Should Americans Suspected of Terrorism Lose Citizenship?

There is a predictably partisan "debate" raging over the arrest of the American citizen who reportedly "made statements implicating himself" in the attempted Times Square car bombing. Because investigators read suspect Faisal Shahzad his rights (eventually), Republicans like John McCain and Joe Lieberman have jumped at the opportunity to paint the Obama administration as terrorist-huggers. On the other hand, Democrats like Rep. Adam Smith say you don't need to toss out Constitutional protections to pursue terrorists. Then there's Glenn Beck, who has just shocked the world by saying something rational:

He is a citizen of the United States, so I say we uphold the laws and the Constitution on citizens. If you are a citizen, you obey the law and follow the Constitution. [Shahzad] has all the rights under the Constitution. We don't shred the Constitution when it is popular. We do the right thing.

After arresting Shahzad, interrogating him, and deciding there was no imminent threat to be prevented, investigators informed Shahzad of his rights to remain silent and have an attorney, but he waived them and continued talking. They charged him as a civilian on Tuesday, but John McCain thinks that should frighten you, telling Sean Hannity, "When we detain terrorism suspects, our top priority should be finding out what intelligence they have that could prevent future attacks and save American lives. Our priority should not be telling them they have a right to remain silent."

Representative Peter T. King of New York, the ranking Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee, piles on: "In these kinds of cases, the first preference should be a military commission because you can get more information." But there's that annoying Constitution, which guarantees American citizens the right to trial by a jury of their peers. Under the Military Commissions Act of 2006, only noncitizens can be tried in a military commission. But can't we just tweak the 7th Amendment or something? Senator Joseph Lieberman went on Fox News to propose legislation that would strip the citizenship of Americans tied to terrorism:

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

For a rebuttal, let's turn to Megan McArdle at the Altantic: "Can someone explain to me—hopefully using graphs, and small words—why Joe Lieberman is willing to share the precious blessing of American citizenship with Charles Manson, Gary Ridgeway, and David Berkowitz, but wants citizenship stripped from a guy who strapped some firecrackers to a bag of non-explosive fertilizer?"

And her Atlantic colleague Andrew Sullivan gets sober: "Now recall that McCain and Lieberman were celebrated in Washington for their alleged maturity, wisdom, and elder statesmen experience. They are in fact adolescent hysterics, whose terrorized Manichean view of the world sees nothing but an existential struggle and the imperative to win it. We would have been electing Cheney to a third term. And we barely knew it."

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By John Del Signore in News on May 5, 2010 5:46 PM

Comments [rss]

sleeplessknight

Yes!!!!!.....HE's a T E R R O R I S T

potsmoker

Lieberman isnt even a citizen of this country, so why is he talking about,

2 two countries have had big supreme court cases dealing with dual antionality and losing citizenship by way of voting and serving in a foreign army.

MEXICO and ISRAEL.

A an american citizen lost his us citizenship for voting in a mexican election, now the only counrty left on the list mentioned above, i cant directly name it in this sentence because i would be accused of being a anti whatever and equated with hitler...but if an american citizen holds a passport and serves in a certain countries foreign army, hint its not mexico, its perfectly fine and aok.

Leiberman owes his allegiance to a foreign country and a lot of american citizens do, what i dont get is why do so many americans bow to that country for the sake of politcal points, hint that country is not mexico.

ReligiousWacko

Lieberman is independent who caucuses with Democrats and was Dem nominee for VP. In other words, not a Republican.

I hate Christian taliban GOP but lets get facts straight.

Amanda Harletsch

if terrorist can be defined as somebody that would use violence/force/arms to impose his political views, a HUGE NUMBER of domestic "patriots" will be non citizens as sun as they act their "revolutionary" fantasies.

How fun!

BDS=(Boycott.Divest.Sanction)

you should change the headline to

Should America Have the Bill of Rights?

Mordicai

Witches...a big problem...or the BIGGEST problem?

Politburo

I don't see how this could at all work in practice.

What I mean is that in order to strip someone of their citizenship under the law, it must be done according to the law (this shouldn't have to be said, but it does). So that means Miranda applies, due process applies, prohibition on trials in absentia, etc.. So if you've got to capture someone and make a fully legal case to strip their citizenship... all so that you can then interrogate them without Miranda (even though you've already Mirandized them), what's the point?

It's also important to note that most of the denaturalization law has never been used. Therefore the legality has not been determined by the Court.

Mordicai

When I saw that Glen Beck clip my wife & I were gobsmacked. He not only said reasonable things, but...he said them in a rational tone, while not trying to shout down the other people in the conversation? Whaaaat?

Listen-- those claiming he "joined a foreign army" are part of the weird delusion ongoing regarding terrorism. There isn't an army, or a country for that matter, that is "evil terrorists." That is the problem with the conflict; you can't bomb terrorists out of existence, you can only bomb them INTO existence. This guy wasn't part of some army, any more than the Manson Family was an army. He's a citizen. & furthermore, why are people so eager to strip rights away from SUSPECTS? Heck, I'd be on board if we were shouting "hang the bastard!" after the conviction. But until them I want him treated innocent until proven guilty.

Dead Himmler

Tell the marines in Afghanistan who get in constant firefights that there is no army. That it is all an illusion.

Guest

I would totally tell them that. And I'm sure they would agree, since it is not Afghanistan's army.

By your analogy, the Bronx has an army since the NYPD is constantly in firefights there.

John Del Signore

+1

TME

terrorists = red scare = witch hunt = all the same thing.

A flag to attach and discredit anyone against the given agenda.

jeaducy

everyone who disagrees with him is a terrorist, and that almost everyone disagrees with him about something, yes, we're all terrorists who hate America in their eyes.

http://www.articlesbase.com/health-articles/colo-trim-review-does-colotrim-really-work-2165553.html

Thespis

Fascinating. I did not know that.

inoyourider

I suppose it's good CYA, but in case of further imminent attacks I'd like to see the suspect interrogated as soon and as effectively as possible.

jaycjay

"I'd like to see the suspect interrogated as soon and as effectively as possible."

Which, of course, is exactly what happened in the we're all thinking about; without any need for this ridiculous affront to the way we have always thought and acted.

This guy committed a crime, was caught, and will be brought to justice. How can any of these proposed restrictions on our basic freedoms improve upon that result?

The statement posed above sums this up, and should bring pause to anyone suporting Leiberman, McCain, and their ilk: "We need to defend our freedoms by limiting our freedoms" is exactly the statement that these people, our most prominent anti-Americans, are making.

And that is exactly how I look at them. These are the most prominent anti-Americans of our time.

inoyourider

Yes, there are already provisions in Miranda law for getting information in a time-sensitive case.

I think Lieberman is a fool and McCain should retire as he's way too out of touch.

I don't think they're anti-American, just misguided.

Mordicai

They really do Hate Our Freedoms.

soxinthecity

If a citizen is convicted of a terrorist act, they can be executed. Why should the government be distracted by trying to revoke citizenship, just kill them.

Mordicai

Right? This is already covered! I'm not saying "go easy on him," I'm saying-- this is already part of the system. You don't strip citizens of their rights. Remember how there was this argument already & people were like "trial!? they aren't even citizens!" & we were like "we are all safer when we act with Justice & not like a mob of witch hunters." Remember that? Well this is phase two, this is a citizen, & you still want to act like a wild west posse? You idiots, YOU are citizens-- don't you want those rights of yours protected?

These old white guys hate your freedom.