Yella’ Joe Lieberman

Tuesday, May 4th, 2010

So if we had been governed by the wisdom of one Joe Lieberman over the last 15 years, Richard Jewell and Steven Hatfill—both innocent and both U.S. citizens accused of terrorism-related crimes—may well have been stripped of their citizenship, treated as enemy combatants, and left to rot on some Navy ship off the coast of South Carolina.

And let’s not forget all of those other stories we’ve read in the last few years about pranksters getting cited for “terroristic” crimes. Just dispense with their trials, already. Lock ’em up. Hey, while we’re at it, let’s go ahead and add drug crimes to the list of accusations that will strip you of your citizenship. After all, Ronald Regan’s 1984 declaration that illicit drugs are a “threat to national security” has never really been revoked, and the ONDCP regularly informs us that pot smokers are supporting terrorism.

Lieberman’s ready to dispense with the Bill of Rights over a flubbed attack that didn’t take a single life.

So let’s dispense with the niceties, here.  Joe Lieberman is a coward.

Digg it |  reddit | |  Fark

94 Responses to “Yella’ Joe Lieberman”

  1. #1 |  David in Ubalt | 

    @Not a Viking

    I can only assume that you are correct and that Marv is a troll. Even the right wing nutters are a little more consistent then him. “Oh, I’m for American rights to American citizens and he should only loose their citizenship after they are found guilty … (two posts later) … oh he is really a terrorist and so he has no rights and we don’t need a trial to take away his liberty…” Yeah, obvious troll was pretty obvious looking back on it.

    As far as whether or not a naturalized citizen should loose their citizenship after a conviction, I do not really know where I stand on the issue. I will say that I think the question is a legitimate one to discuss as opposed to how the troll put it, but as far as my opinion I am not sure at this point.

  2. #2 |  Andrew Williams | 

    If you don’t get this, Marv, then I give up. You’ll have to seek your feeding elsewhere.

    Roper: So now you’d give the Devil benefit of law!

    More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

    Roper: I’d cut down every law in England to do that!

    More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man’s laws, not God’s — and if you cut them down — and you’re just the man to do it — d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.

    –from A Man For All Seasons, by Robert Bolt

    Oh, and I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating: Joe Lieberman is a shanda fur de goyim.

  3. #3 |  Frank | 

    New video of the MO SWAT raid/puppycide Radley blogged about earlier.

  4. #4 |  random guy | 

    I like Marv. He says funny things. Its almost zen like, to so succinctly compress this notion that guilt and innocence are successfully tried in the media and that on this basis alone can a citizen be stripped of their rights. And the casual racial slurs mixed in with accusations of antisemitism, thats just the cherry on top.

    joking aside this troll gets 2/10. he provoked some decent responses, but it was so ham-handed. Insulting the commentors intelligence, political affiliation, patriotism, and accusing them of racism all in one go? Just too much, why not just call us baby eating bestiality enthusiasts? I mean if your going to troll with the delicacy of a bull on crystal meth, why not go for broke?

  5. #5 |  Aresen | 

    LBLG | May 4th, 2010 at 9:29 pm
    Maybe Marv just misses things the way they were…

    …before those goddam liberal barons make King John sign that stupid Magna Carta?

  6. #6 |  Steve Finlay | 

    Thanks for that excellent, and precisely relevant, quote from A Man For All Seasons. That is exactly why the rule of law is so fundamental, necessary, and indispensible. It is truly the only thing that separates civilization from tyranny, anarchy, and barbarism (all of which are the same).

    Arthur Herman said much the same thing in How the Scots Invented the Modern World: “Doing injury to one person’s property hurts everyone, because violating the rights of one, such as the right to property or the right to life, threatens the rights of all.”

    As a non-American (I’m Canadian), I believe that by far the best thing about the USA is the fact that it was founded on the principle that violating the rights of one threatens the rights of all. THIS IS WHAT AMERICA STANDS FOR. Anyone who rejects that principle in the name of “America” is a traitor to his country in the most fundamental way possible.

  7. #7 |  Marv Hamlish | 

    Let me say that I am not “troller” whatever that is, I truly beleive everything I say otherwise I would not say it. I post comments here because this is one of the only liberal sites on the net that lets you post comments. What got me going is the suggestion that we would strip Richard Jewell of his citizenship. I followed that case closely and to suggest that it fits in with what Leiberman is suggesting is stupid. The writer that suggested it would have been about 15 years old when Richard Jewell was falsly accused.

  8. #8 |  qwints | 

    Radley Balko was starting last year of college when Jewell was falsely accused (see his about me page). /irrelevant point.

    I firmly agree with those arguing for due process rights to all detained by the US. (I’d extend it to Bagram). That won’t always mean everyone gets a civilian trial in front of a jury of their peers with the lawyer of their choice. If someone surrenders to our armed forces after armed combat, we’re in a different situation than with people turned over to us for a bounty which is still a different situation from people we arrest ourselves. When we arrest people in the U.S., they should get civilian trials. Period.

    I also firmly believe that citizenship should be both revocable and renouncable. But this should only be done for heavy issues. Treason is a damn good reason to revoke citizenship.

  9. #9 |  BSK | 

    The point about Jewell is that he was suspected of terrorism, just like the guy now. If suspecting a guy of terrorism is all it takes to strip his rights away, WHICH IS WHAT LIEBERMAN IS ADVOCATING, then Jewell certainly fits the mold of someone who could have had his rights strip. The comparison is perfectly apt and highlights the foolishness of this proposal.

  10. #10 |  Marv Hamlish | 

    OK, you’re right the writer is older than I thought.

  11. #11 |  zendingo | 

    marv, why do you hate america?

    please support the troops and quit helping the terrroists win………..

  12. #12 |  Marv Hamlish | 

    How could I have been so stupid? I get it now. I couldn’t figure out why so many on this site were sticking up for this Paki, and how his arrest and Lieberman’s comments could have sparked so many responses. It’s because the left was all wound up and ready for a white, right-winger to be arrested. You’re all disappointed today, now it makes sense. You were hoping al Queda was going to go away now that Colonel Obama is in charge.

  13. #13 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    At this point, I’m OK with losing my citizenship.

  14. #14 |  Chris Mallory | 

    Pssst Marv, this isn’t a “liberal” site. Unless of course you mean classical liberal, you know like those noted terrorists Jefferson, Henry and Adams.

    Can we remove citizenship from those people who are dual citizens? After all, if you swear to support another nation, you can’t really be supporting the US. I think Lieberman might qualify for this one. But then I am not sure if he is a citizen of Israel or not.

  15. #15 |  MikeZ | 

    “I also firmly believe that citizenship should be both revocable and renouncable. But this should only be done for heavy issues. Treason is a damn good reason to revoke citizenship.”

    Have we ever revoked citizenship for treason? We’ve executed traitors, we’ve imprisoned them, but I don’t think we’ve ever exiled them. The only way I see to revoke citizenship is execution. To me it just doesn’t make sense. Revoking citizenship seems like either a) Foisting our problem on some other country, or b) Rewarding a traitor with what he really wants. I don’t like either of those scenarios. I would agree that a citizen should be allowed to renounce their own citizenship, but I don’t think the other way around makes sense.

  16. #16 |  Johnny Clamboat | 

    If you think Radley is a leftist or liberal….. you might be a troll.

  17. #17 |  Mattocracy | 


    The constitution seperates us from the terrorists. Take that away, and we’re just like them. You keep saying you love America and hate terrorists, but yet you want to remove the very frame work of constitutional protections we have. When a government stops respecting due process and starts taking away rights based on accusation, that is terroristic. We don’t love terrorists, we’re just afraid that we are substituting foreign terrorism for institutionalized terrorism from our government. It’s that paradox you aren’t grasping.

    And please don’t call us liberals. If you actually spent any time reading this site, you’d realize we are the farthest things from Democrats. There have been plenty of articles posted here discussing the disturbing trend that conservatives (such as yourself) might be considered anti-government domestic terrorists in the future based on flimsy evidence. We think that is pretty god awful to. That’s what really bothers me. You are supporting a slippery slope that could very well set the stage for you to be considered a terrorist and locked away. You don’t even realize it.

    We support the Constitution to protect you, not terrorists.

  18. #18 |  David Chesler | 

    What about that middle-aged white guy who changed his T shirt in an alley while looking furtively over his shoulder and stuffing the original shirt in a bag? Why is he still a citizen, let alone walking around free?

  19. #19 |  Chris Mallory | 

    They have removed citizenship from old men of European birth who may or may not have been Nazis in the 40’s.

  20. #20 |  Bryan | 

    If you have more knots on your face than the bridge that you live under…you might be a troll.

    We are doing “you might be a troll” jokes now, right?

  21. #21 |  Amiable Dorsai | 

    Marv, Marv, Marv… “liberal?” You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

  22. #22 |  Mattocracy | 

    The trolling still shocks everytime no matter how many times it happens. Had this post been about Eric Holder wanting to lock up tea partiers or oath keepers and charging them with treason, all the liberals would be coming out of the wood work calling us a bunch of rightwing extremists. Mrv would be on our side. The complete double standards that everyone has is so hard for me to comprehend.

    If you arent willing to extend constitutional rights and due process to your enemies (perceived or otherwise), what makes you think that anyone will do it for you? Why is it so hard to understand that liberty is a two way street? You can’t deny others without denying yourself at the same time. Everytime we say this, we’re labeled a bunch of rightwing, hate mongering, pussy-ass faggot liberals all at once.

  23. #23 |  Maitri | 

    I am a naturalized citizen of this country (of Indian descent and have brown skin). Ever since I was a little kid, what I wanted most was to become an American and worked hard to become one, while the only “patriotic” act many natural-born American citizens have performed is being born in this country. If that alone qualifies one to commit terrorist acts and retain their citizenship, while naturalized citizens who do equally bad things are threatened with the revocation of their citizenship, this is a double standard.

    Treason is treason, whether committed by a natural-born or naturalized citizen. The US constitution has a method of addressing a citizen’s adherence to enemies starting with Section 3 of Article 3. Let’s stick with the pre-existing American methods first.

  24. #24 |  Maitri | 

    Ok, I read Lieberman’s proposed bill at two different news sources, and they both suggest that, according to the bill, even natural-born Americans who participate in terrorist acts ought to have their citizenship stripped away.

    I maintain that what makes America great is the due process of law and that we already have constitutional provisions to take care of traitors. This is just McCain and Lieberman posturing in an election year.

    What truly bothers me is that Americans even consider such draconian measures only when Pakis, Ay-rabs and Mexicans are involved. Like all of them are bad and need protecting from. We fear that which we do not understand.

  25. #25 |  Nick T | 

    Situational Constitutionalism is the same thing as A-Constitutionalism.

    We should all remember that the Bill of Rights applies to all people that come in contact with the US government, and not just citizens. So when Lieberman makes proposals based on a flawed premise like that, we should point him out for being a liar, and someone who wants to propogate lies about the Constituion rather than defend it. And of course, a coward.

    Marv, might I suggest you go an form your own country. You can even adopt the entire Constitution (not that you’ve read it) and just at the end tack on “unless where otherwise deemed unreasonable, or unwise” at the very end. Annnnd you’re done!

  26. #26 |  Authoritarian Who Despises American Constitutional Values of the Day : Lawyers, Guns & Money | 

    […] and second most important arbiter of National Integritude after Bill Bennett.   (See also here and here and here.) Share and […]

  27. #27 |  GaryM | 

    He’s also ready, in the general case, to dispense with the Fourteenth Amendment, which says that if you were born in the USA and are subject to its jurisdiction, then you’re a citizen.

  28. #28 |  Brandon | 

    I don’t get why people on this site are so willing to try someone for “treason,” an ill-defined and easily-abused charge that should only be used during war, and I mean actual, congressionally-declared war, not these idiotic political wars on terror or drugs. This asshole should be tried for attempted murder, the number of counts being determined by the explosive potential of the bomb he tried to set off compared to the population density around Times Square. Regardless of the number arrived at, it will be more than enough to imprison him for the rest of his life where he is no longer any danger to anyone. If you believe in the death penalty, fine, argue with the life sentence, but I see no good reason to try to fuck around with what’s left of OUR constitutional protections just for the sake of this shitbag. If you really believe we are at “War” with terror, then don’t surrender by removing the only thing that separates us from the terrorists.

  29. #29 |  BSK | 

    I’m wondering… does Lieberman think this will serve as a deterrent? “They may want to blow us up and destroy our civilization, but not if it means losing their rights!” How patently fucking stupid! Even if this was put in place, all it would mean is that the terrorists would continue to do their thing and we would undermine the very foundations of our country we are supposedly defending from them.

    Note: I do not actually believe this simplistic rendering of terrorists and their motivations, but it seems to permeate most of the conversation involving terrorism so I’m just going with it for now.

  30. #30 |  MassHole | 

    Well put Brandon. I’m continually amazed at what scared little bitches so many Americans have become. The people of New York just continue about their business while grown men want turn us into a police state over something that ALMOST happened two thousand miles away from them. The Marvs of the world are so frightened that they demand their own freedoms be taken away in order to give themselves some semblance of safety. It’s pathetic. I fear the freedom experiment in this country is doomed. The first thing out of my moms mouth when I told her about the burst water main outside Boston was “do you think it was terrorism?”. The politicians, media and their enablers have conditioned the weak minded in this country that the boogie man is under their bed. The frightened outnumber the rational and they’re going to take us all down with them. The sacks of shit in Washington are willing to ride this all the way to money and power. After all, they’ll be special when the shit hits the fan, so what do they care.

  31. #31 |  JT | 


    Your homophobia comes through “loud and clear”.

  32. #32 |  albatross | 

    At a guess, Lieberman’s goals are (in order):

    a. Coming off as a tough guy in the war on terror for political reasons.

    b. The ability to interrogate terrorism suspects by way of drugs, torture, threats to family, or whatever other godawful stuff the CIA can think of.

    c. The ability to add revocation of citizenship to violations of “antiterrorism” laws that have very little to do with actual terrorism–stuff like donating money to the wrong charity.

  33. #33 |  nicrivera | 


    You continue to denounce Radley as a “liberal” even though Radley is an unabashed libertarian. And you continue to denounce the commenters here as “liberals” even though they repeatedly told you that they are libertarians.

    This seems to be the common tactic employed by conservatives and liberals when debating libertarians.

    When a conservative is debating a libertarian, and he realizes he has no chance of winning the debate, he simply denounces the libertarian as a “liberal.”

    When a liberal is debating a libertarian, and he realizes he has no chance of winning the debate, he simply denounces the libertarian as a “conservative.”

    I find it sad that this is what passes for “conservatism” and “liberalism” nowdays.

  34. #34 |  Dan Z | 

    When a Libertarian says something a republican doesnt like, they are left leaning liberals, when they say something a democrat doesnt like they are right leaning conservatives. There is no way to win an argument in which someone will not first accept where you are coming from and the root of your beliefs. I also liked how quick Marv was to pull out the anti-semite card, that was cute.

  35. #35 |  BSK | 

    Hey Marv-

    How about the fact that is now being reported that the vendor who noticed the smoking car was a Muslim. Should he get double-citizenship? Or is he still to be suspected because he might prove to be a “Paki”?

  36. #36 |  Cynical in CA | 

    Don’t feed the Marv Hamlisch troll.

  37. #37 |  Marv Hamlish | 

    There are a log of liberal sites out there, I just can’t stand that this one won’t admit it. There is all the same smartass comments about Palin, and hating Bush here as there are at Huff Post. When that shitbag Iraqi reporter threw his shoes at Bush, Balko said “I could watch it over and over again”. I really hope those comments come back to haunt him as he pursues his TV career on Fox. Plus I think you all have a lot of hope invested in Obama because you’re hoping he will legalize dope, so you take it easy on him. I don’t think you can deny there is a strong undercurrent of anti-semitism in the comments here on a regular basis.
    I’d like to see the karma numbers if someone were to make a comment like “I’m a Libertarian, I beleive in low taxes, legalization of dope, and I’d like to give that kid his third trimester without sticking the scissors in his skull so he can be born and go on to enjoy low taxes and a land free of brutal police SWAT raids.”

  38. #38 |  nicrivera | 

    Marv wrote:

    “I don’t think you can deny there is a strong undercurrent of anti-semitism in the comments here on a regular basis.”


    Your kneejerk reaction of labeling critics of Lieberman of being “anti-semitic” is as bad as leftists who in kneejerk fashion accuse critics of Obama as being “racist.”

    As is the case with leftists, I think you’re seeing what you wish to see.

  39. #39 |  nicrivera | 


    Radley could write 20 posts in favor of lower taxes, 20 posts in favor of gun rights, and 20 posts criticizing the Democrat’s unconstitutional Health Care Bill, and you’d still label him a “liberal” on the basis that he wasn’t sufficiently respectful towards your neoconservative heroes.

  40. #40 |  [links] Link salad remembers lying in a hospital bed | | 

    […] Yella’ Joe Lieberman — Yes, Virginia, political idiocy is by no means confined to Republicans. Either Lieberman understands Constitutional issues and is therefore a venal opportunist, or he doesn’t understand them and is therefore a venal idiot. Either way he has no business being a US Senator, or even a dog catcher. And Al Gore wanted to make this man vice president. […]

  41. #41 |  [links] Link salad remembers lying in a hospital bed | | 

    […] Yella’ Joe Lieberman — Yes, Virginia, political idiocy is by no means confined to Republicans. Either Lieberman understands Constitutional issues and is therefore a venal opportunist, or he doesn’t understand them and is therefore a venal idiot. Either way he has no business being a US Senator, or even a dog catcher. And Al Gore wanted to make this man vice president. […]

  42. #42 |  albatross | 

    One nice thing the terrorism threat has done for us: it has provided a kind of X-ray image of all sorts of “small government conservatives.” Do they really not trust government power, doubt the benevolence and trustworthiness of unaccountable bureaucrats, and want more decisions handled by individuals and local governments and property owners?

    Mostly, for Republicans, the answer has been “no.” These folks, who still go around talking the “small government” talk, can’t even bring themselves to oppose letting the government disappear and torture people on suspicion of terrorism. They shriek every time some alleged terrorist is arrested and questioned by the FBI, instead of being disappeared into some deep dark hole and tortured by some CIA thug. Their response to every attempted terrorist attack is comically hyped.

    I saw a bit of the John McCain interview on Larry King yesterday, where he was talking about not reading terrorists their Miranda rights. And it was *wonderful*. I mean, if not for the Palin choice, I might once have taken him as someone who had something serious and well-thought-out to say, who had some principles he wouldn’t throw away as soon as he was in a tight election.

    Perhaps this wins them votes. Perhaps most people don’t think about this stuff the way I do. But I’m someone who was once willing to vote Republican for the right candidate, who was willing to believe that Republicans were somewhat on my side w.r.t. free markets and limited government. And now, I’m someone who will probably never vote Republican again. How could I possibly take these clowns seriously when they claim to be for limited government, but then think having the NSA wiretap everyone’s phone all the time is perfectly okay, and having anyone suspected of terrorism killed or disappeared and tortured is perfectly okay? How could I possibly take them seriously when they dismiss the risk of global warming or environmental damage as overblown (quite possibly true), but then inflate the risk of terrorism to an “existential threat to our society,” greater than the threat of nuclear holocaust that hung over the world for 40 years?

  43. #43 |  Brian | 


    Gonna go out on a limb and assume you also support the government putting a US citizen (Awlaki) on the assassination list without benefit of a trial?

    Seriously, it’s ignorant fools like you that will be the end of the Bill of Rights.

    Is your reason for stripping this “paki” of his citizenship so he can be sent to a floating prison in the middle of the ocean somewhere instead of putting him on trial? Accusations of crimes are not evidence of crimes. If they have evidence of crimes put him on trial. If the evidence points to treason, then try him for that. If guilty, put a hollow point in his head.

    If you allow the government to strip someone of their Constitutional rights because they have been accused of a crime it will only be a matter of time before they accuse you of a crime and strip you of your rights.

  44. #44 |  T. J. Babson | 

    Let’s keep in mind that Obama has already ordered the targeted killing of a U.S. citizen.

    WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has taken the extraordinary step of authorizing the targeted killing of an American citizen, the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is believed to have shifted from encouraging attacks on the United States to directly participating in them, intelligence and counterterrorism officials said Tuesday.