1. Should the rights of citizens be stripped for joining enemy forces?
2. Do only U.S. citizens accused of acts of terror have a right to a fair trial?
Levinson cites of the opposing positions of Glen Beck and Joe Lieberman. Lieberman says yes to number 1. Beck says no to number 1 and yes to number 2. This is where the Declaration and Bill of Rights come into play. The Declaration says that the rights to life, liberty, and property are God given and thus inalienable. In other words, they cannot be taken away. To some the Bill of Rights only pertains to "We the People" and thus only to citizens. Lieberman and Beck are involved in an interesting debate. Nonetheless, I think something important is being overlooked in this post.
Here is Lieberman:
“It’s time for us to look at whether we want to amend that law [depriving citizenship of those who enlist in foreign militaries against the US] to apply it to American citizens who choose to become affiliated with foreign terrorist organizations,” he said, “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.”Here is Beck:
"He’s a citizen of the United States, so I say we uphold the laws and the Constitution on citizens,” Mr. Beck said. “He has all the rights under the Constitution. We don’t shred the Constitution when it’s popular. We do the right thing.”I cannot go along with Lieberman in wanting to strip citizens of their rights under the Constitution based on a mere accusation. Nor do I advocate depriving citizens of other nations the same rights we enjoy here unlike Beck. If we all have the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness then how can one justify taking away the most helpful tool in protecting against aribtrary abuses of this right by those in power?: The right to a trial by jury. This is the question that Levinson overlooks. I guess it comes down to whether one believes that God or the state grants rights. I think the Declaration of Independence makes it clear where our founders stood on the principle of inalienable rights.
Though, perhaps it is not the simple considering the John Adams was responsible for both defending the British soilders who were involved in the Boston Massacre and the Alien and Sedition Acts.
10 comments:
Did you just site Glenn Beck on this blog? UGH!!!
There is one added complexity: it's already the law that you can lose your citizenship by serving in a foreign army.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001481----000-.html
Lieberman merely wants to extend that to serving with foreign terrorist groups.
I'm not entering an opinion here on whether the law's good or bad, because the State Department decides what's a terrorist organization and what's not---in other words, the executive branch is getting dangerously close to legislationg. [Not that it already doesn't.]
But the existing law indicates that Lieberman's principle itself isn't completely radical.
Brad stated:
"Did you just site Glenn Beck on this blog? UGH!!!"
Not in a positive light. Did you read what I stated?
Tom,
I was aware that there was already a law for that. I think there is actually some merit in it. I did not want to side track from my main point in the post by getting into it.
But I think that if you are convicted of fighting with the enemy, I am not talking about mere treason here, actually grabbing a gun and going for it then yes you should be stripped. But if we value inalienable rights then that person still gets a fair trial and thus the chances of the powers that be misusing this to their advantage to shut people up like the Alien and Sedition Acts is less.
I am also worried about this who enemy combatant thing being turned on domestic so called terrorists. With hate speech laws and the like you can almost be labeled a terrorist for dissenting. Look at the labels of the Tea Party people being violent and all. The case against the hatari nuts is a horrrible one from what I have been reading. Being a nut is not illegal.
Lot of issues here.
Brad, I thought you might pop in here. I saw you over at Joel's/Polycarp's place the other day on a Beck post. I stop into his pub every couple of days to see what's happening - I like his humor.
Do not focus on Beck. Focus on the point.
I spent a bit of time beating back too much praise of Beck on my other blog, Southern Appeal.
I thought Beck was about to head off the cliff and take many good things with him.
However, I think lately, he's been dropping the demagoguery and studying the Founding seriously, not just lazily quote-mining. He's been doing Samuel Adams, and as we continue to prove here on this blog, you can't go wrong returning to the source documents of the Founding.
True, Beck had David Barton on, but keeping it real there was Ira Stoll, whose recent Sam Adams biography passed scholarly muster.
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/39877/
Relax. That's an essay by Stoll, not Beck.
I don't think Beck will ever gain any credibility on the other side of the partisan divide, but I think he's stepped back from a Father Coughlin brink where independents might still give him an ear.
But I meself, as with Limbaugh or Barton or any other figure associated with the Right, will never quote or mention Glenn Beck on this blog on my own initiative. It simply poisons the well and precipitates...
...you know, "epistemic closure," the phrase of the day.
Re: " But I meself, as with Limbaugh or Barton or any other figure associated with the Right, will never quote or mention Glenn Beck on this blog on my own initiative. It simply poisons the well and precipitates..."
Tom, you've got much more credibility here than Beck, Limbaugh, or Bartion.
If you decide to associate yourself with any of them, I recommend Beck.
p.s. no one should associate themselves with political pundits, but if you must, pick the one with the least credibility because it makes it easier to pass it off as a joke ;-)
It is terrible that we have gotten to the point where a mere mention of a name gets all the attention and the serious issue that needs to be discussed merits very little response. So it goes in this poisonous political environment we live in today. I think all this rancor let's the bad guys divide and conquer and win the day.
If no one noticed I was stating Beck was wrong?!
It is terrible that we have gotten to the point where a mere mention of a name gets all the attention and the serious issue that needs to be discussed merits very little response. So it goes in this poisonous political environment we live in today. I think all this rancor let's the bad guys divide and conquer and win the day.
If no one noticed I was stating Beck was wrong?!
The Declaration says that the rights to life, liberty, and property are God given and thus inalienable.
This thread is probably dead but I hope not. I agree that the questions are interesting and relevant and I did hesitate to say anything at first because I'm trying to stay off the Barton juice - regular member of Bartanon - and I really don't want to get caught up in the other B guy.
However, two things:
1) The DOI doesn't say property it says pursuit of happiness (Locke on the other hand....although I'm not sure if anyone ever guaranteed an inalienable right to property)
2) The inalienability of life and liberty (and property) already has limits, merely look at criminal justice. Certainly, we can forfeit all three rather easily by setting up a meth lab and getting busted and kill one of the officers.
The forfeiture of liberty and property and even life has always been a state remedy (going a good ways back - see Socrates). And generally in the Christian tradition, reformed and otherwise, of sanctioning forfeiture of life liberty and property.
It's not prevalent now but there was a time that crossing the heresy line (or being a Jew or Muslim) could lead to loss of any one or all three (life, liberty and property). And presumably happiness would be a casualty.
I do actually see some interesting writing and discussion possibilities and hope that you pursue.
Post a Comment