Sen. Joe Lieberman's Citizenship-Stripping Bill Raises Questions

(May 6) -- A proposal to revoke the citizenship of Americans involved with foreign terrorists triggered a blogosphere backlash even before Sen. Joe Lieberman formally unveiled the legislation today.

The Connecticut independent first mentioned the idea Tuesday during a Fox News interview about whether Times Square bomb suspect Faisal Shahzad -- a naturalized U.S. citizen from Pakistan -- should have been read his Miranda rights. Lieberman said Americans who "choose to become affiliated" with terrorists overseas should automatically lose the rights that come with being a citizen.

Critics around the Web pounced on the citizenship-stripping plan, raising question after question.

If an American citizen is accused of terrorist associations, he/she would lose citizenship status before a conviction? In Lieberman's vision, the defendant is punished and then gets due process? -- Steve Benen, Washington Monthly
How is it conclusively proven that this person was working with a foreign-based organization? What if they're wrongfully accused? What's the standard of proof? -- Alex Pareene, Salon
For starters, what would distinguish a member of al-Qaida from a domestic terrorist? Could a homegrown terrorist like Timothy McVeigh be denied citizenship rights? -- Sam Stein, The Huffington Post
What extra benefit is there from doing this? The only thing I can think of is that it'd make Shahzad eligible for a military tribunal, but why we need to do that when federal court has always been good enough for citizens charged with treason escapes me. -- Allahpundit, Hot Air
Even President Eisenhower, in his 1954 State of the Union address, proposed stripping treasonous communists of their citizenship only after conviction in the United States courts with the full panoply of constitutional rights. Senator Lieberman seems to be suggesting that for the "obviously guilty," the Constitution be damned. -- Gerald Shargel, The Daily Beast

Cliff Owen, AP

"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," Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., said this week.

Lieberman previously pushed a bill that would declare Americans arrested on terrorism charges to be enemy combatants, who would be tried by military tribunals, not civilians courts. His new "Terrorism Expatriation Act" would amend the law that revokes citizenship for Americans who join "the armed forces of a foreign state ... engaged in hostilities against the United States." (The measure would not apply to Shahzad because he was arrested in the U.S.)

The State Department would decide who should lose their citizenship for association with terrorists. But it's not quite that simple, according to The Plum Line's Greg Sargent.

"You would still have the right to contest this in court. And if you did, the burden of proof would be on State -- not on you -- to persuade the court that your involvement with a terror organization is sufficient to justify taking away your citizen status," Sargent explained.

Did You Miss The Point?
Check Out Past Columns

Gaffe-o-Rama: Boehner, Biden, Obama, Palin
When Larry King Ruled Cable News
Obama Era Good for Gun Owners
Poll Numbers Worst Yet for Obama
5 Reasons Not to Dump McChrystal
The Week's Worst Performances
Critics Call BP Fund a 'Shakedown'
More: The Point Archive

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley pointed to other potential complications.

"While the burden would be on the State Department and you would have access to court review, the agency process could make it difficult to contest such findings -- particularly with the use of secret evidence (and barring the use of evidence by the defendant on national security grounds)," Turley wrote on his blog. "Stripping citizens of their citizenship could also create stateless persons -- a problem in international law. Moreover, this process could occur at the same time that a person is fighting criminal charges -- adding to the practical and financial burden."

Conservative bloggers have had little to say about Lieberman's proposal so far. Even Michelle Malkin was less than enthusiastic. She suggested it would be better for the government to prevent people who would attack America from getting citizenship in the first place.

Lieberman is working to line up bipartisan support. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said he "would be interested in exploring" the idea, according to The Huffington Post. The Senate's newest Republican, Scott Brown of Massachusetts, joined Lieberman at today's unveiling. So did two congressmen from Pennsylvania -- Democrat Jason Altimire, who's introducing a companion bill in the House, and Republican Charlie Dent.

One more question: How far will this get?

"My bet is more Dems than you might think will be afraid to oppose this," Sargent predicted.