The Times Square bombing case has produced some interesting side stories not least of which is the proposal, put forward by Joe Lieberman and seconded by John McCain and others, to revoke US citizenship from Americans who join foreign terrorist organizations in fighting against the United States. Lieberman and McCain also assailed the decision to read Faisal Shahzad his Miranda rights saying that Shahzad should be treated as an enemy combatant and turned over to a military tribunal. There are so many problems with this statement that it’s truly hard to fathom two intelligent, well-informed senior Senators proposing such a ridiculous idea. First, let’s see what Lieberman said on Fox News:
“Some of us have started to talk about it here, which is that there is an existing law — which hasn’t been much used — that says if an American citizen is shown to be fighting in a military force that is an enemy of the United States, then that person loses their citizenship and they no longer have the rights of citizenship. That’s an old law that was adopted during a very different time of conflict.
I think it’s time for us to look at whether we want to amend that law to apply it to American citizens who choose to become affiliated with foreign terrorist organizations, whether they should not also be deprived automatically of their citizenship, and therefore be deprived of rights that come with that citizenship when they are apprehended and charged with a terrorist act.”
Did you catch that last line? Lieberman doesn’t care whether a citizen charged with a terrorist act is actually guilty of that act. He wants to deprive them of their rights of citizenship when they are apprehended and charged. Well, hell, let’s just rip up the Constitution altogether and start over Joe! And what about the idea of not reading Shahzad his Miranda rights? Well, there’s a brilliant idea. Yeah, let’s make this terrorist the test case to see whether 
denying a US citizen his Miranda reading will hold up in court. And if the court finds that Shahzad should have been read his rights then the entire investigation will go out the window and Shahzad will be on the next plane to Pakistan. Good thinking! This whole idea is so contrary to American law that the only way to test it is to risk a court overturning the ruling. Is that worth it?
Common sense is taking a back seat to the need to act tough. The political atmosphere is poisoned by politicians who need to act and sound tough to mollify misguided constituents. NYC Mayor Bloomberg went to Capitol Hill to support legislation denying the right of people on the terrorist watch list to purchase guns. Bloomberg noted that NYC remains ground zero for terrorist attacks and he’d like to go the extra step to make certain suspected domestic terrorists can’t step out of a car in a jam-packed Times Square with a semi-automatic weapon and start firing. Lindsey Graham and Susan Collins understood but opposed the legislation. It’s okay to deny apprehended domestic terrorists their Miranda rights and revoke their citizenship, and we can deny those on the terrorist watch list the right to get on an airplane, but God forbid we deny them the ability to purchase guns! Isn’t there any room for common sense here?
I suppose the illogic here can extend to Arizona’s illegal immigrant law as well. It’s okay to effectively target a segment of the US population, severely hamper the freedom of movement, and turn a blind eye to the freedom from warrantless search or due process, in an effort to cut off the flow of illegal immigrants and to reduce violent crime among that population; but let’s make sure we don’t hamper their ability to purchase weapons by going around the background checks and buying guns for cash at gun shows or by answering classified ads.
Gail Collins, in a NY Times opinion piece wrote, “There seems to be a strong sentiment in Congress that the only constitutional right suspected terrorists have is the right to bear arms.” Lindsey Graham’s defense was that the terrorist watch list is flawed and catches many people who do not belong on it (there was a great story a few months ago about an 8 year old boy on the no-fly list). But the proposed legislation would 
allow anybody denied a gun for that reason to appeal their presence on the list. If you have nothing to hide then what’s the problem? Is it annoying? For sure. Is it in the best interests of public safety? Undeniably. Aren’t there some things that just make common sense? I suggest that keeping guns out of the hands of suspected terrorists is one of them.
And I hear your responses already: that law would give the government the ability to deny guns to anybody who opposes their policies. In fact, such a law may itself be unconstitutional by essentially finding somebody guilty without a trial. Understood. What I want to accomplish here is a common sense solution that will make it safer for my daughter to be in Times Square where she was just hours before the whole thing happened. So help me out here – we can’t just let suspected terrorists walk out of a store with a shopping cart full of weapons and ammunition, can we?
I so appreciate this post both for its depth and for its passion.
Gail Collins has it right:
“There seems to be a strong sentiment in Congress that the only constitutional right suspected terrorists have is the right to bear arms.”
Lieberman, McCain et al? Not so much. I am bone weary of elected politicians cherry picking the parts of the Constitution that apply, that matter. Wasn’t it this same group (as well as a whole host of others) who led the country’s citizens to outrage and public protest over a health care policy (designed to broaden access and affordability for all) that they say is un-Constitutional? My head spins, trying to follow their interpretation of the Constitution and my heart aches as I see Americans embracing their disinformation.
More and more, I am convinced we live in some of the most dangerous times ever for our citzenry. And more and more, I am convinced that a great deal of that danger comes from good-hearted but wrong officials and their glazed-eyed followers as they seek to “protect” us all by robbing us of our most important protection-our Constitutional rights.
Mike,
The No Fly list is an imperfect document, to be sure. Several years ago, I worked with a journalist for a show I was producing on a segment about this list. He had obtained a copy of No Fly from a whistleblower inside the TSA who was concerned that the list was too cumbersome and not being utilized effectively.
The printed version was, in 2006, 540 pages long and had over 44,000 names on it. Some were duplicates, some were duplicate spellings-heck, some were DEAD. Example: All the terrorists who flew planes into the WTC were on it, having been dead for more than 5 years. Apparently, it was cumbersome to manipulate and hard to manage as an easily useable data base. And, at the time at least, members of Congress who had asked to examine its contents were being denied access to the list.
I’m not sure if things have changed, and I can certainly see that an innocent American citizen might get inconvenienced if improperly flagged while trying to buy a gun. But its laughable that the same people who tell me that I shouldn’t have any problem if I get stopped and asked for my “papers” are also the same people who tell me that I should be OUTRAGED at the thought that I might get stopped and asked about my status as a terrorist when buying a deadly weapon.
Aren’t they are both just mistakes? Why is it more acceptable and important to violate my Constitutional rights to see if I’m a citizen but unacceptable to determine whether I should legally be allowed to buy a gun? Perhaps neither is preferential treatment for an American, but where in God’s name is the consistency with these people?
Well, Mike. You have gone and stirred the pot again.
This is a great post and yes, it does show some of the contradictions that are alive and well in our political system.
I really do not have a problem with someone on the terrorist watch list being denied the right to purchase a firearm. As long as the decision that placed them on the list is appealable, with a reasonable process, I don’t see the gripe in that.
I do have a problem with stripping an American citizen of their citizenship based on an accusation before he is given a trial but I also have to wonder how Shahzad ever got his citizenship in the first place considering the fact that the government had suspicions about him since 1999.
Very nice post Mike… I consider myself pretty far right on immigration but I don’t know what the heck Lieberman and McCain are talking about. You’re right Mike, common sense hasn’t just taken a back seat, it’s non-existent.
I agree with most of what Mike said here. You cannot deprive a US citizen of anything without due process. An accusation won’t suffice.
I was listening to Michael Smirkonish (Excuse me if I butchered his name). He’s a moderate radio talker, and he had Arlen Shincter on his show to talk about the Miranda issue. For once, Arlen made sense. He said that there was so much material evidence in the SUV, that even if a judge tossed everything that he said prior to be Mirandized, that the prosecution would not be harmed in the least. However, what he did say would have immediate intelligence value, so it was a win-win to not Mirandize him immediately.
At the same time, I do not see any parallels to the Arizona law. A simple read of the legislation shows that. Anyone, including myself, would be required to produce identification when dealing with a police officer. The law prohibits racial profiling, and federal law already requires that legal resident/aliens carry documentation.