Hey: This is War!

   I gotta admit that upon first hearing about Senator Lieberman's  proposal for getting around the whole Miranda rights debate for U.S. citizens --  he would simply strip those accused of terrorism of their citizenship rights and then haul their traitorous tuchises off to Guantanamo -- that I was nonplussed, agitated, furious and just plain pissed. I mean, what in the name of all that is holy ever happened to the 5th Amendment which, if I remember correctly, provides that "No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless, on a presentment of indictment of a grand jury . . . nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."  In introducing the legislation, Lieberman, along with Massachusetts senator Scott Brown explained, "If you have joined an enemy of the United States in attacking the United States and trying to kill Americans, I think you sacrifice your rights of citizenship."

   The Lieberman-Brown bill -- cosponsored on the House side by Reps. Joe Altmire (D-PA) and Charlie Dent (R-PA) would revise a law on the books since 1940 that gives the State Department the authority to revoke citizenship from someone who performs certain acts "with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality."   For the past 70 years, those "certain acts" have been limited primarily to joining the army of a foreign government in order to engage in warfare against the United States. This new legislation would add supporting or joining a terrorist organization to the list of "certain acts." 

   So what precisely got me so nonplussed, agitated, furious and just plain pissed? Well, for starters, how about the bill's inherent unconstitutionality?  I mean, regardless of the fact that we are "at war" with the forces of terrorism, this is still the United States of America where everyone -- both citizen and non-citizen alike -- is guaranteed due process of law.  Additionally, what purpose does stripping a person of their citizenship rights serve when it comes to meting out justice?  Recent history has shown how time and again, those who are tried in our civilian courts for acts of terrorism are regularly found guilty and then sentenced to long, long prison sentences.  Of all those housed at Guantanamo . . . we are still waiting for them to be put on trial.

   But you know something?  In thinking over this legislation -- especially in light of the two major news stories of the past several days -- I think I'm beginning to change my mind.  I mean, if Faisal Shahzad, the Pakistani-born naturalized citizen accused of the failed Times Square bombing should lose his citizenship rights because he is a   terrorist, what about all the others who similarly are giving "aid and comfort" to the enemy?  Never mind that Mr. Shahzad has purportedly been singing like a caged canary both before and after being Mirandized.  He was allegedly doing the bidding and furthering the aims of al-Qaeda -- or the Pakistani Taliban or Jaish-e-Muhammed (JeM) or Lashkar-e-Taiba (LetT) -- avowed enemies of the United States; so why shouldn't he be stripped of his citizenship rights? 

   If so, what about all those loudly proclaiming that the President of the United States was "in sympathy" -- if not "in league" -- with Faisal Shahzad?  Or that the  explosive-laden vehicle Mr. Shahzad abandoned in Times Square was quickly hustled out of the area "before anybody could hop and maybe see an 'Obama 2012' bumper sticker on the damn car."  Or that Shahzad is a Democrat who has "voted for Obama many times."  Or that the entire scenario was staged so that the Left could have "a big May Day blast." Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Bill O'Reilly and Mark Levine have all claimed that Shahzad received his citizenship papers under terms of a special program the current administration has set up specifically for Muslims!  I ask you, Free Speech aside, isn't there more than a trace of "aiding and abetting the enemies of America" in all this?  Don't these folks -- who have a combined audience in the tens of millions bear some responsibility for the baseless and irresponsible lies they put into the ears of their viewers/listeners?  Hey, this is war!  Whatever happened to that old patriotic saw that "Loose lips sink ships?"

    Even the remarkable capture of Faisal Shahzad "proves" that "neither the president, his administration nor the FBI have the slightest idea of how to deal with terrorism."  How's that?  Well, if they knew or cared about terrorism, so the argument goes, they would have prevented Faisal Shahzad from ever getting to Times Square . . . let alone becoming an American citizen.

   Unbelievable!

  Then there are those who have blamed both the president and "environmental wackos" of purposefully causing the destruction of the Gulf oil rig in order to make sure there would be no further off-shore drilling -- and that this occurred precisely twenty-four hours before "Earth Day," which just happens to be Lenin's birthday! Doesn't El Rushbo bear some responsibility for his words?  Isn't he being less than supportive in a time of war?  

   "Listen" to Rush Limbaugh: "What better way to head off more oil drilling [and] nuclear plants than by blowing up a rig?"  Or former Bush press secretary Dana Perino, who likewise introduced a conspiracy theory about the rig explosion by saying, "I'm not trying to introduce a conspiracy theory, but was this deliberate?  You have to wonder . . . if sabotage was involved."  (Yes Dana and Rush: the so-called "Environmental Wackos" have access to a robotic device capable to blowing up an oil pipeline fully a mile under the sea.  It is undoubtedly the Beatle's fabled "Yellow Submarine!")

   While it is true that those knowingly spreading lies are entertainers, not journalists, it is also true that they do bear a measure of responsibility for their words -- for how they may motivate their viewers, listeners and devotees to act.  And we, the folks who find their words, their lies so monstrously evil; we too have a responsibility: to expose those lies however and whenever we can.

   Perhaps Senators Lieberman and Brown should consider amending their legislation to include stripping citizenship rights of those who play fast and loose with the truth.  Or short of that, how about a bill  requiring that  if a media outlet wishes to be licensed by the F.C.C., it must provide both balanced programming and perhaps a disclaimer that states: "The following program is not a news broadcast, but rather a satiric commentary on the events of the day meant solely for entertainment purposes and the amassing of gelt."

  Yes I know, under terms of the 1st Amendment all gasbags have a right to lie; it is called "Free Speech."

   But hey, this is war!  

    In my folk's generation it was "Loose lips sink ships!"

    Today, it's more like "Verbal impurity endangers security!"

©2010 Kurt F. Stone

Comments

[Judi]

Your writing is beyond incredible. I so look forward to your sensible rants!

[Robert]

very, very well said. thanks much

[David]

Sounds a bit like the Alien and Sedition acts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts

[Stan]

Never mind stripping them of their citizenship. In time of war they are guilty of sedition. The penalty for which is a firing squad!! That's my vote.

[Louis]

Very much liked this blog.

I put Lieberman in the "scumbag" category! I abhore looking at him as he manages to get air time.

Notwithstanding freedom of speech, I wonder how Lieberman what he'd do about the "flower children" of my generation. Did they aid and abet the enemy during Vietnam? Were their actions cause to strip them of citizenship? What about Dylan, Joan, and other singers of song who disagreed as to our involvement in the paddy fields?

Where does one place Limbaugh when he wishes that Obama fails? Wanda Spikes nailed him!

Oh well . . .

[Alan Weiss]

I never knew how to spell tuchises before. If this was a terrorist act, they did a good job this time!