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 After all, Ronald Regan’s 1984 declaration that illicit drugs are a “threat to national security” has never really been revoked, and the ONDCP regularly informs us that pot smokers are supporting terrorism.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 |  Mike H | 

    OK, Joe – why not just rename it “The Bill of Privileges” and have done with it?

    Seriously, this guy. Oy.

  2. #2 |  Will | 

    I agree completely.

  3. #3 |  Marv Hamlish | 

    Um, I think Lieberman was talking about boys that come from other countries. See, this Pakistani clown was not a natural born citizen like Richard Jewell. Don’t let the facts get in the way of a good liberal argument. Man this is truly a liberal trifecta day here at the agitator. We have people arguing for doing away with borders all together, we have the gay rights story, and now we are routing for terrorists. Awesome! Being a libertarian, or a “left leaning libertarian” means you are able to come down on what ever side feels nice today.

  4. #4 |  Bryan | 

    Maybe we should revoke the citizenship of those that don’t appreciate the Constitution and Bill of Rights. What do you think you are really getting out of being a “citizen” anyway, Joe?

  5. #5 |  Dante | 


    Read much?

    From the article: “Joe Lieberman has a creative solution: Take away their citizenship. “If you’ve joined an enemy of the United States in attacking the United States and trying to kill Americans, I think you should sacrifice your rights of citizenship,” Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut, told reporters Tuesday”

    Doesn’t say a word about naturalized citizens. Just citizens, like you.

  6. #6 |  Les | 

    Um, I think Lieberman was talking about boys that come from other countries.

    Why do you think that?

    Don’t let the facts get in the way of a good liberal argument.

    What facts?

    We have people arguing for doing away with borders all together, we have the gay rights story, and now we are routing (sic) for terrorists.

    Who is rooting for terrorists? If you’re trying to look like an idiot, I congratulate you.

  7. #7 |  Marv Hamlish | 

    How would someone take away Richard Jewell’s citizenship? Where would you send him? We have revoked peoples citizenship before, like Ivan Djemnanuk, but see he came here from somewhere else, he was all ready a citizen of the Ukranine. If someone were a natural born citizen there would be no where to send them. That is a stupid arguement that we could have sent Richard Jewell somewhere else, or taken away his citizenship. I like Leiberman’s idea which I think is clear that he’s talking about people that come here from other countries. For example someone from England that comes here and gets caught smoking pot in the bushes off Cape Cod. I would be all for taking away that guys green card!

  8. #8 |  Dave Krueger | 

    Well, they routinely confiscate the wealth of drug criminals before they prosecute them, making it impossible for them to hire a top notch attorney. It stands to reason they would want to confiscate other things (rights, for example) to further impede a defendant’s capacity to fight the charges against him. After all, it could embarrass the government if he “beats the system” and goes free. Such embarrassment is a national security issue because it undermines the government’s authority which rests entirely upon the public believing it isn’t staffed by a bunch of fucking morons. Maintaining that facade is a huge enough challenge without accused terrorists walking out of court as free men simply due to some technicality (such as a lack of incriminating evidence).

  9. #9 |  flukebucket | 

    How would someone take away Richard Jewell’s citizenship? Where would you send him?

    Richard Jewell is dead. He has nowhere else to go.

    For example someone from England that comes here and gets caught smoking pot in the bushes off Cape Cod. I would be all for taking away that guys green card!

    Only if he is bogarting the joint.

  10. #10 |  Marv Hamlish | 

    Also, I’ll bet this little shitbag from Pakistan that planted the bomb in Times Square had to swear an oath to the USA to get his citizenship. If it could be proven that he had ties to bad people before or during his citizenship process, that would constiture fraud. We kick people out of this country all the time for immigration fraud, for example getting married to a citizen for the sole purpose of getting a green card or citizenship. Leiberman is right on the money here.

  11. #11 |  Mike H | 

    You wanna talk fraud? Leiberman is a demented political opportunist. Every breath he takes constitutes fraud.

  12. #12 |  Steve Verdon | 

    Linked you over at Outside the Beltway, and man you are so right. Who knew that Joe Lieberman is a synonym for douchebag.

  13. #13 |  JP Uno | 

    Dear Marv–

    Without a proper trial, how do you know that a person has committed a crime? If you are dead certain of the defendant’s guilt in terrorism cases, what prevents you from also prejudging the outcome in, say, cases of larceny, assault, or speeding tickets? If you wanted to argue that being found guilty of treason should strip you of your citizenship, then I don’t really care one way or the other. But the suggestion to strip people of their Constitutional rights before they have been put on trial is totally illogical. In the reductio ad absurdum of my viewpoint, everyone accused of a crime who pleads not guilty is put on trial. In the reductio of yours, everyone accused of a crime is guilty.

  14. #14 |  Les | 

    Without a proper trial, how do you know that a person has committed a crime?

    It doesn’t matter to people as frightened as Marv. It’s funny how the people who are the quickest to claim to want to defend America are often the quickest to support un-American methods in order to do so.

  15. #15 |  Aresen | 

    JP Uno

    Marv does not believe in the rule of law.

    He believes in the rule of law enforcement officers.

  16. #16 |  Dante | 

    Hey, Radley!

    You’re spoofing Marv just to tease us, aren’t you? It’s all a ruse just to see how we respond, isn’t it?

    Nobody is naturally that stupid.

  17. #17 |  Andrew Williams | 

    Preaching to the converted, Radley. If Jo-El’s an independent, I’m Warren Buffett.

  18. #18 |  Zargon | 

    Such embarrassment is a national security issue because it undermines the government’s authority which rests entirely upon the public believing it isn’t staffed by a bunch of fucking morons.

    I wish the government was staffed by a bunch of fucking morons. World would be a better place…

  19. #19 |  David in Balt | 


    People here have already beat me to it, but seriously Marv, what is the point in being an American if all the liberties and safeguards of that membership are taken away simply because someone has accused you of a crime? The whole point of American liberties, you know those pointless ‘liberal’ constructs contained in the constitution and the first 10 amendments following it is that a person is innocent until proven guilty and can not be striped of their life or liberty unless found guilty by a jury of their peers.

    Once a person takes that oath they are for all intents and purposes an American citizen and if you can strip them of their rights you can strip a natural born citizen of them as well. You do realize there are plenty of American military bases, overseas, that you can send a ‘unnaturalized’ natural born American citizen to sit and rot once you strip them of their rights. But thats okay, right? As long as your not pissing your pants at the whispers of a terrorist boogeyman hiding under your bed? People who are willing to give up their liberty for a little security deserve neither. Someone great said that, think about it you waste of skin.

  20. #20 |  Marv Hamlish | 

    You make absolutely no sense. The Pakastani shitbag will have a trial, or if Bush were president, he would have gone before a military tribunal and would be waterboarded, then he would have his citizenship taken away becuase he lied in obtaining it. I’m not the one that brought up Richard Jewell, Balko did and it is a terrible example. I brought up Ivan Djemnanuk as a great example of taking back ones citizenship, tell me why I’m wrong and stop name-calling. I think many just hate Leiberman because he’s a Jew, and being that this is a liberal site, many liberals are angry at the Jews.

  21. #21 |  Andrew S. | 

    Silly people, Marv’s right. Didn’t you ever read the 4th amendment?

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. These protections shall not apply if the person to be searched is bad, or if we’re really, really scared.

    Reading comprehension, people!

  22. #22 |  David in Balt | 

    @ Marv

    Actually, Marv, he is an American. I know those damned brown people are scary and you really, really wish they were not here but they are and he is a citizen with rights. Why would you want an American citizen to be tortured and have their -constitutional- rights stripped from them? Why would you want an American CITIZEN to have any such thing happen to them, ever? Are you really that big of a coward? That big of a racist? Xenophobic? What is your problem? You make so many assertions and yet ask questions, I thought you were omniscient with all this knowledge of who is guilty and what not.

  23. #23 |  Marv Hamlish | 

    David, it would appear obvious this Paki lied to obtain his citizenship, he has only been an American for a year, and his sole purpose for becoming an American was to BOMB us. As I said before, when you committe fraud to become a citizen, they can go back and strip you of it ex post facto. As for a regular American that commites treason, Article 3 makes clear that congress will decide the punishment for treason.
    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person

  24. #24 |  Kristen | 

    Dear ol’ Maverick-y John McCain said this dude should not have been Mirandized because the cops should have gotten the information out of him first.

    So, they’re all fucking nuts.

  25. #25 |  Andrew S. | 

    Marv, not like I enjoy feeding trolls… but other than your own speculation, what evidence do you have that he lied on his citizenship application? Or are we now going to start stripping citizenship because “he MUST HAVE lied?”

  26. #26 |  Peter Ramins | 

    I think the exact opposite – any civil or criminal prosecution undertaken by the United States government should see the extension of every guaranteed right listed in the Constitution to the defendant.

    You win friends and influence people positively through positive affirmative actions, and this holds true for the international stage as well. I think we would see a lot less terrorism (real terrorism, not kids leaving macabra playing cards lying around) if we acted on the up and up more often instead of being…

    Well, instead of being colossal fucking douchebags.

  27. #27 |  Marv Hamlish | 

    You are making an argument that this guy is arrested, the FBI guy calls the State Department and he is stripped of his citizenship. That’s stupid and is not how it works. I’m giving you my opinion that this guy has probably hated the USA (greatest country on earth) for a long time, probably since he slithered out of his jew-hating mother over in Pakistan. They give you an oath when you become a citizen, and he took his oath last year. If it can be proven that he was in cahoots with other shitbag Pakis during his application process, he has clearly committed fraud.

  28. #28 |  Marv Hamlish | 

    I am really taken aback by the readers of this site wanting to stick up for someone that clearly wanted to murder as many Americans as possible. If this guy had a bomb that could have killed 100,000 Americans, he would have used it. We dodged a bullitt a few days ago. Maybe it’s because this Paki looks like a hip-happening dude that probably goes both ways that he’s getting so much love here. I really can’t figure it out and am honestly disturbed. This guy is the enemy, and should be treated no better than we treated Germans we caught in the USA during WW2. (Please look it up first before you go ape shit, we did catch German sabatours in America during WW2)

  29. #29 |  David in Balt | 

    @ Marv,

    You have still failed to address -any- of the points brought up to you. Are you incapable of doing such? Again you make these claims about how he should be stripped of his citizenship, but then you weeble-wobble about how it needs to be proven but that is not what you originally claimed is it? You have no more knowledge about what he was thinking when he took that oath then you do about the constitution or what being American means. If you can’t address the issues then just say you are arguing from bigotry and not knowledge.

  30. #30 |  Marty | 

    So if supporting Israeli policies does harm to America, can we strip Joe Lieberman of his citizenship?

  31. #31 |  Leon Wolfeson | 

    @Marv “think many just hate Leiberman because he’s a Jew” –

    Ha. I’m really really embarrassed that he calls himself a fellow Jew while holding a lot of the stances he does. I can quite understand bad feeling against him not having anything whatsoever to do with his religion.

  32. #32 |  qwints | 

    Marv has a point, but I think his rhetoric has obscured it. If a naturalized citizen is convicted of treason and receives due process of law, I’d be o.k. with revoking their citizenship. The reason they ask the stupid sounding questions during naturalization (are you a communist/nazi/terrorist) is to provide the opportunity to do so. So under the limited circumstances where someone obtained citizenship while intending to attack the country, I’d be o.k. revoking his or her citizenship. As for revoking legal residency status, it is quite common for residents with green cards to be deported after being convicted of a serious crime (something I think most people are o.k. with in principle).

    None of this should be used to strip legal or constitutional protections from any defendant during the criminal justice process, but I’m o.k. with it being an additional sanction.

  33. #33 |  David in Balt | 

    @ qwints

    But this is not really what Marv was saying originally, was it? I would not have a particular problem with such an action if it was performed after a trial where a person was given the full protections and processes due the American citizen that they are, but this is -not- what Marv has argued for. It is clear that Marv is arguing that the person in this article should have their rights striped and treated as a foreign national despite the fact that they are an -AMERICAN CITIZEN-. It is simply bigotry, cowardice, and short-sightedness of Marvs part.

  34. #34 |  Marv Hamlish | 

    No David, you are a fool. Leiberman did not say we strip them of their citizenship so we don’t have to mirandize them. That is stupid and impossible. Did you know that if a Mexican sneaks over the border and robs a bank, he is read his rights and is tried just like a citizen, he has all the rights you or I have at trial. The crime in Times Square is an act of war, and/or treason, it’s different and is one of the only criminal acts spelled out in the Constituion. Lieberman and congress would be acting fully within their scope in enacting a law that strips shitbags of their citizenship.

  35. #35 |  Judas Peckerwood | 

    “Coward” is probably the nicest thing I can think of to call Lieberman.

    Question for Marv: Are you really one person or actually a confederacy of twits? I just can’t imagine squeezing so much douche-iness into one human body.

  36. #36 |  BSK | 

    Wait a minute… as long as we agree that terrorists can only be brown and/or Muslim… then, what’s the problem?

  37. #37 |  Marv Hamlish | 

    Nice argument Peckerwood. Call someone a name and spew some snark. Why don’t you spend some time taking apart my arguments? I don’t think you have the mental firepower to do that, but that’s OK few do, especially at this site. This site despite its call for reason, is really nothing more than a liberal touchy-feely complaint fest.

  38. #38 |  Frank | 

    Joe Lieberman + Richard Brodsky = Send Terrorists To Organleggers

  39. #39 |  Len | 

    Terrorism is war. So is attempted terrorism, no matter how bungled. Pending examination of the relevant link, I agree that Lieberman is a coward, as he should be pushing for a firing squad. Illegal combatants have no rights, though one should be extremely certain of the people who make the determination of who is and who is not committing war under civilian cover.


    If anyone cares, I’m not terribly certain of the people who make that determination, and haven’t since Ruby Ridge.

  40. #40 |  not a viking | 

    Good trolling on Marv’s behalf but if you want to come off more sensible cut down on the “paki” bit. About as telling as talking about kikes and wogs. Just saying.

    A question for the libertarians though, why should citizenship ever be revoked? Second class citizens behave like second class no? Seeing as people born into citizenship can’t loose it no matter what. Once you are in you should have all the the benefits and responsibilities or? Even if that responsibility means life in jail/your favourite harsh punishment. If anything that honours the concept of citizenship I would think?

  41. #41 |  Marv Hamlish | 

    I’m from America, Paki is not a restricted word here.

  42. #42 |  PersonFromPorlock | 

    Lieberman may be a fool or a scoundrel or an opportunist, or all three (I’m not a fan), but I don’t see where any of these failings make him a coward.

  43. #43 |  not a viking | 


    Well if he is faking a fearful response he might be a fool or an opportunist? Impossible to tell. But if he is for real (unlikely I know) then he is a coward for abandoning some basic ideas of a western modern society in the face of a silly threat. A bomber too stupid to punch “how to make a bomb” into google is not worthy of fear. Lots of derision and scorn yes but not fear. See also the the guy who burned his cock off. Or most “attacks” post London/Madrid.

    Imagine if your house was being assaulted by a SWAT team? You’d hide your dogs and lie down very sensibly? But if it was a deranged bunny banging it’s head against the screen door you’d be a coward for freaking out there….

  44. #44 |  qwints | 

    After reading the article, I strongly dislike Lieberman’s proposal. Lieberman would extend a statue that revokes citizenship in other nation’s armed forces. Doing this with terrorist organizations would have all the problems we’ve already encountered in the material support arena. Revoking citizenship based on non-self-selected statues is a bad idea.

  45. #45 |  MikeZ | 

    Personally I’m of the opinion that it is never acceptable for the state to revoke citizenship. Naturalized or not just doesn’t matter to me. Heck I’d say that a naturalized citizen is less likely have a place to goto than a native born citizen. A native born american at least starts with a clean slate, wheras the naturalized citizen declared his original country sucks, so they probably don’t want him back.

    Its not that I have any sympathy for Terrorists, its just that he is our problem to deal with. If we want to try him for treason and execute him I don’t have a problem with that but he is still a citizen.

    Even if he lied all over his citizenship application it seems to me it is too late to do anything about that after citizenship is awarded. The time to investigate that and do something about it was before we invited him into the club. Doesn’t seem to be much point to looking into that now.

  46. #46 |  LBLG | 

    Maybe Marv just misses things the way they were…

  47. #47 |  InMd | 

    I don’t see why a citizen need ever have their citizenship eliminated. Certainly just accusing a person of a crime resulting in them being stripped of citizenship is one of the most frightening thing I’ve heard to come out of this “war on terrorism” nonsense. Another thing people should realize is that under US jurisprudence the Constitution still applies to non-citizens in US custody. There is case law going all the way back to the 19th century on that (see Yick Wo v. Hopkins). It isn’t like you can strip people of citizenship then legally do whatever you want to them (so far at least).

    Also any person convicted of the kinds of crimes we’re talking about here is most likely never getting out of prison so even if this idea was morally defensible (which it isn’t) it wouldn’t have the effect people are claiming it would. The logic is absurd. What are they going to do, kick a person out of the country so that they can have even less control of a person they claim to be a grave threat? Aside from being disgustingly unconstitutional it makes no logical sense on any level.

  48. #48 |  ClassAction | 

    Fuck citizenship. Due process protections are either part and parcel of the substantive protections afforded to human beings in a just society, or they are not. If they are, then everyone convicted of a legitimate crime should be afforded them, regardless of whether they are a “citizen” of some imaginary series of lines in the dirt. If they are not, then nobody should have them.

  49. #49 |  SamK | 

    Hey, lots of comments, maybe a lively interesting discussion has….oh…nevermind.

  50. #50 |  LibertarainBlue | 


    Well as far as I know Lieberman is pro-Iran war but of course never been in the military himself which makes him a chickenhawk.

    As far as the supposed anti-Jew comment, I find that funny. Neocons seem to enjoy pulling Al Sharpton like tactics on those they cant argue with.

  51. #51 |  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.

  52. #52 |  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.

  53. #53 |  Frank | 

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

  54. #54 |  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?

  55. #55 |  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?

  56. #56 |  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.

  57. #57 |  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.

  58. #58 |  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.

  59. #59 |  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.

  60. #60 |  Marv Hamlish | 

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

  61. #61 |  zendingo | 

    marv, why do you hate america?

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

  62. #62 |  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.

  63. #63 |  Boyd Durkin | 

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

  64. #64 |  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.

  65. #65 |  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.

  66. #66 |  Johnny Clamboat | 

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

  67. #67 |  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.

  68. #68 |  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?

  69. #69 |  Chris Mallory | 

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

  70. #70 |  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?

  71. #71 |  Amiable Dorsai | 

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

  72. #72 |  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.

  73. #73 |  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.

  74. #74 |  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.

  75. #75 |  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!

  76. #76 |  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 […]

  77. #77 |  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.

  78. #78 |  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.

  79. #79 |  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.

  80. #80 |  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.

  81. #81 |  JT | 


    Your homophobia comes through “loud and clear”.

  82. #82 |  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.

  83. #83 |  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.

  84. #84 |  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.

  85. #85 |  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”?

  86. #86 |  Cynical in CA | 

    Don’t feed the Marv Hamlisch troll.

  87. #87 |  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.”

  88. #88 |  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.

  89. #89 |  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.

  90. #90 |  [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. […]

  91. #91 |  [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. […]

  92. #92 |  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?

  93. #93 |  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.

  94. #94 |  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.