PDA

View Full Version : Senator Lieberman and Citizenship



cotts135
05-07-2010, 05:45 AM
This guy never fails to amaze me with his ignorance and arrogance. The distinguished Senator from Connecticut has now found it necessary to introduce a law that would strip a U.S. citizen of his citizenship if he has been determined by the U.S. State department of having an affiliation with a terrorist organization. This is wrong on so many levels that even House Minority Leader Boehner has come out against it. This is just a knee jerk reaction to the events that happened in New York recently. Hopefully this proposal never finds it's way to the Senate floor for a vote.

subroc
05-07-2010, 06:01 AM
is the ACLU a terrorist organization?

YardleyLabs
05-07-2010, 06:25 AM
Conviction of treason is already grounds for loss of citizenship. However, that is a lot more specific than association with a "terrorist" group, which has no real meaning at at, as evidenced by subroc's (presumably) facetious question about the ACLU. If one person can view an organization that has, as its sole purpose for existence, the defense of individual rights under the Constitution as a terrorist group, than the word terrorist has no meaning at all. Terrorism is a tactic of war. It has been used by every major government (including ours), and by every revolutionary group in history (including our forefathers). There is no reason why the Time Square bomber could not be accused with treason -- assuming the charge fits -- and then lose his citizenship if convicted. However, I am not sure what purpose would be served. I don't think we will ever allow him the opportunity to leave the country again.

Senator Lieberman was an idiot when he was the VP candidate for the Dems and has not improved with time.

road kill
05-07-2010, 06:29 AM
Conviction of treason is already grounds for loss of citizenship. However, that is a lot more specific than association with a "terrorist" group, which has no real meaning at at, as evidenced by subroc's (presumably) facetious question about the ACLU. If one person can view an organization that has, as its sole purpose for existence, the defense of individual rights under the Constitution as a terrorist group, than the word terrorist has no meaning at all. Terrorism is a tactic of war. It has been used by every major government (including ours), and by every revolutionary group in history (including our forefathers). There is no reason why the Time Square bomber could not be accused with treason -- assuming the charge fits -- and then lose his citizenship if convicted. However, I am not sure what purpose would be served. I don't think we will ever allow him the opportunity to leave the country again.

Senator Lieberman was an idiot when he was the VP candidate for the Dems and has not improved with time.

Sweet!!
Nicely done........:rolleyes:



rk

Pete
05-07-2010, 06:39 AM
Liebermans the best thing the liberals got going on . I would totally agree with him. And the level of association should determine weather they slick baba's willie or hang.

Pete

Evan
05-07-2010, 07:20 AM
is the ACLU a terrorist organization?In the truest sense.

Evan

cotts135
05-07-2010, 07:39 AM
Conviction of treason is already grounds for loss of citizenship. However, that is a lot more specific than association with a "terrorist" group, which has no real meaning at at, as evidenced by subroc's (presumably) facetious question about the ACLU. If one person can view an organization that has, as its sole purpose for existence, the defense of individual rights under the Constitution as a terrorist group, than the word terrorist has no meaning at all. Terrorism is a tactic of war. It has been used by every major government (including ours), and by every revolutionary group in history (including our forefathers). There is no reason why the Time Square bomber could not be accused with treason -- assuming the charge fits -- and then lose his citizenship if convicted. However, I am not sure what purpose would be served. I don't think we will ever allow him the opportunity to leave the country again.

Senator Lieberman was an idiot when he was the VP candidate for the Dems and has not improved with time.

Conviction is the key word there. In this case citizenship is revoked just on suspicion and the word of the government. In our quest to protect ourselves completely from terrorists we have, I believe, forgotten the all to real danger of expanded government power. Do you want somebody say like Joe Lieberman or maybe Nancy Pelosi accusing you of having an affiliation with a terrorist group maybe just based on an e-mail or a web site you have visited?
It is total hypocrisy for someone to loudly shout that Constitutional values should be upheld and then defend this ridiculous amendment.

YardleyLabs
05-07-2010, 07:47 AM
In the truest sense.

Evan
I find this comment incredible. You have an organization that uses legal means (the courts) to defend the Constitutional rights of individuals against contrary acts by governments. It has a liberal bias in the issues it selects for action (big on first amendment, weak on second), but supports rights of people with whom it disagrees (e.g. 1st amendment rights of the KKK) as strongly as it does the rights of those with whom it agrees (1st amendment rights of gays). How is that a "terrorist" organization?

FWIW, I served on the Board of Directors of the Mercer County NJ ACLU many years ago. I left the ACLU because of the liberal bias it showed in picking the rights it defended, much as I left the NRA because of its conservative bias in picking how it supported second amendment rights. While I disagree strongly with activities of both organizations and do not provide financial support to either, they are in no way terrorist organizations no matter how loosely that term is used.

subroc
05-07-2010, 10:44 AM
I find this comment incredible. You have an organization that uses legal means (the courts) to defend the Constitutional rights of individuals against contrary acts by governments. It has a liberal bias in the issues it selects for action (big on first amendment, weak on second), but supports rights of people with whom it disagrees (e.g. 1st amendment rights of the KKK) as strongly as it does the rights of those with whom it agrees (1st amendment rights of gays). How is that a "terrorist" organization?

FWIW, I served on the Board of Directors of the Mercer County NJ ACLU many years ago. I left the ACLU because of the liberal bias it showed in picking the rights it defended, much as I left the NRA because of its conservative bias in picking how it supported second amendment rights. While I disagree strongly with activities of both organizations and do not provide financial support to either, they are in no way terrorist organizations no matter how loosely that term is used.

No, you have a terrorist organization that uses the courts, high pressure "terrorist tactics" like the threat of bancrupsy and significant financial resources to overpower and overwhelm weaker opponents in a quest to force their extremist liberal agendas on them.
BTW, I am not surprised you were a member of the ACLU, but I am surprised you were ever a member of the NRA.