Lieberman Unveils Citizenship Stripping Bill

Senator Joseph Lieberman has unveiled his new legislation to allow Americans to be stripped of their citizenship if the State Department concludes that they are associated with a terrorist organization. As chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Lieberman has authority to push the bill which will be introduced also in a house version by Republican Charlie Dent and Democrat Jason Altmire. The legislation, in my view, is facially unconstitutional in its current form. I discussed this story on the segment below on MSNBC Countdown.

The impetus of this ill-conceived bill is the arrest of Faisal Shahzad, a Pakistan-born naturalized U.S. citizen. Shahzad put together a homemade bomb in New York’s Times Square. The bomb was crude and inoperative. Shahzad was arrested while trying to flee the country and, after being given Miranda, has proceeded to make incriminating statements.

What is particularly odd is that members of Congress like Lieberman and Sen. Lindsey Graham are outraged by the fact that Shahzad was given Miranda. Yet, this would seem a case that shows that we can get confessions without using torture, as in the Bush Administration. Those statements would now be fully admissible in a real court of law as opposed to the controversial military tribunals.

Lieberman insisted today that “[t]hose who join such groups join our enemy and should be deprived of the rights and privileges of U.S. citizenship.” The Supreme Court, however, has held that it is not that easy.

In Afroyim v. Rusk, the Supreme Court ruled that the government could not involuntarily terminate a person’s citizenship unless it could show an intent by the individual to abandon citizenship. The case involved Beys Afroyim who immigrated to the United States and became a citizen in 1926. In 1950, he moved to Israel and was given Israeli citizenship. The State Department refused to let him return to the United States because he had lost his citizenship by voting in a foreign election.

The Court emphasized the language and intent of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The amendment’s language was specifically drafted to protect citizens — particularly free slaves — from facing future members of Congress who tried to pass citizenship stripping laws.

In Vance v. Terrazas (1968), the Court stated:

we are confident that it would be inconsistent with Afroyim to treat the expatriating acts specified in § 1481(a) as the equivalent of or as conclusive evidence of the indispensable voluntary assent of the citizen. “Of course,” any of the specified acts “may be highly persuasive evidence in the particular case of a purpose to abandon citizenship.” But the trier of fact must in the end conclude that the citizen not only voluntarily committed the expatriating act prescribed in the statute, but also intended to relinquish his citizenship.

8 U.S.C. § 1481 was passed to allow the government to move to strip the citizenship of individuals based on conduct that clearly reveals an intent to relinquish citizenship, including service in the armed forces of a “foreign state” if such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States; formally renouncing nationality whenever the United States is in a state of war; or committing treason against the United States. These are express statements or manifest actions such as taking up arms or attacking the United States. Lieberman wants to add a more fluid concept of “association” or “affiliation” with terrorist groups. Such a provision would stand Afroyim on its head: barring the government from involuntarily stripping someone of citizenship but allowing the Senate to broadly define acts that would be simply deemed as voluntarily relinquishing citizenship.

The law would allow the State Department to treat citizenship like an administrative matter — deciding whether you have associated with terrorist organizations. Agency procedures are widely condemned for their lack of due process protections and the heavy deference given to agency decision-making. We have seen abuses of this system in the designation of organizations under a similar process. This would magnify those problems. An agency would first declare an organization to be a terroristic organization (with limited protections for such organizations). An agency would then strip citizens who have associated with that organization. It is precisely the type of associational evidence that characterized the McCarthy period in our history.

Notably, Lieberman ties the law to such concepts as “material support” which have also been roundly criticized. Lieberman supported the language of the “material support” provision that is so broad and ambiguous that it is virtually impossible to contest in many cases. Judges have criticized this provision as allowing virtually any act to constitute material support. When prosecutors have lacked any serious claim against people like Jose Padilla, they have turned to material support for that reason. Lieberman wants to add a new category to section 1481 for “providing material support or resources to a
Foreign Terrorist Organization, as designated by the Secretary of State, or actively engaging in hostilities against the United States or its allies.” That would be a frightening development to tie a person’s citizenship to this nebulous standard.

While the burden would be on the State Department and you would have access to court review, the agency process could make it difficult to contest such findings — particularly with the use of secret evidence (and barring the use of evidence by the defendant on national security grounds).

Stripping citizens of their citizenship could also create stateless persons — a problem in international law. Moreover, this process could occur at the same time that a person is fighting criminal charges — adding to the practical and financial burden.

This is not to question Secretary Hillary Clinton’s judgment on such matters or to suggest that Ken Starr should start to look for rentals in Canada. The Framers were careful not to rely on the good intentions of officials. That is why we have a constitution and specifically the Fourteenth Amendment.

54 thoughts on “Lieberman Unveils Citizenship Stripping Bill

  1. I wish we the people could introduce a bill to strip Joe Lieberman of his senate seat…

  2. I wonder why Droopy is stopping with foreign terrorist organizations. If he truly is soooooooooo concerned about terrorism, and the safety of “real” Americans, he should include domestic terrorist organizations as well – KKK, Aryan Nations, Operation Rescue, and the list can go on and on.

    Calling Droopy a tool insults true tools. This man makes me ill.

  3. Lieberman is doing this to draw attention away for the administration’s culpability in the oil spill incident. Or maybe I’m being too cynical.

  4. This bill goes hand in hand with that other abomination Lieberman — as well as McCain and others — is working on:

    A Proposed Bill You Should Read More Closely

    http://leathernlacekitten.newsvine.com/_news/2010/03/08/3993103-a-proposed-bill-you-should-read-more-closely

    McCain and Lieberman’s “Enemy Belligerent” Act Could Set U.S. on Path to Military Dictatorship | Civil Liberties | AlterNet

    http://midgebaker.newsvine.com/_news/2010/03/19/4039865-mccain-and-liebermans-enemy-belligerent-act-could-set-us-on-path-to-military-dictatorship-civil-liberties-alternet

    The Most Important Sentence In McCain/Lieberman’s Nightmare Detention Bill: “An individual, including a citizen of the United States … may be detained without criminal charges and without trial”

    http://killfile.newsvine.com/_news/2010/03/16/4026410-the-most-important-sentence-in-mccainliebermans-nightmare-detention-bill-an-individual-including-a-citizen-of-the-united-states-may-be-detained-without-criminal-charges-and-without-trial-

    Full text (pdf)

    http://assets.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/politics/ARM10090.pdf

    Here are the actual House and Senate bills from The Library of Congress:

    H.R.4892 : http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-4892

    Full text http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-4892

    To provide for the interrogation and detention of enemy belligerents who commit hostile acts against the United States, to establish certain limitations on the prosecution of such belligerents for such acts, and for other purposes.
    Sponsor: Rep McKeon, Howard P. “Buck” [CA-25] (introduced 3/19/2010) Cosponsors (None)
    Committees: House Intelligence (Permanent Select); House Armed Services; House Judiciary
    Latest Major Action: 3/19/2010 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select), and in addition to the Committees on Armed Services, and the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

    S.3081 : http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-3081

    Full text http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-3081

    A bill to provide for the interrogation and detention of enemy belligerents who commit hostile acts against the United States, to establish certain limitations on the prosecution of such belligerents for such acts, and for other purposes.
    Sponsor: Sen McCain, John [AZ] (introduced 3/4/2010) Cosponsors (9)
    Committees: Senate Judiciary
    Latest Major Action: 3/4/2010 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

    The ones who scream loudest about “protecting our national security” are the ones who are trying to take away our rights.

    It occurs to me to wonder why NO ONE in the mainstream media, left or right, has mentioned this second bill by name. Could it be that our Big Corporate masters want American to become a totalitarian state — with We The People as slaves totally owned by the Corporate oligarchy — and that the Republicans are shilling for them as usual?

  5. More distractions to spin our attention away from the oil companies, off-shore drilling, and the mess in the Gulf.

    Alright … for a minute … let’s address Lieberman’s ploy:

    I thought the terrorists weren’t supposed to win. Ha! With people like Lieberman, Cheney, and all those other frightened little boys thus far; for the first time in our nation’s history we ordered government sanctioned torture, and now wish to emulate the Nazis of 1933 (they stripped Jewish Polish immigrants of their German citizenship)with new, knee-jerk laws to deprive Americans of their citizenship. Recall all those names on the no-fly list that are on said list in error. Now envision that inefficiency impacting citizenship. Yeah … the terrorists aren’t winning are they? Let Lieberman continue to wring his hands in abject fear and let’s hope the people of Connecticut wise up and get rid of him.

    Now, let’s get back to the real world … the oil companies and Obama’s drive to give them off-shore drilling rights without the proper safeguards.

  6. Blouise,

    You’re absolutely correct – the terrorists couldn’t ask for better allies than President Bush, Dick the war criminal and Senator Droopy.

  7. vlf2112—–add to that institutions like the Federal Reserve—-who are not Federal, nor have reserves—-who are they but financial terrorists?

  8. I don’t think that this is just Spin. As stated by the Prof, this bill is facially unconstitutional.

  9. “the terrorists couldn’t ask for better allies than President Bush, Dick the war criminal and Senator Droopy”—–

    especially when the war has created MORE terrorists and more and more anger toward America every day that we are over there. Not to mention the ties the Bush family has with the Bin Laden family. Does anyone here know that Daddy Bush was in Washington on 9-11 in a meeting with the Carlisle group with Bin laden’s BROTHER?

  10. Larry,

    I don’t subscribe to the notion that either President Bush (I or II) or Dick the war criminal were accomplices before the fact or intentional accomplices after the fact – I just think that out of stupidity, fear and a political desire to go to war in Iraq they acted in a way that greatly advanced the terrorist’s aims.

  11. Anonymously Yours

    I don’t think that this is just Spin. As stated by the Prof, this bill is facially unconstitutional.

    ==============================================================

    I’d agree … it’s much more than Just spin.

  12. Confessed terrorist Faisal Shahzad was removed from the Department of Homeland Security travel lookout list sometime after Barack Obama came into office.

    CBS reported:

    Sources tell CBS News that would-be Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad appeared on a Department of Homeland Security travel lookout list – Traveler Enforcement Compliance System (TECS) – between 1999 and 2008 because he brought approximately $80,000 cash or cash instruments into the United States.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20004263-10391695.html

  13. Bdaman,

    What did he bring $80K to the US for? I’ll bet that it was for a down payment on his house or something similar. All of the evidence in this case points to Mr. Shahzad being radicalized recently and things like a member of a well-to-do Pakistani family bringing money to the US or returning to Pakistan for a visit would raise red flags. Or do you want any US citizen returning to visit their family in a foreign country surveilled? It was beyond the capabilities of any constitutional law enforcement to have stopped this attack before it happened and the system worked after he left (aided by his incompetence). Realistically he was many hours from escape when he was caught (not having any way to leave the plane until it landed). I don’t think that you have any legitimate argument that the Obama administration has done anything but a good job here…

  14. My small cotribution at this late hour:

    Gibbs: No One In White House Supports Lieberman’s Citizenship Bill
    First Posted: 05- 6-10 03:24 PM | Updated: 05- 6-10 04:18 PM

    White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters that, as far as he knows, there isn’t a single official inside the White House who backs Sen. Joseph Lieberman’s (I-Conn.) proposal to strip the citizenship of Americans linked to terrorist groups.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/06/gibbs-no-one-in-white-hou_n_566523.html

  15. Dr. Slarti he was on the list and then he was taken off the list. A decision to drop him off the list after initially raising suspicion. All we need to know now is why and how the decision was made.

  16. In may 2004, a one George Lamonica a 35-year-old computer consultant, said he bought his two-bedroom condominium in Norwalk, Conn., from Mr. Shahzad for $261,000 in May 2004.

    between 1999 and 2008 Shahzad brought approximately $80,000 cash or cash instruments into the United States.

    So you could be right.

  17. Bdaman,

    I agree that we should find out why his name was taken off the list, but the initial information makes me believe that it was a reasonable thing to do. If he was taken off of the list before his life started falling apart, then there doesn’t seem to have been any reason to keep him on and even if it was after, I doubt that any information the government had (or should have had) would have given them further cause to investigate.

  18. Thanks George, your not George Lamonica are you.

    You said:

    If he was taken off of the list before his life started falling apart

    What is your definition of life falling apart?

    Dr. Slarti as we’ve seen there are alot of these terrorist that come from well to do families. Not only are they well financed but are educated. There are reports that he was upset about the drone attacks. Not that the drone attacks are killing innocent civilians but becasue they are effectively killing top Al Queda and Taliban leaders.

  19. I think that it’s pretty clear that this guy’s life fell apart in the past couple of years. Is there anything that he’s been reported to have done that you think US authorities should have noticed and acted upon? (By the way, being upset about drone attacks – for whatever reason – can’t be a reason unless you want to come out against the Bill of Rights…).

  20. Hey Turley, I see you are weighing almost as much as Keith Olbermann! Don’t the two of you ever think about going on a cruise together; they would park one of you in the bow and one in the stern!

  21. I think that it’s pretty clear that this guy’s life fell apart .

    What reports have you read that indicated that. Don’t say foreclosure because there are alot of people who have and are facing that that would never drive a SUV Bomb into Time Square.

  22. Dr. Slarti, if in fact his life began falling apart as you proffer, wouldn’t that fact be more so the reason to keep him on the list?

  23. Bdaman,

    Lots of bad things have happened to people which didn’t radicalize them – that doesn’t mean that their lives didn’t fall apart. It’s pretty clear that this guy’s life was headed in a very different direction than it was 4 or 5 years ago. Things like this are not the result of one thing – they result from a combination of causes. I know it goes against right wing talking points, but try to include some nuance in your understanding of events – it’s a world of grays, not black and white.

    By the way, this is another success of Mirandization over torture…

    Bdaman said: “Dr. Slarti, if in fact his life began falling apart as you proffer, wouldn’t that fact be more so the reason to keep him on the list?”

    Personally, I don’t want the government keeping track of whose life is falling apart – they’re too much like Big Brother as it is… So, no, I don’t think that his life falling apart is something that the government should have noticed (and we still don’t know if his removal from the list was before or after things started going south for him).

  24. Liebermench has is bass-ackwards. Citizenship has both rights and obligations. Instead of wanting to strip them of their rights and obligations, we should be wanting to subject them to both, including serving time in jail if they are convicted of criminal offenses.

  25. Thanks Frank. If you look closely in high definition you can actually see my hair and gum lines recede!

  26. Professor Turley,

    I recommend you follow in my footsteps and go bald by choice before that choice is taken away from you (I don’t have any advice about your gums, but you should always take good care of your teeth). Happy Birthday – may you have many more to celebrate with your hair and gums intact!

  27. By the way, this is another success of Mirandization

    I take it you assume he was arrested and immediately was told, “you have the right to remain silent” and he said shaking, I’ll tell you everything you want to know. :)

  28. Bdaman,

    No, he was questioned under the ‘immanent threat’ exception to Miranda and he talked after which he was Mirandized and continued talking. (According to AG Holder) Would you have us shit on the Constitution in order to use techniques which are demonstrably less effective and constitute both a victory for the terrorists and a prime recruitment tool for the next generation of terrorists?

  29. Your right, I guess they really need to rethink this whole fire a missile from a drone thingy :)

  30. You seem tired and annoyed. I know you had to get up early this a.m. so hopefully you can call it an earlt night and get some Z’s. I’m off, hasta mañana tu diablo de azul

  31. Bdaman,

    I stayed up until after driving my friend to the airport and have a late night ahead of me preparing for a meeting tomorrow (among other things). I’ve got a lot going on right now, so I’ll probably take the weekend off of commenting. While I do frequently find your comments annoying, my annoyance wasn’t intended (and I apologize for letting it get into my posts) Also, the fact that I’m not going to answer anything you post until next week has nothing to do with you – have a good weekend.

  32. Happy Birthday, Prof. Turley!

    Many happy returns.

    Although I’ve always found that phrase a bit of a mystery. No one likes tax time.

  33. Didn’t we used to have a law that stripped women of their citizenship if they married an alien? I know the law was repealed, but I wonder if it was ever challenged. A ruling in favor of that law would surely provide precedent for this proposed law. Wouldn’t it?

  34. Thanks George for the link to the ‘indefinite detention’ act. It’s amazing how few words it takes to completely abandon the moral and legal high ground. This bill and Lieberman’s bill will work perfectly together.

    (Including George’s link seems to send the response to moderation he**)

  35. Who is Behind Sen. Joe Lieberman’s Proposed Fascist Legislation?

    Sen. Joe Lieberman has already endorsed McCain’s March 4th bill S.3081 that would strip Americans of Habeas corpus: Under the McCain bill, U.S. Government would need only designate an American Citizen was an “Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent” suspected of; having engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or U.S. civilians to cause their indefinite detention in military custody, without right to an attorney or trial.

    Joe Lieberman’s proposed bill would make it easy to strip Americans of their Citizenship and hold them as “Unprivileged Enemy Belligerents” as U.S. Government would only have to show a U.S. Citizen or group had slight-interaction with a foreign group that touched a terrorist organization, for example Irish Americans living on the east coast of the United States contacting their alleged IRA relatives in Northern Ireland. Since many political groups intersect, even unknowingly with alleged terrorists, Lieberman’s bill would make it possible for a U.S. Government administration to do large sweeps of U.S. Citizens denying Americans Habeas corpus, to try them in military tribunals. One might want to ask who put Lieberman up to introducing this fascist bill that favors Israel. It should be noted Joe Lieberman’s June 4th endorsement of McCain’s bill S.3081, The “Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010” strips Americans of Habeas corpus; there appears to be a pattern here between McCain and Lieberman legislation. McCain’s bill S.3081 would eliminate several Constitutional protections allowing Government to arbitrarily pick up Americans on mere suspicion—with no probable cause. Your political opinions and statements made against U.S. Government could be used by Authorities to deem you a “hostile” “Enemy Belligerent” to cause your arrest and indefinite detention. S.3081 is so broadly written innocent anti-war protesters and Tea Party Groups might be arrested and detained just for attending demonstrations; Government could charge that attending demonstrations “materially supported hostilities.”
    McCain’s legislation S.3081 could like Lieberman’s proposed bill be used by a corrupt U.S. government administration to crush anyone that dared question government. Under McCain’s S.3081, an “individual” need only be Suspected by Government of “suspicious activity” or “supporting hostilities” to be dragged off and held indefinitely in Military Custody. Government would have the power to detain and interrogate any individual including Americans without probable cause. Government need only allege an individual kept in detention, is an Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent suspected of; having engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States; its coalition partners; or against U.S. civilians. How could one prove to Government they did not purposely do something? “Materially Supporting Hostilities” against the United States could include any person or group that spoke out or demonstrated disapproval against an agency of U.S. Government. It is foreseeable many Americans might go underground to Resist Government Tyranny. Definition for Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent: (Anyone Subject to a Military Commission)

    At least under the Patriot Act, law enforcement generally needed probable cause to detain a person indefinitely. Passage of S.3081 will permit government to use “mere suspicion” to curtail an individual’s Constitutional Protections against unlawful arrest, detention and interrogation without benefit of legal counsel and trial. According to S.3081 Government is not required to provide detained individuals U.S. Miranda Warnings or even an attorney. It is problematic under McCain’s S.3081 that detained individuals in the U.S. not involved in terrorism or hostile activities, not given Miranda Warnings or allowed legal counsel will be prosecuted for ordinary crimes because of their alleged admissions while in military custody.

    S.3081 if passed will frighten Americans from speaking out. S.3081 is so broadly written, it appears any “individual” who writes on the Internet or verbally express an opinion against or an entity of U.S. Government or its coalition partners might be detained on the basis he or she is an “unprivileged enemy belligerent”, “supporting hostilities against U.S. Government.” The “supporting hostilities” provisions in S.3081 are so broad Government could use “suspicion” to detain U.S. corporate executives on the premise their corporations “supported hostilities” by providing goods or services to a nation engaged in hostilities against the United States.

    (Make Your Own Determination If The Analysis Herein Is Correct) See McCain’s 12-page Senate bill S.3081 at:
    assets.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/politics/ARM10090.pdf

  36. Ok, here is a link to the draft text of the bill that Lieberman is introducing.

    http://lieberman.senate.gov/assets/pdf/TEA_full.pdf

    He bill number is S. 3327.

    It has been referred to Senate Judiciary, which has jurisdiction.

    Go to THOMAS at the Library of Congress http://thomas.loc.gov/ to track its progress.

    The text of the actual introduced bill had not yet been received from GPO at 9:30 AM.

    It appears to be unconstitutional as introduced, among other reasons, because it is void for vagueness and suffers from over breadth.

    It would put the kibosh on any possible legal representation for anyone who comes under its gun. What could more materially support an organization than providing legal representation to an accused member? A lawyer would risk her citizenship for doing what John Adams did for the British soldiers in Boston. I hope the bar takes note.

    The technical, precise term for what these folks who introduced the bill are doing is “pandering.”

  37. Thanks everyone for the birthday wishes. I had breakfast in bed delivered by the four kids and a great home cooked meal. That is my ideal birthday. I was even able to chew solid food with my own teeth, so I feel I am ahead of the curve!

  38. Vince,

    I don’t know what they deal was with that link, but anybody can use the link you provide to THOMAS (thanks!) to look up and read about HR 4892, the Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010.

    “Go to THOMAS at the Library of Congress http://thomas.loc.gov/ to track its progress.”

  39. Happy Birthday, Professor Turley! Here’s a special canine rendition of the birthday song. Please ignore the text at the bottom of the screen at the end of the video.

  40. Vince Treacy,

    ” … It appears to be unconstitutional as introduced, among other reasons, because it is void for vagueness and suffers from over breadth.

    It would put the kibosh on any possible legal representation for anyone who comes under its gun. What could more materially support an organization than providing legal representation to an accused member? A lawyer would risk her citizenship for doing what John Adams did for the British soldiers in Boston. I hope the bar takes note.

    The technical, precise term for what these folks who introduced the bill are doing is ‘pandering.'”

    ================================================================

    Succinct + Simple Style + Accuracy = Clarity

    Thank you

    Also thanks for the thomas link … very helpful now and in the future

  41. Happy birthday, same day.

    Bob Seger, born May 6, 1945.

    Seems like yesterday
    But it was long ago
    Janey was lovely she was the queen of my nights
    There in darkness with the radio playin low
    And the secrets that we shared, mountains that we moved
    Caught like a wildfire out of control
    Til there was nothin left to burn and nothin left to prove

    And I remember what she said to me
    How she swore that it never would end
    I remember how she held me oh so tight
    Wish I didn’t know now what I didn’t know then

    Against the wind
    We were runnin against the wind
    We were young and strong we were runnin against the wind

    And the years rolled slowly past
    And I found myself alone
    Surrounded by strangers I thought were my friends
    Found myself further and further from my home and I
    Guess I lost my way
    There were oh so many roads
    I was livin to run and runnin to live
    Never worried about payin or even how much I owe

    Movin’ eight miles a minute and for months at a time
    Breakin all of the rules that would bend
    I began to find myself searchin
    Searchin for shelter again and again

    Against the wind
    Little somethin against the wind
    I found myself seekin shelter against the wind

    Well those drifters days are past me now
    I’ve got so much more to think about
    Deadlines and commitments
    What to leave in, what to leave out

    Against the wind
    I’m still runnin against the wind
    I’m older now but still runnin against the wind

    Well I’m older now but still runnin against the wind

  42. JT:

    I missed wishing you “Happy Birthday,” but despite the belatedness it is no less sincere. Many more and much more blogging. By the way, you are entitled to the full respect of family, friends, and colleagues on your special day, but your mother even more so!

  43. What does Professor Turley make of Secretary Clinton’s comments about the bill, essentially seeming to imply a) she likes the idea of it but that b) the State Dept. essentially already has that power. I think she then walked back a bit the next day and said the State Dept. lawyers were looking closely at the bill.

    Professor Juan Cole has a good post up about it too and how Sen. Lieberman should perhaps be careful what he wishes for if Afroyim v. Rusk were to be overruled.

    Senator Lieberman in my view is just a pandering show horse when it comes to terrorism. His knee-jerk response is totally predictable but he is hoping, just like so many do, that he can make an emotional “but it’s to protect innocent Americans!” argument in order to deflect from the fact that he’s subverting the Constitution.

  44. I’m late for the party, but Professor I hope you see many more birthdays and may we all be around to wish you many more.

Comments are closed.