Lieberman Strikes Again
Sweep on, you fat and greasy citizens.
-Shakespeare, As You Like It
Joe
Lieberman can probably find something in the latest proposal from
Russia that he'll be wanting to incorporate in the legislation he is
about to introduce. In the week before Joe proposed stripping U.S.
citizens of their citizenship (in order to more effectively deal with
terrorists who are trying to destroy the way of life we enjoy that
protects what Joe is trying to destroy), the Russian parliament took up
legislation that would extend the powers the Russian Federal Security
Services (F.S.B.) has over organizations, to individuals. (F.S.B. is
the successor to the K.B.G.)
The day after Times Square would-be-bomber, Faisal Shahzad was arrested, Joe announced
that he planned to propose legislation that any "American citizen who
is found to be involved in a foreign terrorist organization, as defined
by the Department of State, would be deprived of their citizenship
rights."
Under Joe's proposal, a person would be deprived
of citizenship even though nothing had been proved against the citizen.
If the citizen were later found not to have been involved in the kind
of activity that triggered the loss of citizenship, I am sure Joe would
include a provision that would restore the person's citizenship. Of
course, during the interim, the citizen would not have been able to
assert any constitutional rights available only to citizens.
Joe's
proposal would permit the former citizen to be tried before a military
commission (where the conviction rate is one conviction and two
acquittals so far), rather than the civilian courts (where, according
to New York University's Terrorism Trial Report Card,
the government pursued more than 800 prosecutions of terrorists and has
an 89% conviction rate.) In addition, depriving a person of citizenship
permits prosecutors to avoid giving the suspect the Miranda warning,
two words that frighten the Joe Liebermans of the world considerably
more than a peremptory loss of citizenship by a suspected terrorist.
(Since
the proposed legislation would deal with the hated Miranda warning,
John McCain would almost certainly sign on to Joe's legislation.
Without knowing the results of the interrogation of Mr. Shahzad, John
said reading him his Miranda rights was a "serious mistake." He said: I
certainly would not read this individual his Miranda rights. I would
not do that." John, who is not a lawyer, tried to clarify what he meant
by saying later that the Miranda warning should only be given after the
investigators have learned what the investigation is all about. By
then, of course, the information may be tainted, a non-troubling fact
to John.)
Here are some provisions Joe may want to add to
his proposed legislation that come to us courtesy of Russia. Under
existing law in Russia, the F.S.B. has the authority to impose
preventive measures on organizations it considers extremist but not on
individuals. A bill has been introduced in the Russian parliament that
would permit officers to confront law abiding citizens who are engaged
in lawful activities and give them verbal or written warnings that
their activities are "unacceptable" and may constitute criminal
conduct, even if they are doing nothing illegal and no charges are
pending against them. The legislation introduced in the lower house of
Parliament, would impose fines or 15-day jail terms on those refusing
to comply with demands made by the officers. Like Joe's U.S. proposal,
this is being introduced because of the increased threat of terrorism.
In a note attached to the bill the government says the new law is
needed to "consolidate the establishment of special prevention
measures."
Fair Russia's party Chairman, Gennady Gudkov,
opposes the legislation. He said the K.G.B. formerly used "warnings"
when "there was insufficient evidence for criminal persecution (sic)."
Viktor I. Ilyukhin, a Communist deputy who serves on the Duma committee
on constitutional law, believes the new law will be used to suppress
all dissent. He told the newspaper Noviye Izvestiya that before the new
law only prosecutors could issue warnings. "Now they spit on all that.
Any citizen can be called an extremist for taking a public position,
for political activity. A warning can be given to anyone who criticizes
the powers that be. If you print this interview, they will announce
that Ilyukhin is an extremist."
A similar warning about the Lieberman proposal was issued by Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Irvine School of Law. In an editorial
in the Los Angeles Times he observed: "The great fear is that when the
government has the power to strip some people of basic rights, it
cannot be easily limited. Fundamental protections of our democracy are
lost, and for no gain. Responding to acts of terrorism with
deprivations of civil liberties is a familiar and troubling pattern."
Messrs.
Chemerinsky and Ilyukhin got it right. Joe got it wrong. Perhaps his
colleagues will figure that out and put his proposal on the Senate's
trash heap of dumb ideas, assuming there is still room.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Sweep on, you fat and greasy citizens.
-Shakespeare, As You Like It
Joe
Lieberman can probably find something in the latest proposal from
Russia that he'll be wanting to incorporate in the legislation he is
about to introduce. In the week before Joe proposed stripping U.S.
citizens of their citizenship (in order to more effectively deal with
terrorists who are trying to destroy the way of life we enjoy that
protects what Joe is trying to destroy), the Russian parliament took up
legislation that would extend the powers the Russian Federal Security
Services (F.S.B.) has over organizations, to individuals. (F.S.B. is
the successor to the K.B.G.)
The day after Times Square would-be-bomber, Faisal Shahzad was arrested, Joe announced
that he planned to propose legislation that any "American citizen who
is found to be involved in a foreign terrorist organization, as defined
by the Department of State, would be deprived of their citizenship
rights."
Under Joe's proposal, a person would be deprived
of citizenship even though nothing had been proved against the citizen.
If the citizen were later found not to have been involved in the kind
of activity that triggered the loss of citizenship, I am sure Joe would
include a provision that would restore the person's citizenship. Of
course, during the interim, the citizen would not have been able to
assert any constitutional rights available only to citizens.
Joe's
proposal would permit the former citizen to be tried before a military
commission (where the conviction rate is one conviction and two
acquittals so far), rather than the civilian courts (where, according
to New York University's Terrorism Trial Report Card,
the government pursued more than 800 prosecutions of terrorists and has
an 89% conviction rate.) In addition, depriving a person of citizenship
permits prosecutors to avoid giving the suspect the Miranda warning,
two words that frighten the Joe Liebermans of the world considerably
more than a peremptory loss of citizenship by a suspected terrorist.
(Since
the proposed legislation would deal with the hated Miranda warning,
John McCain would almost certainly sign on to Joe's legislation.
Without knowing the results of the interrogation of Mr. Shahzad, John
said reading him his Miranda rights was a "serious mistake." He said: I
certainly would not read this individual his Miranda rights. I would
not do that." John, who is not a lawyer, tried to clarify what he meant
by saying later that the Miranda warning should only be given after the
investigators have learned what the investigation is all about. By
then, of course, the information may be tainted, a non-troubling fact
to John.)
Here are some provisions Joe may want to add to
his proposed legislation that come to us courtesy of Russia. Under
existing law in Russia, the F.S.B. has the authority to impose
preventive measures on organizations it considers extremist but not on
individuals. A bill has been introduced in the Russian parliament that
would permit officers to confront law abiding citizens who are engaged
in lawful activities and give them verbal or written warnings that
their activities are "unacceptable" and may constitute criminal
conduct, even if they are doing nothing illegal and no charges are
pending against them. The legislation introduced in the lower house of
Parliament, would impose fines or 15-day jail terms on those refusing
to comply with demands made by the officers. Like Joe's U.S. proposal,
this is being introduced because of the increased threat of terrorism.
In a note attached to the bill the government says the new law is
needed to "consolidate the establishment of special prevention
measures."
Fair Russia's party Chairman, Gennady Gudkov,
opposes the legislation. He said the K.G.B. formerly used "warnings"
when "there was insufficient evidence for criminal persecution (sic)."
Viktor I. Ilyukhin, a Communist deputy who serves on the Duma committee
on constitutional law, believes the new law will be used to suppress
all dissent. He told the newspaper Noviye Izvestiya that before the new
law only prosecutors could issue warnings. "Now they spit on all that.
Any citizen can be called an extremist for taking a public position,
for political activity. A warning can be given to anyone who criticizes
the powers that be. If you print this interview, they will announce
that Ilyukhin is an extremist."
A similar warning about the Lieberman proposal was issued by Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Irvine School of Law. In an editorial
in the Los Angeles Times he observed: "The great fear is that when the
government has the power to strip some people of basic rights, it
cannot be easily limited. Fundamental protections of our democracy are
lost, and for no gain. Responding to acts of terrorism with
deprivations of civil liberties is a familiar and troubling pattern."
Messrs.
Chemerinsky and Ilyukhin got it right. Joe got it wrong. Perhaps his
colleagues will figure that out and put his proposal on the Senate's
trash heap of dumb ideas, assuming there is still room.
Sweep on, you fat and greasy citizens.
-Shakespeare, As You Like It
Joe
Lieberman can probably find something in the latest proposal from
Russia that he'll be wanting to incorporate in the legislation he is
about to introduce. In the week before Joe proposed stripping U.S.
citizens of their citizenship (in order to more effectively deal with
terrorists who are trying to destroy the way of life we enjoy that
protects what Joe is trying to destroy), the Russian parliament took up
legislation that would extend the powers the Russian Federal Security
Services (F.S.B.) has over organizations, to individuals. (F.S.B. is
the successor to the K.B.G.)
The day after Times Square would-be-bomber, Faisal Shahzad was arrested, Joe announced
that he planned to propose legislation that any "American citizen who
is found to be involved in a foreign terrorist organization, as defined
by the Department of State, would be deprived of their citizenship
rights."
Under Joe's proposal, a person would be deprived
of citizenship even though nothing had been proved against the citizen.
If the citizen were later found not to have been involved in the kind
of activity that triggered the loss of citizenship, I am sure Joe would
include a provision that would restore the person's citizenship. Of
course, during the interim, the citizen would not have been able to
assert any constitutional rights available only to citizens.
Joe's
proposal would permit the former citizen to be tried before a military
commission (where the conviction rate is one conviction and two
acquittals so far), rather than the civilian courts (where, according
to New York University's Terrorism Trial Report Card,
the government pursued more than 800 prosecutions of terrorists and has
an 89% conviction rate.) In addition, depriving a person of citizenship
permits prosecutors to avoid giving the suspect the Miranda warning,
two words that frighten the Joe Liebermans of the world considerably
more than a peremptory loss of citizenship by a suspected terrorist.
(Since
the proposed legislation would deal with the hated Miranda warning,
John McCain would almost certainly sign on to Joe's legislation.
Without knowing the results of the interrogation of Mr. Shahzad, John
said reading him his Miranda rights was a "serious mistake." He said: I
certainly would not read this individual his Miranda rights. I would
not do that." John, who is not a lawyer, tried to clarify what he meant
by saying later that the Miranda warning should only be given after the
investigators have learned what the investigation is all about. By
then, of course, the information may be tainted, a non-troubling fact
to John.)
Here are some provisions Joe may want to add to
his proposed legislation that come to us courtesy of Russia. Under
existing law in Russia, the F.S.B. has the authority to impose
preventive measures on organizations it considers extremist but not on
individuals. A bill has been introduced in the Russian parliament that
would permit officers to confront law abiding citizens who are engaged
in lawful activities and give them verbal or written warnings that
their activities are "unacceptable" and may constitute criminal
conduct, even if they are doing nothing illegal and no charges are
pending against them. The legislation introduced in the lower house of
Parliament, would impose fines or 15-day jail terms on those refusing
to comply with demands made by the officers. Like Joe's U.S. proposal,
this is being introduced because of the increased threat of terrorism.
In a note attached to the bill the government says the new law is
needed to "consolidate the establishment of special prevention
measures."
Fair Russia's party Chairman, Gennady Gudkov,
opposes the legislation. He said the K.G.B. formerly used "warnings"
when "there was insufficient evidence for criminal persecution (sic)."
Viktor I. Ilyukhin, a Communist deputy who serves on the Duma committee
on constitutional law, believes the new law will be used to suppress
all dissent. He told the newspaper Noviye Izvestiya that before the new
law only prosecutors could issue warnings. "Now they spit on all that.
Any citizen can be called an extremist for taking a public position,
for political activity. A warning can be given to anyone who criticizes
the powers that be. If you print this interview, they will announce
that Ilyukhin is an extremist."
A similar warning about the Lieberman proposal was issued by Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Irvine School of Law. In an editorial
in the Los Angeles Times he observed: "The great fear is that when the
government has the power to strip some people of basic rights, it
cannot be easily limited. Fundamental protections of our democracy are
lost, and for no gain. Responding to acts of terrorism with
deprivations of civil liberties is a familiar and troubling pattern."
Messrs.
Chemerinsky and Ilyukhin got it right. Joe got it wrong. Perhaps his
colleagues will figure that out and put his proposal on the Senate's
trash heap of dumb ideas, assuming there is still room.