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.
It is beyond belief that something like this could even be considered in America. If those guys don’t scare the hell out of the American people, we can say that the whole idea of America is over.
I agree with coberly, this is outragous. And not necessary. US citizens fighting with the overseas enemy are treated like any other enemy – they are targets. When captured we can either try them like FDR did the ones who landed on our soil or like we handled the guy we grabbed in Afghanistan (doing 20 years if I remember).
This looks on its face like political theater to show that Obama can be tough on the bad guys. And we already have a Miranda exception for the ‘ticking time bomb” scenario.
This also proves, once again, the stupidity is a bi-partisan desease…
Islam will change
“This also proves, once again, the stupidity is a bi-partisan desease…”
The face of bi-partisanism.
“”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.” Sen. Graham
There is historical perspective for the issue of battlefield as part of the homeland. We call it the American Civil War. What similar legislative actions were taken by the US Congress at that time to divest rebels of their citizenship either during or after the cessation of hostilities.
I do know that prisoner of war facilities were dreadful and led to death rates between 10 and 20 percent, depending on the specific prison. Andersonville in the South and Elmira in the North were particularly gruesome examples of prisoner treatment. Those prisons are now, and have been for a long while, looked upon as examples of government actions that are anathema in America.
As I had noted on another thread, our problems in this country have nothing to do with the size of government, but have everything to do with the inadequacy of our elected representatives to that government. It’s not big government we need to fear, but irresponsible government will cause us all to tremble with fear in the future.
Why the fuss about Mirandizing suspects ? Even if suspects know they have the right to remain silent, are they really going to exercise that right during torture ?
oddly enough the whole history behind Miranda and the Fifth Amendment was to protect defendents from torture.
of course back then it was considered sufficient torture to put a man between his fear of god and his fear of the rack.
that it took two hundred years and Miranda to give some practical efficacy to the Fifth Amendment probably says something about the quality of our judges and human nature. Still, I can’t remember a time when the basic rights and decencies were as flagrantly and officially put at risk as they have been since 9/11. A god given opportunity to get rid of a troublesome impediment to law enforcement I guess.
I always understood the Miranda warnings as a hedge on police tricking or wearing down a suspect who was too stupid to shut up and ask for a lawyer. I am sure that there were instances of torture, particularly if you were a suspect of color believed to be involved in a crime against a white woman or a cop, but for the most part I did not see it as a guard against torture. The real guard against torture is habeas corpus which Lincoln did suspend during the Civil War, but which I believe even the current Suprem Court has repeatedly enforced with respect to the detainees at Gitmo. The indefinite detention seems like a pretty plain violation of habeas jurisprudence. All of it is of course political nonsense, but Joe McCarthy made himself famous with the same nonsense in the 50’s and ruined a lot of decent peoples’ lives in the process. I would have hoped for more pushback from Obama and Holder–both of whom know better–but Obama has already made it clear that politics trumps rule of law and Holder has been woodshedded on that enough. I do not expect the witch hunts to start under this administration, but can you imagine what it will be like if the GOP is in charge and there is another successful attack on the U.S.? They will need to reopen the WWII detention camps, people will be rounded up because an informant saw them talking with someone who gave to a muslim charity and a couple of people associated with the charity had funneled money to Hamas, who had sent people to the same training camp that someone later associated with Al Queda went to. Where are the Joseph Welch’s of this generation?
So, the right wing trusts the government enough to be willing to give it the power to designate organizations as terrorist, and then un-person its members? For a group that encourages distrust of government, this seems a bit of a stretch. Do the Tea Partiers not realize this would let scary Obama or his political heirs outlaw the RNC and revoke Glenn Beck’s citizenship? (Pause to relish the thought…)
Or alternatively, do they trust the left wing not to carry out this sort of triage?
I’d love to stay and chat, but I have to head to my clinic now, to have my mind unboggled.
H-Bob: “Even if suspects know they have the right to remain silent, are they really going to exercise that right during torture ?”
You have the right to scream. If you cannot scream, a screamer will be appointed for you.
you don’t want to look too hard at this. it is bipartisan.
the people never can be counted on to “realize.” we used to count on the “elites” to protect us in the course of protecting themselves from each other.
What gets me is that all of this is in reaction to a bogey man type of enemy. One major terrorist action that was barely investigated properly, one home grown knuckle head acting out in Ohklahoma and a couple of screwballs who tried to take down the Towers with a car bomb in garage. It’s not even the Japanese Imperial fleet at our shores nor German
U-Boats proweling the north Atlantic. And we’re being told that the effectiveness of our military and police are not sufficient to cope with this threat. We’ve gone through the Civil War, World Wars I and II without this attack upon the Constitution and now with a rag tag bunch of religious fanatics running helter skelter with bombs in their shoes, their underwear and who knows where else our Senators want to virtually suspend the Constitution. Remember what I said about the dangers of irresponsible government. It is far worse than anything that big government can wrought upon us.
the fifth amendment had it’s origins in fear of the practices during the religious wars in england. very real torture was what they were thinking about. by the time of Miranda you might argue that the “third degree” didn’t amount to real torture. but the Supreme Court of that time felt the only way they could protect a person in custody from coercive questioning was to get him a lawyer and throw out any “confession” extracted before that lawyer was there to keep an eye on things.
of course the first time you throw out a case on that grounds the public goes all emo about “letting crooks get away on technicalities.” because of course we all know that everyone who is ever questioned by the police is guilty. unless it’s your kid.
U.S. District Judge Victoria A. Roberts overturned two magistrate judges’ rulings that the defendants should be held without bond to await trial. She ordered home detention and electronic monitoring with curfews.
It looks like the case against what was dubbed as domestic terrorists seems to be fizzling out.
Americans are beginning to realize that elections have consequences. That’s why the tea party sprang up from the astroturf. Most conservatives don’t want t give Obama even more power but they would probably agree to taking commons sense measures to a president that they trusted would do right for all Americans — except terrorist-Americans.
Americans are beginning to realize that elections have consequences. That’s why the tea party sprang up from the astroturf. Most conservatives don’t want to give Obama even more power but they would probably agree to taking commons sense measures by a president that they trusted would do right for all Americans — except terrorist-Americans
I agree with you, but in reality it is just a formality, it doesn’t save lives. Miranda is not a requirement in any situation, but any information gathered form a Citizen without having offered the Miranda Rights can not be used in Civil Court.
If an attack actually takes place, without the Obama Administration relying strictly on luck, then it makes no sense to read someone their miranda rights. If you can prove that they did it without any of the new information, then your goal should be the bleed them of as much info as possible as quickly as possible to make sure they don’t know of any new attack.
Once you have figured that they can’t provide any new info, then you read them their Miranda rights and really put the pressure on them to secure the Civilian Conviction. All foreigners will be held as Enemy Combatants or held by the military so Miranda is irrelevant.
Tell me, just for laughs, who might be an example of the President that conservatives can trust to do right by Americans?
And just for a few more laughs, would you include in that “terrorist-Americans” group some of those knuckle heads running around our fields dressed like warriors and “practicing” military style maneuvers? Does the Klan qualify as a terrorist organization? What about the various organizations which have names like Aryan Nations?
it is clear that you don’t believe in anything except saving your own skin. And you simply lack the ability to understand that once you give the government the right to decide who is a “terrorist” without due process, it might one day BE your skin. Or your kid’s.
it’s funny that people like you get all bent out of shape at “big government” possibly taking a nickel of your hard earned money, but throwing people in jail.. oh, that’s not big government, that’s law enforcement. and keeping us safe.
common sense = agrees with my prejudices.
“It looks like the case against what was dubbed as domestic terrorists seems to be fizzling out.”
Because they were allowed out on bond with the condition that they be required to stay at home, with electronic round-the-clock monitoring and curfews?
LOL! My God, Cardiff, you can’t even see what’s before your eyes, can you?
We had this in the UK in the “Belmarsh” cases. Essentially, suspected terrorists were denied Habeas Corpus (and all the fair trial etc that goes with that) as long as they were foreigners. Eventually the courts ruled that you cannot do this as it discriminates against foreigners (illegal under European Union law).
So the government tried to argue that everyone should be subject to the same rules….ie, let’s abolish Habeas Corpus and fair trials for everyone!
Thankfully, some liberals (real liberals, you know, the liberty loving kind) were able to point out that this was far worse than anything that any alleged terrorist could do to us. Overturning a 1,000 years of legal precedent and freedoms was far worse than 50 odd people being bombed to death on the Tube.
You guys have a fight on your hands over this: a fight well worth fighting. If the govt ever manages to get the power to decide who gets a fair trial and who just gets locked up forever without one then as sure as eggs is eggs there will be an awful lot of people who are going to get fucked over.
The whole point of fair trials, of habeas corpus, is to protect us from them….us the citizens from them the rulers.
If I remember correctly, Nixon & cohorts tried something simular around the beginning of the 70’s, but got cold feet after the M.S.M. latched onto a story about all the returning troops from the Viet Nam fiasco being members of a southern Army, one that could over power even the regulars. It was over blowen coverage, but it showed that the anger for such foolishness wouldn’t be tolorated. I might also add, that there was a draft at the time, even though the future leaders of the Country were too busy to participate. I think some one said: “A little Revolution now & then, is a good thing.” The present bunch that sit in Washington, most of whom talk the talk, but sadly, have never walked the walk. I think it’s time that a law is passed that requires each member of Congress serving, to be an ex-military type, as long as there is going to be U.S. envolvement through out the world. Also, it’s time for the private sector to finance its own military to protect its interests overseas.
Not true…An American citizen has the same rights whether the Miranda is read to them or not. An American citizen can not be held as an enemy combatant unless he or she is captured on a foreign battlefield, not within the borders.
Absolutely nothing is accomplished by reading someone thier Miranda rights, except to remind them that they do not have to talk. In a situation where modern technologically advanced foreign enemies can use our freedom against us, it is much more important to prevent a future attack then it is to get information to be used in court. Right now it is being used to subvert the “War on Terror” and turn it into a Common Criminal threat. That strategy is much more damaging in the long run. Sham Marrigages have become a serious issue in allowing foreign enemies to establish a base here.
When it comes to allowing the government the power to determine Citizen “suspects” of Terror, and being able to apply some military technique outside the realm of the civilian laws, I am fully committed to not allowing that to happend.
There is a major difference between agreesively questioning a Citizen without the Miranda Warning after you already have evidence that they have commited a Terrorist attack, and allowing government agencies to determine who is and who is not a “suspect” without any evidence.
If they are a legitimate citizen they will have their day in court, and if the government stepped out of line, there will be justice. If the government did not step out of line, but missed an oppurtunity or lost vaulable time based on political correctness then they take some responsiblity.
This administration has hinted that they want the capablity to determine “suspects” and treat them as enemy combatants…I disagreee with that.
You seem to be confusing two different issues here. Just because the Miranda has not been read to you doesn’t mean anything is different. You still have the same rights, and you are not considered an enemy combatant. The issue is whether the government can manuver legislation to be able to determine “suspects” of terror, and them classify them as “enemy combatants” so that the Civilian restrictions do not apply, which is totally a different issue, and one in which it will never be acceptable to me.
i guess i don’t understand your point.
the article talks about “stripping american citizens of their rights” including “indefinite detention.”
the purpose of the miranda “warning” is to remind the subject they don’t have to talk without a lawyer present, but the purpose of the “right”… not having to talk.. is to protect the subject from coercive interrogation…. and ultimately from false confession… or merely to provide the “person” (the fifth amendment refers to persons, not citizens) a measure of protection from the state.
it seems to me… i may be wrong about you… but it certainly seems to me that such leading legal scholars as lieberman and graham … have a rather naive idea about where the coercive power of the state begins and where the people need to have protection from that power.
you can’t come up with slimy answers like “guantanamo” is not “american soil” so american rights don’t apply. or american rights don’t apply to non citizens… the limitations of the constitution apply TO the government wherever it acts, and if it does not protect “all” persons, it protects no one.
in any case it makes me want to throw up that “my” government treats human beings the way it has, does, and intends to.
there is some excuse for “battlefield” exceptions… though even those need to be held to account… but to claim that battlefield conditions exist here, or even in some prison in afghanistan is simply being cynically dishonest.
If this passes, Obama, and anyone who votes for it, has lost my vote FOREVER. It’s not really even pardonable that the ‘Patriot’ Act hasn’t been repealed … but this is a full frontal assault on Liberty. We as Americans should accept terror deaths on the same order of magnitude as traffic deaths without even considering torture, indefinite detention, warrantless wiretapping, TSA security theater, Miranda exceptions, national ID, etc.
terror deaths on the same order of magnitude as traffic deaths..
are you saying that up to 40,000 dead per year from terrorism would be “acceptable”?
on the other hand, i have always felt that speeders should just be hung from lamposts with or without having Miranda read to them.
but just to be clear, i agree with you that using the hysteria of terrorism as an excuse to dismantle the American Idea of due process is a crime of the first magnitude.
Yes, I agree. If we let the Government determine that American Soil is part of the Battlefield then we are in big trouble, especially with an Administration like this in charge, who wants to punish political enemies, and just needs an excuse.
My position is that Civilian intelligence should be allowed to use every trick in the book within the Civilian Laws, and that includes not offering the Miranda Warning. To some new citizens who have come from regimes where actual physical pain may come to them when they get busted, may not be used to the freedom they have here, and we should take advantage of that fear.
I do not agree with the proposed bill of being able to hold citizens indefintely, even O.K’d by a judge. It is just too fishy right now, and we haven’t done all we could on others fronts, so I’m not convinced it is absolutely necessary.
My strategy would be to increase intelligence and infiltrate homeland networks, and build cases with old fashion techniques, and see them thru conviction. On the same token I would be much more aggressive with Immigration, the No-Fly List, and Investigating Naturalized Citizens who have ties to the Battlefield.
“terror deaths on the same order of magnitude as traffic deaths..
are you saying that up to 40,000 dead per year from terrorism would be “acceptable”? “
Am I saying that a 0.01 percentage point increase in the mortality rate is an acceptable alternative to giving up on America? Why, YES, YES I AM. I am astonished any red-blooded American could feel otherwise. Would I support an administration that did NOTHING to prevent 40,000 terror deaths a year? NO. Would I support the loss of a single civil liberty to avoid those deaths? Also, NO. This isn’t real terror policy, it’s the hijacking of fear to impose a police wish-list.
Suspension of due process and equal protection should be reserved for REAL wars on U.S. soil(like the Civil War) not pinpricks. Currently your risk is likely higher of being struck by lightning than of dying in a U.S. terror attack.
That many of the same people who feel that the income tax is an unconscionable violation of their individual liberty support torture, suspension of due process, random search and seizure, warrantless wiretapping, indefinite detention, racial profiling, documents on demand, etc. is unfathomable to me. I’m a CIVIL libertarian, I support liberty for PEOPLE, not PAPERBILLS.