Social Question

filmfann's avatar

Do you agree with Joe Lieberman's bills on terrorists, gun control, and stripping ciitizenship?

Asked by filmfann (40304 points ) May 7th, 2010

Sen. Joe Lieberman has presented a bill before the Senate to strip citizenship from anyone who is affiliated with a terrorist group. He has also presented a bill to allow the FBI to determine if any member of a group should be allowed to own a gun.
The Times Square terrorist had a loaded handgun in the car they found at the airport. Lieberman wants to prevent terrorists from being able to possess a gun, and wants to be able to torture anyone connected with terrorism, but their damn civil rights gets in the way.
Is this the best way forward?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

19 Answers

Dr_Dredd's avatar

No. There is no provision in the Constitution for stripping someone of their citizenship. Lieberman is full of crap (as usual).

stranger_in_a_strange_land's avatar

In the span of a year Joe Lieberman has gone from “good guy” to “bad guy” in my book. First I thought it was greed, now I’m thinking senile dementia.

Seaofclouds's avatar

The idea sounds a bit crazy to me. The gun control thing is, in my opinion, a moot point. If someone wants a gun badly enough, they’ll get one. So finding a way to ban someone from legally getting a gun doesn’t mean they won’t get one another way. As far as stripping citizenship from anyone affiliated with a terrorist group, what would happen after their citizenship is stripped? We couldn’t exactly just deport them to another country when they are natural citizens of the US.

marinelife's avatar

Joe Lieberman is such an attention whore he will do anything now. It is really a shame.

stranger_in_a_strange_land's avatar

As @Seaofclouds said, where could we deport them to if they were born here? A weapon in someones possession but not used in a crime is irrelevant and merely an excuse to tack extra charges onto the accused.

BoBo1946's avatar

Anyone committing treason could lose their citizenship!

Treason is a serious crime, and the Constitution defines the requirements for convicting someone of treason. Treason is waging a violent war against the United States in cooperation with a foreign country or any organized group. It includes assisting or aiding any foreign country or organization in taking over or destroying this country including abolishing the Constitution. Treason also consists of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the US government or of betraying our government into the hands of a foreign power. If you are caught and convicted of treason, you can pretty much count on losing your US citizenship as well as serving lots of jail time.

Based on this, Libermann could be within the Constitution. Believe me, I’m NOT Libermann fan…

Would a terrorist act considered treason? I would think so!

Seaofclouds's avatar

@BoBo1946 There is a difference though between committing a terrorist act and being affiliated with a terrorist group. Unless they put a strict definition on the degree of affiliation that is punishable.

For example, if my neighbor was part of a terrorist group but I did not know it and I went to their house for dinner, I could be “affiliated” with that terrorist group through my neighbor. “Affiliated” has a broad definition.

I have nothing against doing something about terrorist and punishing those that commit treason. But if we strip a natural born American of their citizenship, what would be the next step for them? Would we deport them after their punishment for their crimes? Where would we deport them to (considering they wouldn’t have citizenship in any other country either)?

BoBo1946's avatar

@Seaofclouds understand where you are coming from…it would be open for debate. ....this is a very complex issue. Considering the comment made by some extremists groups to destroy America and on and on… and, an American citizen, takes it upon himself to kill Americans at Time Square which could be construed by many people, a treasonist act. ...would this be a treasonist act? Certainly would be debated in the courtroom!

BoBo1946's avatar

For example, if my neighbor was part of a terrorist group but I did not know it and I went to their house for dinner, I could be “affiliated” with that terrorist group through my neighbor. “Affiliated” has a broad definition.

A given, but when that neighbor tried to kill Americans in support of of a terrorist group from another country…..then…different deal.

Just because he was a neighbor would not bring you into the equation..in my opinion!

Seaofclouds's avatar

@BoBo1946 Just him being a neighbor may not bring me into the equation, but me going to his house once a week for dinner because our children are friends could under the term “affiliation”. That’s my concern with Lieberman’s idea.

BoBo1946's avatar

@Seaofclouds understood…think that would be documented with investigation. We all have been affliated, without knowing, bad people…

Terrorists, in my opinion, should not be protected by the Geneva Convention. MEN who fight for their country and in uniform should be treated differently than terrorist. That is for the protection of you and your children. When it comes to terrorist, i tend to lean in the direction of protecting my son and his grandchildren.

Personally (different subject, but related), supported our intervention into Afghanistan and finding Bin Laden, but Bush lost me when he attacked Iraq without getting Bin Laden.

Seaofclouds's avatar

@BoBo1946 I agree completely that terrorists should be dealt with.

In my example, an investigation would have to be done. I think a strict definition of “affiliation” in his bill would be the most helpful way to deal with this. If they have a reason to suspect something, investigate it, but in my opinion, they should need more information than “she eats dinner at this guys house once a week” to arrest me for affiliation with a terrorist group. I could see someone being overzealous and not being thorough with it and things getting taken way to far with it.

BoBo1946's avatar

@Seaofclouds well said…have a great day!

Dr_Dredd's avatar

@Seaofclouds The way the current laws are written, “affiliation” can mean anything the Feds want it to…

Seaofclouds's avatar

@Dr_Dredd That’s my point. That’s why I said there would have to be a very strict definition of “affiliation” for this bill.

Dr_Dredd's avatar

@Seaofclouds I know. I’m agreeing with you. :-)

alive's avatar

ugh… i call bullshit! this bill is all talk. it is only to gain support using a buzz word.

if the government doesn’t want terrorists to have guns, then they should stop giving them guns!

filmfann's avatar

Let’s say this law is in place, and the FBI decides that the Tea Party movement constitutes a threat to the government, since they have had leaders endorse assassination of congressmen and the President. All you tea baggers now have to surrender your guns, and lose your citizenship, allowing the police to arrest you, and not give you access to the courts. You can stay in jail forever.

alive's avatar

@filmfann ya, did you hear about the people that were bringing ak47’s to some of the tea party protests (i.e. anti obama protests)??? i mean that to me is not sane. why do you need a gun at a ‘peaceful’ rally??? i suspect i will never understand their motives…

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther