gladly keep out of the hands of politicians/bureaucrat who are on "my side", if it means keeping it out of the hands of those who aren't.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Why do Republicans hate our justice system?

[merig00.livejournal.com]

Seems like it's not only republicans

[frodomyhero.livejournal.com]

Because they are bad losers. They want a one party system. They said that when they were in control of Congress. They are not into a democracy. Just money and power to control the government.

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

Maybe you're being too clever for me, but I'll take you literally anyhow.

This isn't exactly a party line thing. Lieberman is no Republican. Okay, he's not exactly a Democrat either, but he's got some history there. He's the one with the bill to strip people of their citizenship without waiting for due process to run its course.

McCain's answer was kinda dumb, but then asking a senator if a suspect should be mirandized is a dumb question anyhow.

That said, why are our senior senators being a bunch of idiots about this? This looks like one of those times where our criminal justice system should function properly. Have our lawmakers gotten so used to messing with our justice system that they can't just let it function?

[merig00.livejournal.com]

McCain doesn't know what to say or do anymore to try to win that election in November.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

That sums it up perfectly.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

For once we agree on something.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

I figured this was going to be posted eventually.

I take some joy in that a lot of the usuals had to erase their entire planned screed on Tea Party protesters being ultimately responsible for it.

The guy just got naturalized last year. It's not as if we're talking just stripping people of their citizenship at whim. I have heard that removal of citizenship of naturalized Americans isn't a new concept.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

It's still bad precedent -- and implies that naturalized citizens aren't *really* citizens since this implies we take their rights away BEFORE a trial and BEFORE a conviction.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

I don't even think Romans removed citizenship (cf. Paul of Tarsus and how horrified a Roman centurion was when discovered that he was about to flog a full citizen of the Empire-- a crime that carried severe punishments).

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

Icon win.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

There's a rather long tradition of rulings that rights belong to human beings, and correctly so. The Constitution refers as broadly as possible, the application of rights to persons.

That so many seem to be chomping at the bit to make it mean that they apply not simply just to citizens as they once held, but now only to a designated subset of citizens shows once again how cheap politicians really estimate human liberties and their protections to be worth.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

Isn't Miranda supposed to happen before you're arrested? Not before charged?

[prader.livejournal.com]

Before or kind of during arrest. So far as I know: yes. Keeping in mind that I'm no legal scholar, it's a no brainer in my mind that the guy should have been Mirandized if he's a U.S. citizen. Regardless of how that citizenship came about.

[udoswald.livejournal.com]

"I think it’s time for us to look at whether we want to amend that law to apply it to American citizens who choose to become affiliated with foreign terrorist organizations, whether they should not also be deprived automatically of their citizenship, and therefore be deprived of rights that come with that citizenship when they are apprehended and charged with a terrorist act."

Yes, let's just get rid of due process. To hell with the trial. Let's deprive US citizens (and that appears to include natural born citizens in addition to naturalized) just on the say so of the cops.

Apparently he thinks domestic terrorist organizations should get a free pass.

Silly, domestic terrorists never threatened Israel.

[dukexmachismo.livejournal.com]

It seems the whole idea boils down to: "What this person is accused of is so heinous that we should ignore the rights of the accused."

My ultra-conservative opinion is that if the presumption of innocence was good enough for Grandpa, it's good enough for me.

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

Why the upside-down flag?

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

It's supposed to mean American affiliated ship in distress

[headhouse.livejournal.com]

While I don't think that it's what Lieberman meant, I gotta say I agree with the idea of stripping the citizenship of someone who's been convicted (bolded, because I know someone's going to miss it otherwise) of terrorism on behalf of another nation or on behalf of a foreign organization, regardless of whether they're naturalized or native born.

What's problematic is what to do with them after that.

Apparently he thinks domestic terrorist organizations should get a free pass.

I'm not defending him, but I don't see that he said anything like that.

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

"What's problematic is what to do with them after that."

You mean deciding if you should put them in prison for the rest of their lives or to shoot them? I have no problem with paying to keep a convicted terrorist in prison or even passing that burden on to my kids. If they need to let out a drug dealer or two to make room, it still works for me. I'm not a supporter of the death penalty, so the choice isn't problematic for me.

There wasn't some other decision that I'm missing, was there?

[ofbg.livejournal.com]

The way I understand it, if you have enough evidence to convict when the arrest takes place, Mirandizing makes little or no difference during the investigation.

The reason for that is, no info you gather can be used at trial against him until he is Mirandized. You are just gathering intel to prevent other bad acts or to find accomplices.

If I'm wrong, I betcha there are lawyers here that will set me straight.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

You're largely correct. I would specify that you can use info gained before he's Mirandized, just not info gained from interviewing him. Big difference. You can still get a warrant for his house or whatever, and use that information.

[ofbg.livejournal.com]

Some of you on the left may be surprised to learn that Glenn Beck is for his being mirandized. He was quoted at the link below on the subject at hand and said, "He's a citizen of the United States, so I say we uphold the laws and the constitution".

I have to agree with him.

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/05/mirandizing-times-square-bomber

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

Well this close behind his other comments criticising the administration, he doesn't want to appear to be a total hypocrit.

Give it 6-12 months and we'll see where he stands.

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

I don't see the point in arresting someone if you're not going to read them their rights.

If you want to deny them those rights and you have no intention of using anything they have to say after you arrest them to convict them of a crime, then why bother obeying the legal system at all? Why not just shoot them, or haul them away to some black hole?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Ah, but you're missing a point-to these guys white Christians can't be terrorists.

John Walker Lindh was a terrorist, but the Hutaree? Never.

It's a complete double-standard, of course but what else does one expect from a movement which if it abjurred this would abjur 3/4 of what is left of its base?

[fleaplus.livejournal.com]

> John Walker Lindh was a terrorist, but the Hutaree? Never.

I assume that you aren't familiar with the latest developments in the Hutaree case?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jhK5VTvnp2Kc1AwCg9DlHUh3xnfAD9FG8UG81

Federal authorities touted the arrests of nine members of a Michigan militia as a pre-emptive strike against homegrown terrorists, declaring at an initial court hearing that the suspects with "dark hearts and evil intent" wanted to go to war against the government.
Five weeks later, prosecutors are scrambling to regroup after a judge questioned the strength of their evidence by ordering the so-called rebels released until trial and saying they had a right to "engage in hate-filled, venomous speech."
"The government is falling short," said David Griem, a former federal prosecutor who's not involved in the case. "The message that's been sent to the community is there are problems with this case."
During two days of hearings last week before U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts, prosecutors tried to show how dangerous they perceived the Hutaree militia to be by playing secretly recorded conversations. Those talks, however, revealed no specific plot. Under questioning by defense attorneys, the FBI's lead agent on the case seemed unprepared.

...

The judge's task was to determine if the eight men and one woman — Stone's wife, Tina — were too dangerous to be released. Roberts found that the secret recordings of militia members by an undercover agent contained "offensive and hate-filled speech," but nothing that signaled a conspiracy to levy war against the government.
"The defendants laugh, make sounds and appear to talk over one another," Roberts said, referring to a Feb. 20 recording. "There is also a discussion of strippers."
She was not ruling on anyone's guilt or innocence. The legal threshold to keep people in jail, especially with major allegations of weapons violations, is not high, which raises questions about the broader case and why prosecutors didn't have evidence to persuade the judge.