There is an argument we often hear from the left, though it is used across the ideological stratosphere, that goes something like this: Our issue is so vital, the consequences so widespread and dangerous, that you’re going to have to surrender some of your freedoms for the collective good.
Today, we have an administration that believes the luck of a couple of botched terrorist acts adds up to a prevention system that is “working.”
But, on the other side, we have those — typically Republicans — who believe that law enforcement never has a sufficient number of “tools” to combat terrorism, including the ability to strip Americans suspected of having terrorist ties of their citizenship.
Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., contends it’s time for the nation to re-examine and extend a law that allows the government to revoke the citizenship of any American who joins foreign armies or engages in hostilities against the nation.
Lieberman believes that those 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.”
(Note: If your intention is to jolt citizens into action, abstain from flyweight words like “affiliated.” One is “affiliated” with the Presbyterian Church or the Birchwood Lanes summer bowling league. Terrorists take blood oaths, and so on.)
Consequently, Lieberman is reportedly moving forward legislation that would empower the State Department, if it concludes that a citizen was conspiring with terror groups, to “automatically” revoke that person’s citizenship simply after being “apprehended” or “charged.”
Of course, much of this is an extension over the debate on Mirandizing terror suspects.
On board is John McCain, who once defended campaign finance reform by saying he “would rather have a clean government than one where, quote, First Amendment rights are being respected.” He is employing a similar argument regarding Mirandizing citizens.
When Times Square bomb suspect Faisal Shahzad was caught, McCain claimed that Mirandizing was a “serious mistake . . . at least until we find out as much information we have. Don’t give this guy his Miranda rights until we find out what it’s all about.”
McCain must be aware that the FBI can invoke, as it did in Times Square, the “public safety exception,” which allows officials to postpone Miranda warnings to suspects while they investigate clear and present danger to the public at large. They have the tool.
We will have to see how the legislation is crafted, but the thought of government now being capable of “automatically” revoking a suspect’s citizenship after being “apprehended” or “charged” has an uncomfortable and unconstitutional ring to it — especially when that legislation emerges with the emotional residue of a near man-made disaster still in the air.
We often misunderstand Miranda. As Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor (who would likely disagree with this column) explained, “Miranda and the Fifth Amendment’s self-incrimination clause are strictly about whether confession evidence gets admitted at trial . . . they just mean that you can’t use against the person any non-Mirandized statements he gives.”
But what if a suspect — a citizen — is innocent? It can happen. Moreover, Shahzad (who, don’t get me wrong, looks to be guilty as sin) is a naturalized citizen who was on a terrorist watch list for years.
Perhaps the Senate should first re-examine the process in which we hand out the extraordinary privilege of citizenship before we start talking about yanking it away before a conviction. Because what Lieberman is saying, sounds unaccountable, potentially corrosive and unnecessary.
E-mail David Harsanyi at dharsanyi@denverpost.com and follow him on Twitter at @davidharsanyi.
