Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Lieberman Material-Support Dilemma

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
Jefferson23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-20-11 05:08 PM
Original message
The Lieberman Material-Support Dilemma
By Scott Horton

Connecticut senator Joseph Lieberman has put forward the Enemy Expatriation Act, which threatens to strip the citizenship of any American who is convicted of “providing material support or resources to a Foreign Terrorist Organization, as designated by the secretary of state, or actively engaging in hostilities against the United States or its allies.” In putting the measure forward, Lieberman continuously invoked Yemeni-American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who was killed in a U.S. drone strike on September 30. Al-Awlaki was born in New Mexico and thus had American citizenship, though he undoubtedly considered himself an enemy of the United States.

Senator Lieberman’s bill makes for good politics — there is no safer move in contemporary American politics than beating up on a dead man, especially one whom no one wants to defend. Still, the “material support” concept might have consequences he would rather not discuss. As the Justice Department has made clear in the past, material-support charges can be brought against persons whose activities service or fund a scheduled terrorist organization even if the individual doesn’t know that his recipient is a terrorist, or if he is providing support for a non-violent purpose. In a brief submitted to the federal district court in Washington, the Justice Department posited that “a little old lady in Switzerland who writes checks to what she thinks is a charity that helps orphans but is really a front for Al Qaeda” would be guilty of material support.

Yet consider the trip taken by former attorney general Michael Mukasey, former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani, former Homeland Security secretary Tom Ridge, and former national security adviser Frances Townsend, who traveled to Paris in December 2010 to deliver speeches in support of the Iranian Mujahedeen-e Khalq (“MEK”) and shared a podium with its commander, Maryam Rajavi. MEK has many benefactors in high political positions, particularly in the G.O.P., but it is a scheduled terrorist organization in the United States — a designation it earned partly for its role in the execution of American service personnel in Iran in the 1970s. MEK’s boosters argue that its anti-American terrorism is long past, and they value it for the terrorist violence it can rain upon Iran — the group has become “our terrorists,” it would seem. Are Mukasey, Giuliani, Ridge, and Townsend guilty of material support for their public activities on MEK’s behalf? Should their citizenship be forfeited?

And what about Joe Lieberman and other U.S. lawmakers? In June 2004, they backed President George W. Bush’s designation of Pakistan as a major non-NATO ally, and in the seven years thereafter, they appropriated more than $19 billion in assistance to the country, about 75 percent of which was explicitly for security-related purposes. But an investigation in 2007 by the New York Times concluded that “money has been diverted to help finance weapons systems designed to counter India, not Al Qaeda or the Taliban.” Indeed, it subsequently became clear that Pakistan’s intelligence service and military were deeply enmeshed in efforts to train and support scheduled terrorist organizations involved in attacks on India, such as the November 2008 Mumbai attack by Lashkar-e Taiba, and on American interests, such as the September 13 bombings of the U.S. embassy and NATO headquarters in Kabul. The outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, testified before Congress that the attacks in Afghanistan were the work of the Haqqani network, “which has long enjoyed the support and protection of the Pakistani government and is, in many ways, a strategic arm of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Agency.”

remainder: http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/10/hbc-90008274
Refresh | +7 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
malthaussen Donating Member (413 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-20-11 05:41 PM
Response to Original message
1. It's a nice legal point
But the bottom line on things of this nature always comes down to "terrorists are who we say they are" and "material support is what we say it is." Consistency is not necessary: shut up and get in line.

I do not believe that Congress rightfully has the power to strip anyone of his US citizenship. But Congress has never had a problem with making laws that ignore the Constitution.

-- Mal
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
no_hypocrisy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-20-11 06:15 PM
Response to Original message
2. Is this proposed new law a means to funnel defendnats into a military tribunal instead of a
civilian civil court?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
saras Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-20-11 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Judging by the example, it's to kill them without anyone complaining of a US citizen being killed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
no_hypocrisy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-11 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Damned technicalities, huh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DRoseDARs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-11 02:20 AM
Response to Original message
4. Well well, SOMEONE misses being in the news. I wondered why he'd been so damned quiet for so long.
What a shitty little man. Slink back under whatever rock you were hiding under, Joe. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BlueMTexpat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-11 02:55 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. I'm with you.
Probably the one thing that I will never forgive Al Gore for is his selection of this vile creature as a VP candidate.

Perhaps the ONLY good thing about the 2000 election theft is that Lieberman never got anywhere near the WH. L was McCain's first preference for his VP running mate (remember how L used to have to whisper in McCain's ear to keep things straight for him). The best thing about McCain's "Hail Mary" effort with Palin was that it thwarted L's WH ambitions yet again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 22nd 2024, 11:46 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC