Terrorism Expatriation Act

Congress Dailey reports on the call to ‘strip’ American citizens of legal rights (Miranda rights, but also indefinite detention? as suggested by Joe Lieberman) based on suspicion and ‘affiliations’. We have a ‘war on drugs’ and a ‘war on terrorism’. Both involve specific policies and specific agencies, not the aid of Captain America and Ironman who are restrained good guy superheroes to keep us safe.

Please tell me…why are Miranda rights the focus here as a key issue? That appears to be inaccurate as a trigger issue. And why is any notion of indefinite detention of a US citizen on the table except as an massive expansion of bigger government?

Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself and Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts) introduced
the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee:

Lieberman seized on renewed fears of a terrorist attack to announce his latest legislative gambit: the “Terrorism Expatriation Act” — or “TEA” — which would revoke the citizenship of any American “who is found to be involved with a foreign terrorist organization as designated by the State Department.”

The measure came less than two months after Lieberman’s introduction, with Sen. John McCain, of another radical bill: The “Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010,” which would grant the president the power to order the arrest, interrogation, and imprisonment of anyone — including a U.S. citizen — indefinitely, on the sole suspicion that he or she is affiliated with terrorism, and on the president’s sole authority as commander in chief. Lieberman’s new bill is an offshoot of the same principle, circumventing the Constitutional guarantees of due process for U.S. citizens by conveniently

Two key Republicans and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg were at odds today over how far the federal government should go to withhold the legal rights of U.S. citizens suspected of plotting terrorist acts.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said he wants to devise a law that would help law enforcement officials detain and interrogate citizens suspected of helping terrorist organizations or carrying out a terrorist act.

Graham said he would envision creating a special court similar to that of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for electronic surveillance. Law enforcement officials could appear before a judge of the special court to get permission to withhold rights from a citizen while they are interrogated.

Graham said he believed the constitutionality of such a system would be upheld.

“I can’t imagine the Supreme Court of the United States saying that the homeland is not part of the battlefield,” Graham said, speaking during a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing.

House Homeland Security ranking member Peter King, who testified at the hearing, said he agreed with Graham. “We have to expect more attacks from those already in this country,” King said.

He said he wanted to create a separate category of citizens who are deemed enemy combatants.

Graham and King said they were particularly concerned that law enforcement officials might give Miranda rights to a citizen before all the possible intelligence can be collected about terrorist plots believed to be linked to that person.

Eric Holder appears to be considering some sort of expansion of exceptions to the Miranda rule, eventhough I have seen no examples in the media where such an expansion of the rule was needed. I have read opinion is mixed in the lower federal courts.

Comments (30) | |