I noticed Joe Lieberman’s comments yesterday about the Times Square bombing attempt, claiming that we should devise a system to take away citizenship rights if they are found to “become involved with foreign terrorists.” I noted it at the time but didn’t think much of it, because it sounded like the most McCarthyite deprivation of civil liberties in our nation’s history, and surely we wouldn’t go to such extremes.
But Greg Sargent, in his new perch on the Washington Post’s site, advises me that, no, this is really happening:
Two things you should know about this: First, it isn’t just some paranoid liberal nightmare. It’s actually moving forward. Lieberman is going to hold a presser tomorrow to introduce the bill, I’m told, along with Rep. Jason Altmire of Pennsylvania. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has already signaled he could support this.
Second, Lieberman’s office has clarified to me how the law would work: It would empower the State Department to conclude — on its own — that Americans are conspiring with terror groups and should be stripped of their citizenship.
Lieberman’s law would amend an earlier statute that details other things that can cost you citizenship: Serving in the army of a foreign state, pledging allegiance to a foreign state, and so on. In those cases the State Department decides whether your disloyalty merits loss of citizen status. Lieberman’s law would add involvement with a foreign terror organization — as opposed to a foreign state — to this list.
Thankfully, Chuck Schumer has clarified his stance and come out against this horror show, saying that he viewed it as unconstitutional. But you wouldn’t really need Schumer to pass this – just a selection of weak-kneed “centrists” so frightened by the prospects of scary super-villain that they throw out liberty and empower executive agencies to take away individual rights.
Lieberman’s proposal would allow citizens to contest their revocation in court, and I’m sure that’ll go as well as all the due process for Guantanamo detainees. The State Department would get to decide who is working with a “terrorist group,” and I’m sure they will use that power judiciously. Sarah Palin’s Secretary of State would definitely be committed to upholding the highest standards.
This is really terrifying. So as an antidote, I will point you to this excellent piece from the Christian Science Monitor:
Faisal Shahzad, the Pakistani-born US citizen arrested and charged with the attempted attack, appears to have had little real training in explosives technique, according to US officials. And the Times Square bungle was preceded by the Christmas Day incident in which a Muslim Nigerian man on a Northwest Airlines flight tried, and failed, to ignite plastic explosives sewn into his underwear.
Are these twin flops evidence of systemic ineptitude? Perhaps. But it is at least as likely that they show Al Qaeda and its allies have moved towards a new, more decentralized, method of targeting the US and other Western nations [...]
“Terrorism is a tool of the less-powerful, and they use what they have at hand,” says Gary LaFree, a professor of criminology and director of the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism at the University of Maryland in College Park.
The deadly successes of the 9/11 attacks perhaps have made Islamist terrorists appear more competent than they are, in general. Mr. LaFree counts some 50 or 60 thwarted attacks linked to Al Qaeda or its allies since 2001.
“Terrorists use readily available, low-tech weapons, and they often screw up,” says LaFree.
So certainly, we should overreact by setting up a clumsy way to revoke American citizenship.





221 Comments


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Perhaps Major General Paul Eaton will share his thoughts on this monstrosity from Lieberman, too. He’s surely had some choice words for McCain and King:
“Major General (ret.) Paul Eaton told MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann on Tuesday, “I am a little surprised that we’re here to defend our Constitution against a Republican senator [McCain] and a Republican representative’s [Peter King's] attack on it.
. . .
“‘Since January of 2009, we have seen a relentless attack on our FBI, on our armed services, on our policemen by the Republican Party. Any opportunity that they can find … they have pursued. … I want them to cut it out.”‘
LINK.
A-yep.
Monstrosity? Please. We already have laws on the books that cover this subject. It is called treason.
For the moment, it’s designated terrorists who’ll be stripped of their citizenship (and their rights)…. for the moment….
How does that poem go?
‘First they came for the Jews…etc. etc.’
You live under similar rule to Chile under Pinochet or Argentinia under various guises of Peronism. No pretence any more. Your country is a dangerous, nasty, vicious place that everyone who can, would be well-advised to avoid like the plague.
Let’s see if we can’t get some brown terrorists to rename their cell “Connecticut for Lieberman.”
Ummn, I’m a pro-Israeli Jew, but oy vey, will Joe’s proposed law mean that Americans who serve in the Israeli army will now be stripped of their citizenship?
Just another step on the road to fascism…
I have to agree with Schumer. This would be struck down immediately even by the Roberts court.
Of course not! Joe would exempt Israel. AIPAC and Tel Aviv would make that clear to him and after all, that’s who he takes his orders from, when it’s not the McCain/Graham camp.
here’s an early over-reaction:
Lieberman announces a press conference and people are suggesting that as-yet imaginary bills might be passed.
Actually it’s Lieberman’s suggestion that I think of as the over reaction. Over reacting to a “bomb” that had exactly zero chance of going off in the universe where the laws say that no oxygen = no combustion.
Just a nitpick: Greg Sargent has had the Plum Line blog at the WaPoo for months, maybe a year by now. Always a good read, although his commenters bitch at each other too much for my taste, and the nanny software is really restrictive.
amen.
and if this goes through, we shouldn’t allow any noncitizens in our military – can’t trust ‘em.
so no more cheap and easy cannon fodder for the MIC
Steve Benen said, “Senator [Lieberman], Yale called. It wants your diploma back.”
Even as Joe is proposing to strip terror suspects of citizenship his Republican compadres are opposing efforts to prevent said suspects from purchasing firearms because it would impinge on their Second Amendment rights.
Madness.
Israeli-US citizens already are exempted, uniquely, under very specific legislation. Everybody else is a traitor.
Holy Joe should move to Arizona. He’d fit right in…
Oxygen, Schmoxygen. When you’re Holy Joe, anything is possible.
Yeah I avoid Plum Line and Huffington Post due to the nanny software. Over at HuffPo, right wing trolls team up and stifle meaningful debate by getting together and flagging perfectly innocuous comments as abusive. This results in the commenter being put on a form of probation which means a comment must be approved by a live moderator to be posted, thus rendering ordinary conversation impossible. I don’t even read them anymore as they refuse to adjust their policy to something a bit less oppressive and easily manipulated.
Lieberputz (Likud-CT) is going to be retiring soon, so he’s trying to cement his legacy as a truly colossal asshole.
I’m aware.
he’s trying to cement his legacy as a truly colossal asshole.
I thought that was pretty much a done deal…
Pffft! He’ll “retire” to a nice, cushy job with AIPAC handling his successor or somebody else.
Oy vey! I try to avoid invoking Martin Niemöller except where really merited. With horror, I think this fits that category.
I’m just shaking my head in shock, horror and abject disbelief.
One shudders to contemplate what’s next. No doubt Dick Army’s got the tea partiers all revved up to jump on this as if was the origninal intention of our zombie founding fathers. sheesh… what a mess.
When. in the last 10 years, has this stopped our government?
The question is: how much more colossal can one asshole get? And after a while, does it make any difference? sheesh
do you have a reference for this, I’d love to see it, because I hang my hopes on this angle that defeats this inane insanity or insane inanity (whichever).
Exactly.
Frankly, I think it would be beneficial to America’s strategic interests to mandate that any American who willfully serves in another country’s armed services (outside of the US) should retain their US citizenship, but should be exempt from ever serving in a high-level office in our Federal government (where they could impact America’s foreign policy).
I find it ridiculous that a person born outside of the US is automatically disqualified from ever serving as President (even if they spent their entire lives here in America), but for some reason someone like Rahm Emanuel, who chose as an adult to serve for the Israel Defense Forces when America was at war in Iraq (Desert Storm), CAN ironically occupy the highest office in the land.
In my opinion, the originating birthplace of an American citizen says next to nothing about that person’s loyalties (especially in America), but the decision to serve a foreign government, in lieu of your own, as an adult speaks volumes about your loyalties.
LMAO! Right? One asshole can only be so big….It must reach critical mass. Or critical ass as the case may be.
So that is why I can’t get a comment through. My comments have been mild, too. I quit taking huffpo seriously several years ago. I do look at it in the morning for headlines.
Upon attaining critical mass it collapses on itself and becomes a brown star. You think black holes are bad? You ain’t seen nuthin’.
there’s no doubt that Lieberman is way out there, but treating his suggestion as something real and possibly passing through congress is dopey
Gad, looks like I owe you a drink. What are the odds that two people would use the phrase “critical mass” in the context of assholes in the same thread?
heh..
That’s why. I found that every time I managed to shut the right wingers at HuffPo down with rational argument, I was suddenly placed on probation and I could no longer carry on a conversation there. And no amount of complaining to the moderators, no amount of demonstrating that I had never used invective or called names made one jot of difference. Eventually I stopped trying. What’s the point? I can get the same content elsewhere without the ridiculous censorship.
macaque dear, did you read the article?
Commenting at HuffPo is like peeing in the ocean and then checking to see if you raised the sea level. Pointless.
LMAO! No problem. It’s good to know that I’m not the only deviant around here.
Sleezy
Sleepy
Dopey
Doc
Bashful
Grumpy
and
Assholey
The good news is that you don’t have to read anything you find too dopey for your taste…
So, will this mean Canadian Americans can no longer hold dual citizenship with both their nations? Even if Canada isn’t remotely an “enemy”?
ratfood,
I’ve told you this before, but I absolutely love your one liners. Very witty and original. :)
Come for the knowledge, stay for the snark….
Yes……. and therefore?
The bad news is I’ve already read it, Margaret.
Thanks, I would happily accept that my comments are half witty.
that still leaves them short a few votes….
It’s being taken seriously, that’s what.
Have these Congresscritters read the list recently?
It’s not just Islamic groups that are on it.
Signficant non-Islamic groups on the list: Kahane Chai, Real IRA
Not ultra seriously, Elliott, or the guy (Schumer) being floated as a Senate co-sponsor wouldn’t have drop-kicked it so fast.
Not to mention the cast of Jersey Shore.
Well, you know, there are a whole lot of threads here and elsewhere that I read or scan or skip but I never come long and tell people how “dopey” I think they are. I just don’t comment on those ones. Simple. I don’t raise my blood pressure or the ire of the commenters who find the topic more acceptable or fascinating than I do. It’s just a matter of courtesy and I can’t imagine why I would waste my time calling blog posts dopey, rather than moving on to something else.
I’m down with joe on this as long as it also strips American government of any officials with duel citizenship. They can live among us but not be involved in positions in the Government local, state or federal.
THIS is where the little Connecticutt putz got his idea from, and this is how far it got…
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/kadima-and-mccarthyism-1.288242
…. it’ll won’t go even that far here.
I could be wrong about the military service, though I’m not sure. I thought there was a unique Israeli exemption there too.
The generally hideous nature of US-Israeli tail wagging dog relations is shown here though.
Someone else will have to dig in detail what exactly the rules are on foreign military service.
You can call me dopey if you like. Alternate suggestions include droopy and drippy.
from your lips to God’s ear,
but they may come for you someday, yanno
Queen of Huff, Arianna had an obscenity of a plutocratic moment with those media darlings Mika and Joe, post WH correspondents junket. All done up to the nines and wearing sun glasses to hide the effects of the post-party coke snorting. They may as well have brayed ‘let them eat cake’ whilst being carried on the shoulders of starving poor people. It was really, really obscene.
JH still posts there occasionally. She should end any association with that filthy, contaminated, Democrat-Plutocrat rag.
The FBI came to have a little talk with me about a bomb that went off here in NYC while I was still a teen.
Don’t think they’ll be back, Elliott, or that I’ll be around if they do return.
I’m going to call you for my drink… ;-)
Okey-doke. Almost 5 p.m., time for me to seize the day. Meet me at the late nite bar.
Under this law Todd Palin’s citizenship would be revoked.
Do elaborate, I love a good story.
Why should Americans who serve in the Israeli army be exempt?
My wife teaches a citizenship class and has personally been part of many new citizens. Arguably better qualified to comment than many.
Here is the oath one must take:
I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God
The traditional reason for a state to deprive a person of their citizenship revolves around that person committing to be a citizen of another state. Mr. Lieberman would leave alleged criminals stateless and, presumably, deprive them of all legal protection. I assume that’s his goal, and another way to keep Gitmo fully booked.
One would expect to hear Mr. Lieberman’s arguments from someone dressed in white bedsheets and a pointy hat, or shouted from a Hummer in the Arizonan desert by a band of yanquis brandishing automatic weapons, swearing in English and drinking tequila.
That Mr. Lieberman purports to be a United States Senator makes his actions worse than pandering. As he should know more than anyone, once you establish an easy, unproven precedent for depriving someone of citizenship, you set them adrift on the world, leaving them stateless and friendless, prey to the evils the most banal bureaucrat can concoct.
Come to think of it, perhaps we could get all our Congresspeople and even the President’s US citizenships renounced, since they routinely say things like, “My commitment to Israel’s security and interests are unwavering and sacrosanct.”
That sounds very much like a pledge of allegiance to me. And the fact they send more of our taxpayer money to Israel than probably any single state in the union, shows that they are not kidding.
Continued from prior.
Now who cannot understand that taking this oath and then planting a bomb one year later is mutually exclusive? It contravenes at least three portions of the oath. The only logical conclusion is that the oath was not made in good faith. Which in and of itself is grounds UNDER CURRENT LAW to revoke citizenship. No new laws required, revoke with a clear conscience under constitutional law.
When someone commits a crime – which includes planning to do so, helping someone else do so before or after the fact, or obstructing a lawful investigation of the foregoing – and they are convicted in a public court of law by admissible evidence and according to due process and laws on the books at the time of their offense, they are deprived of their liberty or their life. Not their citizenship.
Wrong – there is an entire history of legislative rulings on reasons for revoking citizenship. We revoked citizenship from Demjanuk (sp?), also Anton Geiser for lying on applications or other crimes.
There is in fact an EXEMPTION for Israel! Can you believe that? — the audacity of Joe Lieberman! Read this from Politico (h/t Philip Weiss):
Un-fucking-believable!
This is the Joe Lieberman who has failed to investigate a single budget or outsourcing contract, a single incompetent or corrupt manager or project involving Homeland Security since he was old enough to comb both of his hairs over the top of his head.
The same Joe Lieberman who thinks it treasonous to criticize unlawful presidential conduct during undeclared wars.
The same Joe Lieberman who declares that what’s good for a foreign state and its most extreme politicians – Israel in Joe’s case – is necessarily good for America and all Americans, and that anyone who disagrees with him is disloyal to America and not fit to be heard from.
Mr. Lieberman is a crotchety, multi-millionaire yelling “Get off of my lawn”. Sadly and surprisingly, he is also a member of the United States Senate. Peer pressure means nothing to him; it’s not so obvious that it means nothing to his state or his corporate sponsors.
And BTW, what are we not meant to pay attention to while we react to Joe the Absurd one more time? Perhaps it’s the domestic policing role played by the US Army, the NSA or CIA? Perhaps it’s that nothing much happened because the system worked properly or that our enemies are less capable than eight years of LieberCheney fearmongering would lead us to believe. Perhaps it is that Joe is a tired old fart who doesn’t want us to forget him.
Those examples involve lies material to one’s application for obtaining citizenship, like lies used by a bankrupt to obtain a loan. The corrupt act is intimately tied to getting citizenship. Mr. Lieberman would use the threat of denial of citizenship much more broadly, as a tool of political and social control. He exempts, of course, his own special interest, which illustrates his innate corruptness on this matter.
What one did a year ago isn’t necessarily related to what one did yesterday. But yes – if you can prove that someone lied on their citizenship application in order to promote a criminal enterprise – that would already be grounds to revoke their citizenship.
Committing a crime unrelated to that is insufficient. If the state characterizes all anti-social behavior as meriting revocation of citizenship, half the corporate charters and our entire prison population would cease to be American citizens. I’m sure Joe would like the last part; not many of them vote for the GOP.
I ask again, what is Joe distracting us from with this little farce?
d’you have a link to that decades-old law?
I found this….
TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part III > § 1481
Prev | Next
§ 1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions
(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if
(A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or
(B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer;
As I said of Joe, what’s good for a Middle Eastern state he thinks fondly of is good enough for any American who knows nothing about it, even if many or most Israelis disagree with Joe on a particular point. Glenn Greenwald has made mincemeat of such claims by Lieberman in the past. He will again when he returns from his break.
After much research I do not see the Israel exception in Liebermans proposal so I think it has been lifted from other executive actions and juxtaposition-ed by others. Specifically a reading of TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part III > § 1481 § 1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions will reveal that under current dual nationalship regulations you can with some restrictions serve in the services of ALLIES. not other forces.
Also earlofhuntingdon what part of: “I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic”
given only one year ago do you not find material. I think a car bomb in Times Square if fairly material.
Nice catch. From the cited article:
Imagine how much fun Joe and the Goopers would have revoking citizenship rights from “fringe” Democratic hippies. That would include a good number of readers here. According to Joe, one “harms the democratic foundations of the state” by disagreeing with him.
Nope, just the Politico link. I’m sure a query or three might pull it up though, but it would probably take a lot of digging around. I couldn’t find it on the State Dept website.
So Mac,
On one hand you want a link (outside of the Politico link) for proof, and yet refer to it as a “decades-old law,” which suggests you already are aware of its existence?
Mere lawbreaking is insufficient to revoke citizenship, though it is enough to deprive one of the opportunity to get it. What’s missing, entirely missing in Joe Lieberman’s case, is proportion.
The NYC bomber might have his citizenship revoked if he was found to have lied on his application for it. More pertinently, and assuming he did was he was alleged to do and he admits it or the government proves it beyond a reasonable doubt, he will be imprisoned for a long time. He will lose his liberty because he broke the law, a consequence that would apply to anyone, citizen or not, who had done the same thing.
Keep in mind that Joe’s proposal only adds a clarification to the below and also leaves decision power of who are declared enemies to the State Department and is subject to appeal. Sounds like much ado about nothing:
§ 1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions
How Current is This?
(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—
(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if
(A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or
(B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer; or
(4)
(A) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years if he has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state; or
(B) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years for which office, post, or employment an oath, affirmation, or declaration of allegiance is required; or
(5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State; or
(6) making in the United States a formal written renunciation of nationality in such form as may be prescribed by, and before such officer as may be designated by, the Attorney General, whenever the United States shall be in a state of war and the Attorney General shall approve such renunciation as not contrary to the interests of national defense; or
(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.
(b) Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961 under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily.
It is not much ado about nothing. Violent crimes do not reach the level of treason, as only one example, any more than does disagreeing peacefully with Mr. Lieberman or the sitting president.
earlofhuntingdon
We are not talking about law breaking after taking the citizenship oath. We are talking about material misrepresentation of intent when taking the oath which is grounds according to existing statutes and precedence. I see that no one wishes to consider past precedence, which is significant.
No, buddy. The “decades-old” was lifted from the Politico thing.
I’m not aware of the law and have been looking for it.
I was thinking about the Americans who went to fight in Spain in the thirties, as well as all the Americans who fought in WWII prior to the nation’s entrance.
I remembered something about the Attorney General indicting people for recruiting for the Abraham Lincoln Brigades, but it’s fuzzy to me whether it was about the fighting or about them being “commies” and subversives.
Treason is not the only grounds cited in existing law, only one of them. Perhaps the following can help you:
The definition of terrorism contained in Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d):
The term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.
The term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving the territory or the citizens of more than one country.
The term “terrorist group” means any group that practices, or has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism.
I believe the commie/subversive element was paramount. The political left around the world, Spain, France, the UK, Germany, here, was perceived as being in thrall to the Soviet Union. Plus the Spanish Civil War was only a few years after the aborted Wall Street coup that Smedley Butler discussed.
That’s what you claim.
that’s what I rather fuzzily remember. thanks.
Oh, I see. My fault.
Here’s Matt Yglesias mentioning the existing law and Israel’s exclusion as well:
Now I have been researching and annotating my comments with sources and earlofhuntingdon’s response after posting many opinions with no facts is:
That’s what you claim.
Good work.
The Hill:
State has wide discretion about enforcing that law, too, just as it admits on short-term visas right wing foreign lecturers more readily than it admits left wing or Islamic academics and lecturers. Lieberputz’s amendment would vastly expand the scope for discrimination against the politically unwashed and unGOP’ed. As with tasering, Joe is getting out of hand.
earlofhuntingdon can you back up the statement “admits on short-term visas right wing foreign lecturers more readily than it admits left wing or Islamic academics and lecturers”? This has not been borne out by the roster of speakers at our campuses.
What I want you to understand was that I was asking for the info, not trying to to imply that it doesn’t exist.
I enjoy our arguments but prefer that we have them over things about which we disagree. I think this time we’re gonna have to accept that we’re on the same side!
You’ve excerpted a few laws without context, background or analysis and without tying your strongly felt opinions to your citations. It is not true, for example, that Lieberman’s proposals would merely “clarify” existing law.
Depriving someone of citizenship is an enormous step that needn’t be reached in most cases of even serious lawbreaking. As the Israeli cited by macaquerman @53 stated regarding a similar law introduced into the Israeli legislature (emphasis mine):
Blowing the whistle on Swiss corporations, even of their criminal conduct, is considered state treason in Switzerland. That might be a precedent Holy Joe has in mind, too, but it’s not one that would promote democracy or national security. It would merely increase divisions and further empower entrenched economic interests.
We needn’t give those interests another reason to have us fight each other while they entrench themselves because we are reacting to what might have been another violent criminal act in NYC. Certainly not when violent corporate conduct takes place daily with no response from law enforcement or legislatures.
Then you don’t attend the University of Notre Dame.
A well-known case is Tariq Ramadan’s, who was offered a post at Notre Dame in 2004, but whom the Bush State Dept. denied a visa to enter, based on the Patriot [sic] Act provision that allowed it do so for those who,
One man’s freedom fighter is another’s terrorist, but Ramadan’s case was far more subtle. He was a mainstream, high-ranking, yet controversial academic and lecturer on a subject about which the US wished to limit debate.
A NYT summary of the case is here. A more objective summary is in the Guardian here, where it reports that State changed its mind in January of this year, after six years. The only thing different was that it was Hilary Clinton’s State Dept. and not Colin Powell’s or Condi Rice’s.
State’s behavior is not limited to Islamic vs. Christian academics. You’ll find more examples on the ACLU web site.
earlofhuntingdon this is a simple issue: he forfeited his right to citizenship when he misrepresented himself to obtain citizenship. Whereupon he immediately left the country for Pakistan where:
Pakistani officials identified one of the detainees as Tauhid Ahmed and said he had been in touch with Mr. Shahzad through e-mail, and had met him either in the United States or in the Pakistani port city of Karachi.
Another man arrested, Muhammad Rehan, had spent time with Mr. Shahzad during a recent visit there, Pakistani officials said. Mr. Rehan was arrested in Karachi just after morning prayers at a mosque known for its links with the militant group Jaish-e-Muhammad.
Again what do you not understand about our citizenship oath? Citizenship is a privilage, not a right or a guarantee. I repeat: He Lied.
I suspect that’s what this is all about. It’s an AIPAC attempt at taking the terrorist incident in NYC and capitalizing on it: deporting and revoking the citizenships of Americans who happen to be Palestinian sympathizers (who perhaps sent money for humane causes, that can somehow be erroneously linked with Palestinian militant groups overseas).
It’s such a slippery slope, that basically boils down to the intentions of the donor, and ole Joe would like nothing more than getting those people out of this country, once and for all.
And since none of the right winged terrorist settlers are on that list, Joe doesn’t have to worry about all his contributions to them coming back to hurt him, or affecting his US citizenship.
earlofhuntingdon certainly our system can make mistakes but notice that it was corrected upon appeal. As is the appeal process available to revoked citizenships. I congratulate you on finding perhaps the only radical not permitted into our country with the porosity of our no-fly list.Note the finding below
On July 17, 2009, the US federal appeals court reversed the ruling of the lower district court. The three-judge panel on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit – composed of Judges Jon O. Newman, Wilfred Feinberg and Reena Raggi – ruled that the Court had “jurisdiction to consider the claim, despite the doctrine of consular nonreviewability”. They stated that government was required by law to “confront Ramadan with the allegation against him and afford him the subsequent opportunity to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he did not know, and reasonably should not have known, that the recipient of his contributions was a terrorist organization.” Under the limited review permitted by the 1972 Supreme Court ruling in Kleindienst v. Mandel, the panel concluded that the “record does not establish that the consular officer who denied the visa confronted Ramadan with the allegation that he had knowingly rendered material support to a terrorist organization, thereby precluding an adequate opportunity for Ramadan to attempt to satisfy the provision that exempts a visa applicant from exclusion under the ‘material support’ subsection if he ‘can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that [he] did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization.’” Additionally, the panel agreed with the plaintiffs’ contention that their First Amendment rights had been violated. The panel remanded the case to a lower court to determine if the consular officer had confronted Ramadan with the “allegation that he knew that ASP provided funds to Hamas and then providing him with a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that he did not know, and should not have reasonably known, of that fact.”[38]
mac,
For the record. I didn’t accuse you, I asked you a question, because at first I thought there was a discrepancy in your request, that led me to question your intent.
I then stated it was my fault. I apologize for that.
My point is the blatant hypocrisy with Lieberman and the AIPAC voices are becoming so bold and careless that I think it deserves scrutiny. And that one sentence (on Israel’s exception with regards to serving in the IDF and keeping US citizenship) from Politico is being talked about relentlessly in the liberal blogosphere.
It has captured the attention of a LOT of people, and a lot of that has to do with the fact that Joe Lieberman (Mr. AIPAC) is pushing this, of all bills.
What has the issue of the Times Square bomber have to do with Israel? Can anyone stay on point?
~~~ModNote: Please provide a link within this comment, even if it was linked above in another comment. Thanks.~~~
ahh … Joe Lieberman?
no prob.
I’m interested in the law and the exception and want to know about it. I have the idea that knowing the enactment dates of both law and exception will throw some light.
Will do
The attempted bombing in Times Square isn’t the focus so much as Joe Lieberman’s attempt to use it to enact a favored repressive measure that has recent precedent in his personally beloved Israel, whose interests he cannot seem to distinguish from America’s. While they may have much in common, they are distinct entities with sometimes widely divergent interests and views, although that is accepted more in Israel and in the Israeli press than here. The connection was cited originally @53 above. Whether the measure is the precise one advocated by Lieberman or the one pushed in Israel, it would be equally repressive and undemocratic.
Your perception that the Ramadan case was an isolated example is not one shared by many. It is among the most visible.
Citizenship, once legally acquired, is very much a fundamental right. It is not a privilege the state can revoke at will, without just cause and due process, and not without the most serious of reasons. Another reason this is so ironic coming from Joe Lieberman is that he picks an issue that comes not simply from right wing contemporary Israeli politics, but one that stirred the hearts and minds of many Germans in post-1933 Germany.
As for the alleged Times Square bomber, I don’t know whether he lied or not, I certainly don’t know what was in his heart. I do know that if he attempted to set off a bomb in Times Square, the law provides an adequate remedy for his conduct well short of revoking his citizenship.
As a matter of law you are simply wrong as any examination of the citizenship process and law will demonstrate. I do not have to examine “what is in his heart” it is painfully obvious in his actions starting with immediately abandoning his home and family and traveling to Pakistan to train with the Taliban. Citizenship is not a right it is a responsibility and a privilege. Long established law supports it’s removal in similar cases. Citizenship was even forfeited by the Confederates when they took up arms against the US. It was returned at the end of the war.
The subject is still the incident. Everything else is in response to the root incident. I have yet in my research found proposal language as said in Politico. I can easily imagine a response to a specific question that Israel would be exempted. This is valid as existing statute exempts Allies in general. If someone can show the proposal language, not third hand words then we can respond intelligently.
And why shouldn’t Joe have positive statements about Israel? The last time I looked:
Israel is a democracy which means that its alliance with America reflects the will of the Israeli people. As such, it remains constant regardless of who is power in Jerusalem.
All of the US’s other alliances in the Middle East are with authoritarian regimes whose people do not share the pro-American views of their leaders. The death of leaders or other political developments are liable to bring about rapid and dramatic changes in their relations with the US.
Israel remains the US’s most reliable source for accurate intelligence on the US’s enemies in the region.
Israel has a permanent, existential interest in preventing these regimes and sub-state actors from acquiring the means to cause catastrophic harm.
Israel’s strength, which it has used only in self-defense, is inherently non-threatening.
And why should there not be consideration for a friend who is surrounded by countries that openly call for the destruction of the nation and the extermination of it’s citizens?
And coming off the Israel subject, which I consider a diversion, your thoughts that the existing law that asks potential citizens to not be seeking to destroy us is “repressive and undemocratic” is in itself inconsistent, repressive to the liberties we enjoy and undemocratic in regard to following or democratically changing existing statutes .
You seem to know a lot about what is “in his heart” considering you’ve been hearing it all as hearsay from press people dying to break a story, who may or may not actually have the full and accurate story.
This is a problem with the neo-con crowd. When it comes to national security, they believe there is a presumption of guilt, and that anyone of the Muslim faith automatically be indefinitely detained, tortured, have their citizenship revoked, etc. — not for anything they have been actually been proven to have done in a court of law, but only for what is being speculated that they may have done.
And in this case you are taking it a step further, by speculating on his intent, and using that ‘believed intent’ to strip him of his citizenship, and thus deny him of his lawful rights.
He’s entitled to his day in court. PERIOD. If he’s found guilty of everything you say, then he should spend the rest of his life behind bars.
We will have to agree to disagree about the extremity of harm intended to one’s county that justifies removal of citizenship. It is certainly more than ironic that the Senator most loyal to a foreign state is advocating legislation that would more readily revoke citizenship from others.
Your perception of Israel’s unqualified good intentions and good faith mirrors my own perception about the United States before I read the Church Committee reports, the Pentagon Papers, the Iran Contra report and the minority report by Dick Cheney, ad nauseum. States, like people, are inseparable from their good and bad characteristics; no amount of ceremony or hermetic wanderings will cleanse one from the other.
As for the alleged Times Square bomber, if he did as claimed, he committed a violent crime that will be punished. That’s more than can be said for some of Mr. Lieberman’s corporate and political pals.
Really? HAH! Like this:
CBS News: Israel To U.S.: Don’t Delay Iraq Attack, Sharon Government Urges Prompt Action Against Saddam
And now their superb intelligence is telling us that Iran is close to completing nuclear warheads. Go figure …
It is now the UN inspectors that are giving the alarm on the Iran nukes so there goes that theory. And at the time all the western intelligence services were seeing Saddam WMD’s. Although I acknowledge your need to blame all ills on Israel. We do not need much in the way of intelligence reporting when Iran tell us every day how many centrifuges they have etc. Of course this is for electrical power only. Can I sell you a bridge?
You overstate the case. No one is blaming “all this” on Israel, if by “this” you mean the CheneyBush devotion to war in the Middle East as a means to pursue greater political power at home and greater access to commodity resources and influence abroad.
It impugns foreign intelligence services to say that they all believed in the existence of Iraqi WMD’s. Many in the intelligence community here did not, just as many abroad did not, including some in the UK.
Israeli precedents and Mr. Lieberman’s overt loyalty to a foreign state play a part in his advocacy of a repressive, anti-democratic measure here, following an attempted violent crime in New York City. In my opinion, his advocacy of such a measure now demonstrates his crude and crass opportunism. His measure is no more likely to pass than Mr. Obama is likely to nominate Erwin Chemerinsky or Elizabeth Warren to the Supreme Court.
No one ever really broke down where all that supposed western intelligence came from — whether it was from their own agencies, or as in this case, supplied by Israel’s top notch middle east intelligence.
It was definitely in Israel’s interest that we bomb Iraq. I point you to the Clean Break, a study that Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser, and others did for PM Benjamin Netanyahu in the 1990s, as a recommendation for “A New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000″:
As you know each of the writers went on to formulate foreign policy for the Bush Administration (and were the chief architects of the Iraqi War), and if you read their paper to Netanyahu in full, Israel did everything they recommended with regards to the Palestinians, and they in fact got the opportunity (with 9-11) to mislead the US into war to overthrow Sadam Hussein.
I wonder if they’d qualify under Lieberman’s new proposed bill to have their citizenship revoked. Read their paper and tell me whether you believe it’s appropriate for those in charge of US foreign policy to be drafting letters like this to a foreign government. If you check their respective histories, you will find each one of them has devoted much of their respective lives towards Israel’s security.
I’ve come in late to your attempt to control this dialog so will settle for a small slice of your bias.
The crux of all of your arguments, for removing citizenship for muslims and, we can assume, never jews, seems to rely upon that core idea. Unfortunately, no country, not even the US can claim to be non-threatening or innocently passive. You want organization like the Mossad to be beacons of reaction whereas one can reasonably assume they want those they are against to understand that they are very proactive. Often the difference between judging actions as being proactive or aggressive depend upon which group one favors. Lieberman, one of many US government officials with dual citizenship, does not best represent an unbiased and therefore responsible view on this subject.
On the contrary, you said I am presuming his heart, not true – I said I did not need or care what was in his heart, Just as in our system only evidence is needed. It is interesting that you bring up intent as that IS an important precept of our judicial system but I digress:
I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
I don’t see a time line on the oath. No ability to cross your fingers and forget it the next week.
You are also concerned as to my sources (quoted) when you continue to not have any. Then moving to the ever popular let’s condemn the sources for not necessarily being accurate based on my saying so. If new facts are revealed then we can certainly introduce them. But until that occurs we are discussing the case on the information available.
You are not understanding the meaning of the word “intent”. The bomber already admitted the action and his intent.
BTW what would constitute terrorism in your world view?
And no, I do not find Israel flawless, but as Winston Churchill said: Democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others. (paraphrazed) Personally I choose our friends to be democracies, not dictatorships. I think that we lose our values as a country every time we do not clearly state our support of democratic priciples around the world.
But perhaps you are too busy looking at individual scandels ( by only one side – I like to look at both) to look at the overall direction of the world.
Lastly, a hearing to strip someone of citizenship (again with numerous precendents) WOULD be the day in court. We have a broad variety of courts and statute driven legislative and executive proceedings in our system. But perhaps in this case only the one you like should be used.
Thanks for the evenings entertainment!
Lieberman is responsible for Lieberman. Your ideas about citizenship and loyalty don’t seem to be much better than his.
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html
“A U.S. citizen may acquire foreign citizenship by marriage, or a person naturalized as a U.S. citizen may not lose the citizenship of the country of birth.U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship.”
Interesting that I never, in any of my posts said Muslim. As I mentioned in my first post, my wife teaches citizenship courses. I have often helped with this. I don’t care what religion he believes in. Your assumptions as to my motives reveal more about your own bias than mine. I would want citizenship withdrawn from anyone who obtained it under false pretenses to commit harm to innocent civilians. My comments in support of Israel were in one post in response to the steady stream of posts against the country, many displaying bias. However, once again you had no trouble divining what was in my heart about Jews (your words – not Israel, but Jews!). I would equally throw the book at an Israeli who broke our laws, but perhaps you have a problem in regard to Jews?
I have traveled and worked around the world to approximately thirty countries, so perhaps I have a different opinion as to the challenges that we are facing.
This is totally ridiculous. Your certainty of his intent obviously came from reporters, and not from the witnesses’s own mouth, as that information is being fed second had to journalists from government.
Until he gets a day in court, we have no idea whether this guy was the guy who even actually left that SUV there. Why don’t you rent out “In the Name of the Father” by Jim Sheridan this weekend, about the Guilford Four — falsely indicted for an IRA bombing, and even convicted (based on their admissions which the police were eventually found to have tortured out of them).
My point is you have no idea who this guy is, and his actual involvement, or his intent. He has not had a trial. You’re taking reporter hearsay as fact. Your ‘evidence’ thus far is originating from government sources under a LOT of pressure to produce a terrorist for this crime.
BTW, find me one instance where I laid down a disputable fact and didn’t provide a source. You’re making stuff up.
Any attempt to intentionally target civilians for national, political, religious, or tribal causes constitutes terrorism in my book.
If Hamas bombs a coffee shop in Tel Aviv — that’s terrorism. If Israel intentionally targets civilians in Gaza during Cast Iron Lead — that’s terrorism.
No, I’m just as devoted to scandals and illegalities committed by my own government, and other governments, as I am Israel’s government. You seem to want to give Israel a free pass.
A court of law would suffice. A State Department, largely staffed by think tank personnel (often funded by AIPAC) is not, in my opinion, an unbiased court of law where someone could receive a fair hearing.
Lieberman has lost my vote based on other issues. I find this particular incident (his proposal) to be minor. I do not pose the argument around a loyalty concept as you may mean it. I love the political discourse. Politics is a contact sport. Any citizen (naturalized or natural) can scream his viewpoint from the rooftops and I will acclaim or rebut. But I do draw the line at car bombs! You cannot tell me that there is not one other person in this thread that thinks this action is a trifle too much?
All the assumptions as to my opinions have been far off the mark but keep trying.
TheCallUp
Would this then be terrorism?
The Time Square attempted bombing? Yes, absolutely. Whether this guy is the one who actually did it or not should be left to a judge and jury to determine. Whether his actual intent was because he was an al Qaeda sympathizer or because he hated the owner of the shop next to the SUV, that’s for a judge and jury to determine.
I don’t trust law enforcement alone to serve as judge and jury, and I certainly don’t let alleged admissions to be used as a reason to deny him a fair trial.
Hey fdeltz! I thought that my comment @117 was addressed to temptingfate, and not to you.
????
My profuse apologies. It must be the hour or a senior moment. When I reviewed what you responded to, I saw your meaning more clearly. I agree
Was that to me or mac?
Colossus.
“Colossus is typically portrayed as being peaceful, selfless, reluctant to hurt or kill anyone, and always putting himself in danger to protect others. When the X-Men storm Hell to save Nightcrawler, Colossus pries open the gates of the city Dis and the demons flee in front of him. Doctor Strange remarks, “…according to Dante, only one figure could open these unholy gates by force.” However, this version of Hell is later shown to be an illusionary construct, and not the actual Hell.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_%28comics%29
Galactus.
“As Lee later explained, “I created Galactus after we had done so many villains and wanted something different. I wondered, ‘How could we get something bigger than a villain? Let’s do a guy who’s like a demigod — I like the name ‘Galactus’. He comes from outer space and eats planets, or some stupid thing”.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactus
Sorry. I was thinking Leiberman was more than even a colossal asshole. Galactus is bigger.
Hey, it’s better than looking at Leiberman’s face up top there…
rest easy.
I already caught a stray elbow or two in this thread.
What I find fucked up about this is that it implies that non citizens are not entitled to justice in a court of law with proper rights, and that those rights can be revoked at will by the government.
That’s unAmerican, and so is Leiberman.
Fuck you, Joe, nobody asked for your opinion.
I am glad to see that we have a basis for agreement. I was getting a little lonely. I am not sure how we got to law enforcement being the judge and jury. I did not see that anywhere in this thread. As for alleged admissions, a few thoughts:
I joined this thread after many posts with strong opinions based on the same amount of information available to you or me. The discussion about citizenship remains valid even if the facts of this incident change.
“The alleged admission” Courts have a concept known as “preponderance of evidence”. One point is that no matter how biased our news reports may get they are still able to be sued if they go too far off the range. Saying someone declared themselves to be the car bomber when they didn’t I think would drive their attorneys insane. Ths suspect (notice suspect, not guilty party). went to the airport and bought a one way ticket out (not an offense in itself but one of the facts to our current knowledge) He is also apparently the owner of the SUV. Again, I stand ready to change my opinion of his involvement with any new facts. However, my discussion revolved around concerns about obtaining citizenship fraudently with intent to commit terrorism. My opinions of this subject are independant of this case.
Third point: at no time did I suggest denial of a fair hearing but there are other venues besides criminal court. An administrative citizenship hearing is a lawful proceeding and can make it clear as to the legal status if it is true that citizenship was fruadulently obtained. Or are we under some onus that we are allowed to be scammed for citizenship and have to accept that? Subsequent to this other proceedings would certainly take place.
In summary, it appears that many of the commmentors on this thread are of the steadfast opinion that once obtained, no matter how, citizenship is irrevocable. This is simply not supported by law, statute, or precedence. Everyone can dance as much as they like but those are the facts.
To Mac,
That’s the crux of this: Lieberman wants the State Department to be able to revoke someone’s citizenship based on mere allegation, thereby denying him a fair trial.
And I’ve already mentioned how this could be exploited even further by Israel advocates (like Joe Lieberman) to revoke citizenships of anyone who gives financial support to groups who can be somehow linked to any of Israel’s foes.
I mean seriously, any group providing assistance in Gaza probably has to go through Hamas (the ruling government), and could probably therefore be deemed ‘affiliated with a terrorist group’.
I was born here. That’s irrevocable. Ask any American, they’ll tell you exactly the same. Dance if you like.
The case of the Guildford Four, about a mid-1970′s pub bombing in a fashionable town in Southeastern England, reputedly by the IRA, illustrates the pressures on law enforcement to obtain a conviction in very high-profile cases, as it illustrates the frailty of eyewitness testimony.
Two older English cases illustrate the same frailties. They were those of George Edalji and Oscar Slater. Both men were wrongfully imprisoned and broken. Sherlock Holmes creator, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, made of them a cause celebre and made clear the need for institutional reforms to prevent such miscarriages of justice. That led to the creation of the then novel Court of Criminal Appeal, which expanded the ability of the defendant to appeal his conviction to matters of fact and mixed questions fact and law, in addition to narrow questions of law. The possibility of appeal and of being overturned elicitted much needed restraint on the police, prosecuting counsel and trial court judges, lowering abuse.
try to steal an apology from a poor defenseless little macaque what never said a hard word to anybody!
O, shame and shame
Consider this: the reporters could hypothetically just be reporting what government officials are telling them. In other words, the news reporters are completely innocent, just like they were with regards to the Guildford Four in England.
The interrogators tortured them, and threatened to kill their parents in Ireland if they didn’t sign a confession. One of them died in prison, the other three served 15 years before they were completely exonerated of all charges.
Even closer to home, consider the Duke Lacross case. A district attorney in Durham, NC who hyped alleged evidence and attempted to try it in the media. Eventually, it became clear that the DA himself was giving the media bogus information to keep the sensational story in the news.
Lieberman is ready to let the State Department revoke this guy’s citizenship based on hearsay.
Israel is currently providing aid to the Gaza strip.
I guess we have to revoke their citizenship.
Please read: TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part III > § 1481
§ 1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions
“On mere allegation” has no basis in fact.
What this thread needs is a nice Alex Jones movie.
The Fall of the Republic?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU
Rachel Maddow’s ‘pre-crime’?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uuWVHT1WUY
I understand your gut reaction to the issue but the law of the land is that there are a number of ways that the government can currently revoke the citizenship of even a native borne. This was done in mass during the Civil War.
Less dramatic would be if you:
TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part III > § 1481
A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—
(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if
(A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or
(B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer; or
Such is law. Keep dancing. (Said with humor)
Ri-ight… Israel is choking the life out of Gaza.
LOL! :)
None of that is what’s being discussed. All of that involves me doing something, not some bureaucrats deciding they don’t like my attitude and sending me off to be renditioned.
I require a trial, and a jury of my peers.
The assumption that foreigners are scamming us for citizenship needs rethinking, as does the notion that a State Dept. administrative proceeding permits as full a defense of citizenship rights as would a hearing in federal court. It would not.
This discussion conflates separate things. Joe Lieberman’s opportunistic grab for headlines, legislative time, contributions and popularity versus a rational basis to enhance security in a way proportional to the threats we really face.
If the criminal law provides an existing, adequate remedy, we don’t need another one, especially one open to racial profiling and political abuse, which is what an enhanced power to strip citizenship would entail.
Comments about Israel, and Joe Lieberman’s politics cannot be discussed without discussing Israel, in this post are largely in the vein of Glenn Greenwald. The American right limits permissible debate about the American relationship with Israel far more than Israelis themselves do.
The comments here are not anti-Jewish or anti-Israeli. They are about American politics. They are critical of Joe Lieberman conflating US and Israeli interests – really, the interests that Joe thinks get and keep him elected and well-funded – as if they were one and the same. They diverge in many ways.
Like many here, I have traveled, studied, lived and worked in many countries. It has informed my perspective about the value and frailty of our civil liberties, which are sometimes more respected elsewhere than here, and the willingness of the likes of Joe Lieberman to toss them aside for personal political gain.
I think by ‘aid’ he means they are not currently pouring white phosphorus on civilians.
The supplied USC citation does not reflect the State Department’s current description of the adminstrative processes by which they implement the statute quoted in your comment. See below. As political discussions are a contact sport, as you see it, I leave to our readers to decide whether such an egregious omission reflects ignorance or a deliberate intention to mislead.
I do know that that the following statement from a different comment of yours – “Israel is a democracy” – is simply a lie. In reality, Israel is an apartheid state that purposely and explicitly discriminates against natural-born residents of the Occupied Territories and of Israel’s pre-1967 territory according to ethnicity (Arab) and religion (non-Jewish). If that’s a democracy, Mona Lisa’s smile is an infected hemorrhoid.
Here’s the State Department’s take on the matter: from their website.
The instances of NY Times and WaPoop reporters merely taking dictation are not too few to mention.
Thank you for that.
Excellent points.
That’s all that needs to be said about this.
Not sure where you are going on this. I quoted the entire USC citation in an earlier post and also gave the reference repeatedly. In my last answer I pulled a section as an example of SOME of the ways to lose citizenship. So your statement
“egregious omission reflects ignorance or a deliberate intention to mislead”, is inflammatory and untrue. The poster earlier made the blanket statement that citizenship is irrevocable. He did not separate by individual versus government action. Certainly I agree with his subsequent post where he clarified his statement.
Your comments on Israel certainly detail your opinion.
What’s with the Fascism cheerleading anyway? How can such things be consciously justified by Americans?
Shameful.
More sophistry and dissembling: you’ve repeatedly quoted the USC, yet – as of the time I started my slow typing – chose not to enlighten FDL’s readers about how the relevant agecy – State – applies the statute.
Of course, someone who while the Israeli blockade that has turned Gaza into the world’s largest open air prison, and caused malnutriton so severe as to damage childrens’ central nervous system development would come here tonight and mislead FDL’s readers with the true and irrelevant observation that Israel his finally let through a paltry amount of long-delayed supplies
is someone I know I could never trust to be honest or straightforward about hideous abuses of human rights and common decency.
The infected hemorrhoid is now dripping pus. No amount of dancing or smiling obscures the discharge.
There are many court systems operating within our jurisprudence system. With multilevels and appeals processes in each. None of them are perfect but I do not ascribe to the thought that all of them outside of the criminal courts are subject to fraud, incompetence, conspiracies, unfairness, etc. In fact I believe that there are a lot of committed people in each of these systems. Each of us can pull many examples of injustice at times. Simpson was not guilty in criminal, but guilty in civil. Which system should we throw out? And in fact if it is true that the only “fair” trial is in the criminal system then let’s throw out all the others. The ones I can think of are: family ct., bankruptcy ct., civil ct., everyones favorite = military ct., patent ct., and others I do not know.
Not perfect but the best in the world. (I am certain to get a rise out of that one – do you think?)
Your comments about the excesses of the erstwhile democratic state of Israel, like Jimmy Carter’s, are the more unwelcome because true. That they may incompletely described an entire state illustrates the limits of a blog, not your thinking.
Your excerpt of a portion of the federal statute was helpful because it illustrates your argument. You didn’t cut and paste the statute without showing how it supports or admitting how it might refute your argument.
Joe Lieberman is grandstanding about a volatile issue that he thinks will gain him immediate political advantage. His targets, unvoiced in his amendment, would necessarily include whomever is deemed the undesirable little brown furriner of the day, almost certainly not Christian, Jewish, or white northern European. His audience will expand on that; many in Arizona and teaputtiers elsewhere think it includes Mr. Obama.
We’ve been here before, in the late 19th century and in the 1920′s, when railroads no longer needed Chinese to build their lines, and steel mills and car plants no longer needed more German, Irish, Italians, Polish and Hungarians laborers. We’ll be here again.
“The poster earlier made the blanket statement that citizenship is irrevocable. He did not separate by individual versus government action. Certainly I agree with his subsequent post where he clarified his statement.”
I said, “I was born here. That’s irrevocable. Ask any American, they’ll tell you exactly the same.”
In context of a discussion of the gov declaring people non citzens, it should have been clear to you that I was rejecting someone else’s right to decide whether I was a citizen, not my right to decide that.
You got caught.
I think that my problem is that the State Department is NOT applying the statute.
Your other comments are just virulent Antisemitism. War is an ugly affair with plenty of guilt to go around. Check out this world military history site for some background on the current situation that spares no punches to either side.
http://www.historyguy.com/gaza_war.htm
There it is.
Finally!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virulent
“Your other comments are just virulent Antisemitism”
This will come as a great surprise to the nice Jewish girl from Skokie who chose me for her husband. I regret I never had the chance to meet the relatives of her grandmother’s generation who perished in Hitler’s death camps. I would have dearly loved to share Passover dinner with them (and maybe they would have helped me politely share some of the gefilte fish adorning my plate :)
But – let me guess – she’s just another self-hating Jew, right?
I pity your mind for residing in a Thermos flask, but the product thereof is no less purulent.
You should be content with telling Dr. Murphy that calling Israel an apartheid state is lame.
As was your talking about Israel supplying aid to Gaza.
Calling anti-semitism when the comment is anti-Israel is to be avoided.
~~~ModNote: Cool it down now.~~~
It’s the same court of law. The only difference is that a District of Attorney, Commonwealth’s Attorney, State’s Attorney, County Attorney, or County Prosecutor is representing the government as the prosecutor when it’s a criminal proceeding, and a private attorney is filing a motion in a civil case. But the judge and jury do not change.
How can you try and compare criminal versus civil court to employees of the State Department determining (based on what they’ve been fed by law enforcement) whether a person should lose his citizenship?
Ridiculous!
Frustration and pique. That comment is unsupported by the comment s/he is responding to. It shows ignorance and a lack of proportion and good faith.
Kirk’s comment said nothing about religion. It critiqued the violent excesses of a state, and impliedly, its hypocrisy, something many Israelis do daily. That we contribute billions annually to that state, more than we do to any other, gives Americans a right constructively to critique that state, as did Kirk.
Americans are fond of critiquing their country’s own excesses, too, at least those they know about – and at least until doing so would lead to the revocation of their citizenship. But, alas, our government and media more and more discourage us from doing so, even though our right to do so was considered important enough to state it explicitly in the American Constitution.
Israel is currently providing aid to the Gaza strip.
I guess we have to revoke their citizenship.
The above is my comment from the earlier post that triggered this comment from you “The infected hemorrhoid is now dripping pus.”
My post was meant as light sarcasm if you read it again but I am sure that your supposedly Jewish girl from Skokie would be very proud of your post.
I stand by my statement, no angels in war.
You are right. I just saw the above posts after I sent that last one. I back down.
Do you really believe that? Jewish only settlements, Jewish only roads, checkpoints at every turn for non-Jews on their much more primitive roads? Bulldozing Palestinian olive fields, their homes, settlers being given the keys to Palestinian homes in E. Jerusalem?
Can you really sit there and state with a good conscience that this is not apartheid? Despite Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela stating that it is, and they lived apartheid?
We talking about Israel or are we gonna talk about the land under military occupation?
Not my favorite source but Wikipedia
Arab citizens of Israel[2] is a phrase used to refer to the legal Israeli citizens or residents whose cultural and linguistic heritage or ethnic identity is Arab.[3]
The traditional and current vernacular of Arab citizens, irrespective of religion, is the Arabic language, or more precisely, the Palestinian dialect of Arabic. Most Arab citizens of Israel are functionally bilingual, their second language being Modern Hebrew. By religious affiliation, most are Muslim, particularly of the Sunni branch of Islam. There is a significant Arab Christian minority from various denominations, as well as Druze, among other religious communities. Jews of Arab extraction are not considered to form part of this population.
As of 2008, Arab citizens of Israel comprise just over 20% of the country’s total population. The majority of these identify themselves as Arab or Palestinian by nationality and Israeli by citizenship.[3][4][5] Many have family ties to Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as well as to Palestinian refugees in Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. Negev Bedouins tend to identify more as Israelis than other Arab citizens of Israel.[6] Unlike other Arabs, the Druze are drafted into the Israel Defense Forces, just like Jews.[7][8]
Special cases include Arabs living in East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights, administered by Israel since the Six-Day War of 1967. The residents of East Jerusalem became permanent residents of Israel shortly after the war. Only a few of them accepted Israeli citizenship, and most of them keep close ties with the West Bank. They are allowed to vote for municipal services.[9] The mostly Druze residents of the Golan Heights are considered permanent residents under the Golan Heights Law of 1981. The vast majority have refused to accept full Israeli citizenship, choosing to retain their Syrian citizenship and identity.[
Chewbacca defense?
It’s hard to distinguish one from the other. You should read the State Department’s website about Americans traveling to Israel. Americans of Palestinian or Arab origin are allowed to be treated completely differently then other Americans. I just read that today when I was searching for the law that gives an exception to Americans serving in the IDF:
Sounds like Nazi Germany looking for the Star of David.
let’s not do that.
Don’t pull that Zio-crap. I’ve read many books on Israel/Palestine, know Palestinians whose parents/grandparents were sent packing (and are now not allowed to enter Israel proper) because their homes are now being lived in by Jews, and I also know many Israelis.
This kind of historic revisionism — that Pals left on their own accord and chose not to return — is now rejected even by renown Zionists like Benny Morris.
Is this versus the number of Jews who are allowed to visit ANY of the Arab countries? If this is our subject then presenting both sides might be more balanced. Also I would assume that Israel has a far greater security problem than ourselves.
mac,
They refuse to allow American citizens (the ones feeding them with billions of our tax money) of Palestinian origin to enter with an American passport, because they intend to treat them differently. And it is stated on our State Department’s site that they “will be considered subject to Israeli law and to regulations that Israel applies to residents of the West Bank and Gaza, regardless of whether they also hold U.S. citizenship”.
Tell me that that is not racial/ethnic profiling (much the same as the Star of David) so that they can treat them differently. Their Star of David is their PA passport, despite the fact they are Americans.
Never said all Pals always left on their own. If your referring to the Wikipedia quote – not my words.
If you read so many books and know so many people then you surely know of some of the nasty events performed by the Pals or the surrounding states. I challenge you to tell us of even one. Are there none?
It’s very much profiling, but just don’t start equating it with the armbands that the Nazis put on the Jews.
(Especially not while you wanna get in somebody face with “Zio-crap”.)
As long as the Israelis and the Palestinians haven’t reached peace, as long as the occupation continues, as long as the extremists on both sides say that the civilians on the other side aren’t really civilians…. there’s not going to be justice.
But shove the Nazi comparisons far to the side.
Well, the Pals have done some horrible things, but their underlying motivation is liberty from oppression and occupation. Israel’s underlying motivation for all the horrible things they’ve done is ethnic cleansing — a Jewish majority state.
BIG DIFFERENCE!
Wow, the self-proclaimed ‘non-Zionist’ now all of a sudden gets defensive of the political ideology (Zionism) he pretends to reject.
Try again. I object to you using “Zio-crap” at someone when you’re pushing offensive stuff of your own.
It was hardly a defense of Zionism.
You’re overheating.
So if I said to Dick Cheney, “You and your neo-crap!” you’d be equally offended?
Somehow, I just don’t believe that…
Even when you play it down the middle, when it comes to this topic, you are going to get scorched.
You see that Giants game last night?
So atrocities are justifiable if you are oppressed? Did we learn this from Ghandi? Martin Luther King? Mandala?
You rattle off the Israel actions, please answer without a generality.
Give us one Pal atrocity.
Seems to me macaque was more upset by your noting the similarity between being Palestinian and wearing a star of David rather than the Zio-crap.
Is that it, macaque?
They killed those Israelis at the Olympics? Ran over an American peace activist with a bulldozer?
Well there’s been quite a few suicide bombers in Israel proper, which I adamantly reject.
Atrocities against civilians are never justifiable. Not ever. Underlying motivations are what I’m ultimately interested in, because a freedom fighter is not the equivalent as an oppressor.
If I steal your home, and treat you like a caged animal, then I sort of lose the argument before any blood is drawn.
The Giants don’t play until Aug 16 when they host the Jets. *g*
Well, my guess at this point would be a 5-4 decision to strike it. I feel sure Alito would vote in favor of this law, as would Clarence Thomas. I think Roberts would, but I think Scalia is too smart, so maybe 6-3. As much as I worry about Scalia’s refusal to recuse himself when ruling on a case involving his good buddy Dick Cheney, I think he’s not only honest but also true to the Constitution.
I find that comparing the treatment of the Arabs in Israel at any time to the treatment of the Jews in Nazi Germany to be pretty fucking lame.
whadda dawg…
This is what irritates me. Israel acts like they’re the only victims, cry antisemitism at every critique, moan about ‘rights to exist’, say the Palestinians are worse, etc. When they’re the ones that they have the tanks and bullets, and the functional state!
Afroyim v. Rusk 387 U.S. 253, 87 S. Ct. 16601118 L. Ed. 2d 757 (1967)
There’s not going to be anything passing Congress for the present Court to review.
I went for the low-hanging crabs that time!!
I keep seeing clips of Lincecum pitching and thinking that
1) he’s amazing
2) he’s going to rip himself apart.
mac,
I’m not comparing the entirety of the Holocaust with the Palestinian occupation. That’s a false charge.
I’m comparing a single thing: a country’s markings upon a people whom are targeted as an enemy of the state, slated for some degree of ethnic cleansing.
The Nazis used the star of david to identify Jews. The Israelis refuse to allow Americans (who happen to have Palestinian parents) to enter the country with an American passport, even if they were born in America. Because they want to easily identify them, just like the Nazis wanted to easily identify the Jews with the star of david.
A natural born American with a Palestinian parent(s) is not accorded the same rights as other Americans in Israel. They are subjected to the same laws as Palestinians living in the apartheid territories.
And yet their tax money, just like mine, gets diverted to Israel each year so Israel can continue to bulldoze and grab more Palestinian land.
I mean, Israel, don’t try to con me like you don’t have any responsibility for the situation. It’s obvious bullshit, and insulting. Seems to me Israel is doing exactly what they want to do.
The functional state that is surrounded by states eager to destroy it. I would just like to see some balance. Somehow it seems the Arab states get a free pass. Iran on the womens rights committee? Sure, why not, How many churches are there in Saudia Arabia? what happened to the ones that were there? Iran? Jordan? Does anyone look at the Pal refugee camps in these other countries? Their supposed brothers? Our parallel would be if we still had the Japanese in internment camps 50 years later. Can anyone say political football? Perhaps the Pal are also victimized by their leadership. Anyone? Three statehood deals put on the table over the last 30 years. Everyone rejected. Anyone remember Yasser Arafat telling us no? Libya head ot the human rights commission. Certainly! How about 14 of 15 of that commissions censors being directed at Israel. Boy how bad are they. Can you say Dafur? Sudan? Russia invading Georgia? Many others?
But somehow all the worlds ills will be solved and all the Arab nations will love us if only that little Israel did not exist.
Guess it’s time for me to buy that bridge.
10 ko’s in the first 5, 12 overall.
and a no-decision.
Here’s the thing. I have nothing to do with any of what those various people do. America is not the fucking police of the world. You want to fight it out with the Arabs, do it. But not on my dime or with my name, it’s your business now.
you’re making some mistakes here. just drop the Nazi stuff, please. that’s never going to serve ANYBODY’S interest here.
the other thing you should know is that the Israelis treat all visitors to screening. EVERY American is made to satisfy Israeli security concerns and conditions or they’re not getting into Israel or the occupied territory legally.
And that ain’t because of ethnic cleansing concerns as much as security.
Don’t look over here, look over there …
When $3 billion of American tax dollars start getting sent to those oppressive countries each year to enable their wicked ways, I promise to turn my FULL attention to them.
As far as Egypt, an oppressive country, we’re paying them a billion a year to be Israel’s friend. That was Jimmy Carter’s arrangement from the Camp David Treaty between Israel and Egypt. I’d like to cut them off as well.
I gave you the State Department website link, stating Israel’s policies towards American of Palestinian descent, and that’s your lame apologist rebuttal? Seriously Mac, you are living in a world of denial.
bullpen blues?
I saw this comment on TBogg:
Hatmandu May 5th, 2010 at 12:33 pm
11
The Tea Party = Chicago Cubs of politics.
I agree to some extent. However our own policies have run aground here. I believe that this problem would have been put to bed a long time ago except for the petrodollars. Do not think for one moment that we do not give to the Arab nations. In addition to the, by treaty, equal outlay to Egypt as to Israel (part of the US negotiated peace accord between those countries) our petrodollar outlay to the Sauds, Iranians,Irag, etc., dwarfs our piddling support of Israel. Which by the way we require Israel to spend that money here. One of our better ideas. We should do that to all nations we help.
It wasn’t an apology at all. It was information that you should consider.
If the Israelis think you’re going to cause problems your American citizenship isn’t gonna get you in.
Even if the name on the passport is Cohen.
I do not think that Israel citizens should have to commit suicide via terrorists imported through our porous borders just to satisfy your fragile sensibilities over profiling. Next you will claim that I said all Americans of Arab descent are terrorists. No. What I am saying is that all the 9/11 actors came thru our borders. Israel is under much greater threat and deserves to protect itself.
Israel’s direct actions have much more effect on the situation than ‘petrodollars’ do. Don’t you think?
American citizens, born in America — of the wrong ethnicity. Think about that.
I’m not sure I understand what you’re talking about.
lotta people think that if your name is Cohen you’re of the wrong ethnicity.
What does this mean? I don’t follow …
Doing something never done by the Turkish, British, Egyptian and Jordanian rulers of Palestine, the Israelis gave the Palestinians their first sovereign territory ever in Gaza. Their immediate response? Turn away from the party that negotiated with Israel (Fatah) and embrace the terrorist organization Hamas, which promptly started a policy of continuous shelling of Israel. Did the Palestinians begin building the a home that was supposedly their great national aim with all the aid offered from Europe and the US? No. No roads, no industry, no courts, no civil society at all. The flourishing greenhouse businesses that Israel left behind for the Palestinians were destroyed and abandoned. Instead, Gaza’s Iranian-sponsored rulers have devoted all their resources to turning it into a terror base — importing weapons, training terrorists, building tunnels with which to kidnap Israelis on the other side. And of course firing rockets unceasingly.
The grievance? It cannot be occupation, military control or settlers. They were all removed in September 2005. There’s only one grievance and Hamas has not been shy in stating it. Israel’s very existence. At what point do you think Israel has the right to defend itself? Does it have that right? How would we feel if rockets were coming over the border from Mexico? Somehow I do not think we would wait many years to deal with it.
a·pol·o·gist ( -p l -j st). n. A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution. …
That is boilerplate Hasbara. Propaganda that is almost laughable at this point in time.
I’m afraid there is more politics in that region that is being played out on the backs of both the Palestinians and the Israel’s than we can or want to deal with. Perhaps those pesky drums of oil again.
Never heard of them but I will look them up.
aaaaawwwwww, do you possibly understand that I’m neither defending the policy nor attempting to justify it when I tell you that you’re failing to grasp the motivation of it?????????
Please take two minutes and re-read.
I’ll check back later…I’ve got to get some sleep.
G’night to you, fdeltz, transparait, newt and all other maniacs.
Look, this goes round and round. You’re not going to convince me that Israel is not equally to blame. I can see their government working to eradicate the Palestinians, and their methods of doing it. All this “they’re worse!” shit just doesn’t cut it. But nobody would care about convincing me if I wasn’t tied to Israel by the leg against my will.
I’m clearly the agreed upon sucker at this table, and I’m not buying.
mac,
One day you are going to have to leave this mindset of ‘denial’ behind. Life is not about tribal loyalties. It is about truth, justice, and humanity.
The only reason why I bring up the Holocaust from time to time is because I hope that will resonate with you. Imagine if the internet was alive and kicking in the 1930s/1940s and you were blogging, trying to cast a light on all the human rights violations underway in Europe, and there were dishonest, disingenuous apologists that persistently tried to undercut whatever you said, desperate to cover up all exposure of what was happening on the ground in Germany …
That’s sometimes what if feels like for people who advocate for the Palestinians on the internet.
Good night, mac.
Good night everyone. I’m off as well.
Did you know that under Obama, Netanyahu agreed to acceptance of a Palestinian state? He took down dozens of anti-terror roadblocks for the West Bank to ease life for the Palestinians; assisted West Bank economic development to the point where its GDP IS GROWING AT 7 percent a year; and agreed to the West Bank construction moratorium, a concession that Secretary Clinton herself called “unprecedented.”
What reciprocal gesture, let alone concession, has Abbas made during the Obama presidency? Not one.
The Israel’s are not pure for certain. But I have yet to see one single post in this thread (aside from macaquerman’s) with ANYTHING positive about Israel or negative about Arabs. How can that be? I feel that many of you are committed to your opinions to the exclusion of many facts on the ground.
This is why I feel a need to discuss the opposing facts.
You need to look carefully at the history of Nazi party origins before using them on even a factual basis let alone the emotional overload that comes with the comparison.
Quit while your ahead and stop trying to insult macaquerman
I’m out
“The Israel’s are not pure for certain. But I have yet to see one single post in this thread (aside from macaquerman’s) with ANYTHING positive about Israel or negative about Arabs. How can that be? I feel that many of you are committed to your opinions to the exclusion of many facts on the ground.
This is why I feel a need to discuss the opposing facts.”
Nothing wrong with saying your piece, you’re welcome to do it. I am commited to my opinions because over lo these many years Israel has lost any credibility with me.
See ya.