Friday, May 7, 2010

Limited Government

Scott Brown, darling of those limited-government teabaggers, wants to let Hillary Clinton take away your citizenship. I'm not kidding.

He's a co-sponsor of Holy Joe Lieberman's bill which would give the State Department the right to revoke citizenship of people it thinks belong to groups which it thinks are terrorist groups. Predictably, the RWS™ and Fox "news" are signing on, presumably without thinking it through. Or so one might hope. In a rational world. Were we in one.

[Study question for teabaggers: should the law include these guys?]

Y'know, I'd be fine with removing the mantle of citizenship from Americans convicted of terrorism. (Practically, it would mean mandatory death sentence or life in prison without parole, because if there's a country that'd take them, would we want to send them there?) Maybe it's just me, but I'd like also to know that such a law would include a pretty clear definition of what terrorism is, and to what extent "associations" with terrorist groups makes one a terrorist. Not to mention what, exactly, is a terrorist group? Greenpeace? Those guys up there a paragraph? Anyway, conviction should sort of be a prelude, don't you think?

But here's the (really obvious) thing: Joe and Scotty want to remove your citizenship before you're convicted of anything. The State Department (ie big government) says so, and there go all your rights. To a trial in a court of law, among other things. Isn't this exactly the sort of thing conservatives, teabaggers, and, y'know, AMERICANS ought to reject out of hand?

What the hell have we become? How empty is our I'm-Proud-of-American allegiance to the rule of law that we're willing to throw it all away so easily? Does the Constitution mean nothing to such people as Joe, Scott, the RWS™? Will there be any pushback from a teabagger?

For its entertainment value, in a multi-car-pileup-with-lots-of-deaths-on-the-freeway sort of way, it'll be interesting to hear the speeches in Congress about this. The predictable demagoguery, the charges of softness on terrorism, the spinelessness in the face of the misguided.

And, of course, the absence of real reporting on the matter by the mainstream media.


  1. Seriously Sid, you don't have an ounce of credibility in your Prion-Riddled Atavistic Brain...
    Your always whining about the lack of Bi-Partisinship, then when it actually happens, (i.e the votes against the Healthcare abortion) you get your Atavistic Panties in a wad...
    And whats with usin the "T-Word" every other sentence?? Its as offensive as the N-Word, you Atavistic N-Word.

    And don't worry about any stupid law, I'm pretty sure the Muslim-in-Chief(Peace be upon Him) will veto it just like he'll close Gitmo/end the War/Repeal Dont ask/Dont Smell/and if they do ask, take the 5th.

  2. Dr. Schwab,

    Just give up the mainstream media and stick to blogs...
    like I do.
    This reduces my anger considerably.
    (well, as long as I avoid reading Frankies responses anyway...)

  3. Dr. Sid,
    Agree 1000%.

    Question: Why does this abuse of power worry you enough to blog about it, yet when an American president (No, not Bush; Yes, Obama) orders an assassination of an American citizen you choose not to address it? Please help me to understand the differences here.


  4. PT: somehow I'd missed that. Much as I like him, I don't read Greenwald regularly enough.

    I don't like it, either. On the other hand, in reading about the Lieberman Law I learned that there are actions that can lead to the unilateral removing of citizenship; eg, joining a foreign army that works against the US... So by that criterion, this guy has sort of announced he's renounced.

    The difference is that Scottie and Joey think that all it should take is the belief by the State Department that a person is in some way affiliated with a group that it believes is a terrorist organization.

    I've said many times I disagree with Obama's Afghanistan policy, and that includes predator strikes -- at least to the extent that they aren't able to eliminate civilian casualties, and targeting errors. When they nail a guy, though, I sort of like hearing about it -- and the fact that they're more successful at it than GW was (which I attribute, in part, to efforts to gain cooperation) adds to the pleasure.

    I also like the fact that Greenwald and many others, including, very often, columnists on the Huffington Post among others, strongly criticize Obama from the left. You never heard much criticism from the right, no matter what Bush did. In fact, it's quite remarkable how critical the right is of the very things on which they were silent a mere couple of years ago.

    As I've said, I think that's a difference between the liberal and the conservative mind. "Epistemic closure" and all that...

  5. RobD: In fact, I get most of my news from the series of tubes. I stopped watching MSNBC a long time ago, and I only view Fox in the clips that appear online. Don't watch any evening news.

    Because the blogs cover much more of what's going on, there's much more about which to be crazy disturbed...

    I do read the NYT, though, by holding it in my hands. I find that a little calming.

  6. Didn't Lieberman run for some high office a few years ago??? What party was that again??? He ran with that lisping Fat Man...
    Hey! the 600th American killed in Iraq/Afghanistan should happen this weekend, my blogs the only one that keeps the tally up to date.



Comments back, moderated. Preference given for those who stay on topic.

Popular posts